• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.77-94
• /
• 2017

The United States has used legal theoretical constructions such as equitable estoppel and the third party beneficiary under which non-signatories of an arbitration agreement can be bound to the arbitration agreement of others. The third party beneficiary theory has been used when a signatory defendant argues that a non-signatory plaintiff is bound by an arbitration agreement, or a non-signatory defendant argues that a signatory plaintiff is required to arbitrate the plaintiff's claims against the non-signatory. On the other hand, equitable estoppel has developed as two distinct theories. According to the first theory, if a non-signatory party knowingly accepted the benefits of an agreement, it can be estopped from denying its obligation to arbitrate. The second theory compels a signatory to arbitrate because of the close relationship between the entities involved and the fact that the claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.173-198
• /
• 2004

Recently in Korea, franchise system has been specially used in the distribution industry. However, it also brought up many problems caused by various issues between franchisor and franchisee. The purpose of this article is to review recent trend of the franchise transaction contracts and resolution of the disputes in Korea. And to expand to use of ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) system as a practical dispute settlement procedure including mediation and arbitration. Arbitration means a procedure to settle any dispute in private laws, not by the adjudication of a court, but by the award of an arbitrator or arbitrators, as agreed by the parties. Arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for either party to a dispute to commence arbitral proceeding and may be in the form of a separate agreement or in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract and shall be in writing.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2019

A franchise business is a business in which the owners, or "franchisors," sell the rights to their business logo, name, and model to third party retail outlets, owned by independent, third party operators, called "franchisees." There are a number of features in franchising or terms in franchise agreements that may lead to disputes between franchisors and franchisees. These disputes may arise because of underlying risks in the franchise relationship, franchise agreement, or conduct of the parties. In this case, ADR is an effective way to resolve disputes in a quicker and often less costly way than having to go to court. If an agreement cannot be reached through mediation, then arbitration becomes the next step to resolving the differences. Whereas mediation is non-binding and focused on facilitating the parties to find a resolution that is acceptable to both, arbitration is binding and may result in a decision that is not acceptable to one of the parties. These situations can be resolved through experienced arbitration as arbitration allows franchisees to settle matters promptly and outside of the public eye. In addition, franchise dispute arbitration is usually less costly than going to traditional court. Considering all of these, reaching an agreement will also have typical clauses that address the issue of dispute resolution. It is again a more efficient process than going through the legal process and courts and is often less costly. By going through arbitration, the parties agree to give up their rights to pursue the dispute in the courts. However, there is a problem that the arbitration prior to the agreement and under the terms would be contrary to the restriction of jurisdiction under the "ACT ON THE REGULATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.55-79
• /
• 2013

As arbitration becomes an increasingly popular mode of resolving disputes, neighboring industries begin to take notice. This interest is reflected in the increasing utilization of third party funding in international arbitration claims. In this regard, the third party funding industry appears particularly interested in investor-state arbitration claims because they typically involve considerable claim amounts and substantial legal fees. To examine this trend more closely, this paper, firstly, examines the investor-state arbitration more precisely in Chapter II. In Chapter III, this study continues to examine some legal issues which can arise as a result of a conflict of interest between the parties to the funding agreement including, inter alia, 1) a dispute in which the funder terminates the agreement during the arbitration proceedings, 2) a dispute in relation to a funder's intervention in arbitration proceedings, and 3) a dispute on the responsibility for adverse costs orders, if any. This paper further identifies major legal issues which can arise in relation to 1) disclosure of existence of the funding agreement, 2) attorney-client privilege. Lastly, in Chapter IV, this paper provides some lessons from an in-depth case study on third party funding agreements and solutions to avoid and to solve prospective disputes in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.85-108
• /
• 2023

In international commercial arbitrations that arise from an international commercial contract, arbitral tribunals ruling on the merits of the arbitration apply the law governing the contract. The parties to contract are free to designate the law under the principle of parties autonomy. This paper examines this principle under the Korean Arbitration Act, and makes some legislative suggestions. For this purpose, this paper first discusses what is the scope of matters covered by the law governing the contract, what are the rules of conflict-of-laws for determining the law governing the contract, and what happens when the arbitral tribunal incorrectly applies the law governing the contract? Then, this paper further goes to examine issues such as the form of choice-of-law agreement, the explicit or implicit choice of law, the parties' ability to choose the rules of law including lex mercatoria, the change of choice-of-law agreement, the independence of choice-of-law clause.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.101-119
• /
• 2007

