Majority opinion Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.



justice harry blackmun, wrote majority opinion


[w]e find no warrant in arbitration act implying in every contract within ken presumption against arbitration of statutory claims, blackmun wrote in response soler s claims under car dealers day in court act. court s own recent decisions on arbitration had been supportive, , saw no reason hold, in light, did not apply contractual disputes. while conversely not every statutory claim suitable arbitration, act provides no basis disfavoring agreements arbitrate statutory claims skewing otherwise hospitable inquiry arbitrability ... soler s concern statutorily protected classes provides no reason color lens through arbitration clause read.


the antitrust claims led lengthier discussion. first, blackmun noted in both scherk , bremen, court had found international nature of dispute special circumstance justifying arbitration. must weigh concerns of american safety against strong belief in efficacy of arbitral procedures resolution of international commercial disputes , equal commitment enforcement of freely negotiated choice-of-forum clauses.


[w]e confess skepticism of aspects of american safety doctrine, blackmun wrote. first circuit had expressed concern underlying contract may have been adhesive, said suspicion narrow ground defeat arbitration clause, since court s prima paint separability doctrine had held validity of arbitration clause attacked in court. doubted of appellate courts had followed american safety believed antitrust cases complex arbitrators handle. nor did believe arbitators might inherently conflicted.


the last of first circuit s justifications blackmun considered public policy doctrine argument. while agreed demonstrated treble damages provision, [its] importance ... not compel conclusion may not sought outside american court. in fact, court had found when inquiring legislative history of sherman act in brunswick corp. v. pueblo bowl-o-mat, inc. treble damages intended individual litigants , not serve greater public policy.


sure, blackmun qualified,



the international arbitral tribunal owes no prior allegiance legal norms of particular states; hence, has no direct obligation vindicate statutory dictates. tribunal, however, bound effectuate intentions of parties. parties have agreed arbitral body decide defined set of claims includes, in these cases, arising application of american antitrust law, tribunal therefore should bound decide dispute in accord national law giving rise claim.



the interests of american law , american courts would, noted, served on enforcement of claim, under new york convention individual countries refuse if verdict or award contrary public policy.


blackmun concluded noting increase in international trade, , arbitration resolve disputes. controversies international arbitral institutions called upon resolve have increased in diversity in complexity, observed. yet potential of these tribunals efficient disposition of legal disagreements arising commercial relations has not yet been tested. exhorted american courts subordinate domestic notions of arbitrability international policy favoring commercial arbitration when faced similar cases in future.








Comments