Arbitration is contractual by nature. One cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit. As commercial transactions become increasingly complex, involving multiple parties and numerous contracts for a single transaction, however, limiting the parties who are subject to arbitration to only those who have signed a contract containing an arbitration clause would frustrate the purpose of such arbitration clause and might lead to injustice among the relevant parties. Therefore, U.S. courts have recognized a number of theories under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreement of others: (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Incorporation by reference and veil-piercing theories have already been recognized by Korean courts. Agency theory and estoppel theory are not recognizable under Korean law. However, the same or similar result may be achieved by applying the third party beneficiary theory or assumption by third party theory. Although a couple of Supreme Court cases appear to be at odds with the assumption theory, on the basis of the recent amendments to the Arbitration Act, such court precedents can be and should be reversed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.61-80
• /
• 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decision on the case between AT&T and Concepcion, which confirmed the contractuality of a defense as a threshold to distinguish between what is a viable defense for invalidation of consumer arbitration agreement and what is not. In this paper, the adhesiveness of arbitration clause, which is a unique character for consumer arbitration, is investigated in the U.S. as a legal defense to invalidate the consumer arbitration agreements, and its contractuality and related legal doctrines are analyzed. The legal issues of consumer arbitration have been analysed in several legal perspectives including the voluntary, knowing and intelligent doctrine, doctrine of separation, contract of adhesion and the contractuality of defenses. Among all of these, the first three issues are related with arbitration clause, and the last one, the contractuality of defenses, reflects the nature of defenses invalidating the consumer arbitration agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.125-169
• /
• 2014

In France, arbitration, both domestic and international, has recently been subjected to a major reform. This article discusses the content of the 2011 reform and its aftermath, while putting into perspective the current arbitration act in South Korea, an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction that contemplates reforming its own law. The two legal systems are characterized by their concern for efficiency and rationalization of the arbitration proceedings, through the codification of essential principles previously established by case law and through the promotion of the independence of this ADR vis-$\grave{a}$-vis state courts. The efficiency consideration is strengthened at every stage of the proceedings: from the arbitration agreement often considered valid and rarely challenged, through the proceedings for annulment, recognition and enforcement of the award, up to the judicial assistance of the French supporting judge towards the actual arbitral proceedings. Finally, new concerns are emerging: the increase of transparency and the arbitrability of disputes in some uncertain fields of law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.109-136
• /
• 2014

The separability of an arbitration clause is generally recognized throughout the world, but there are no provisions of it under the Federal Arbitration Act(FAA) of the United States. As such, the controversy over the recognition of separability has developed with the rise of certain cases. The Supreme Court recognized this separability based on section 4 of the FAA in the decision of the Prima Paint case. The Court ruled that courts must decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of an arbitration agreement itself, but they must not decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of a contract involving a broad arbitration clause, and they have to proceed with the arbitration. The Court said that the subject of an arbitral award is set by the agreement of the parties, and thereby arbitrators can decide the issues about the fraudulent inducement of a contract on the basis of the arbitration clause when it is broad to the point of including the issues. Many courts have extended the separability beyond the fraud context to include other defenses to contract formation in the federal courts such as the occurrence of mistake, illegality, and frustration of purpose. In interpreting the parties' intention of ensuring arbitrator competence, the Supreme Court has treated differently the issues about whether the arbitration agreement exists or not and the issues about whether the preconditions for dispute resolution by a valid arbitration agreement is fulfilled or not. The Court holds that the federal policy in favor of arbitration does not apply to the former issues, and arbitrators can decide theses issues only when parties assign them clearly and unmistakably to them. However, the later issues receive a presumption in favor of arbitration; i.e., when the interpretation of a valid arbitration clause is contested, the arbitrators can decide these issues. In the First Options case, the former issue was questioned. The question of the separability of an arbitration clause is where the validity of the main contract involving the arbitration clause is contested. Therefore, the doctrine of separability did not operate in the First Options case in which the validity of the arbitration clause itself was questioned, and the decision in the First Options was irrelevant to the separability. I think that the Prima Paint case and the First Options case have different issues, and there is no tension between them.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.99-124
• /
• 2013

International commercial arbitration is a specially formed mechanism for the final and binding settlement of disputes arisen between contracting parties regarding procedures, structures or other contractual relationship agreed by them. It is a resolution system which is processed autonomously by arbitrators who are appointed by contracting parties without involving the national court. If the contracting parties want to settle their disputes by arbitration, there must be a valid agreement. With a valid agreement, the most important concern is which law(called as the substantive law) should be applied in order to determine the rights and obligations of both contracting parties in relation to the dispute. At this point, the substantive law is really important because it is applied to the dispute itself directly during proceedings as well as it plays an crucial role in scrutiny and enforcement of arbitral awards. This article discusses about the substantive law under international commercial arbitration, specially focusing on the regulations of the ICC rules of arbitration, which is the most widely used all over the world and UNCITRAL Model law, which most countries' rule and laws are based on. By discussing how these rules and regulations should be interpreted and applied, it is expected to provide practical help to practitioners when they agree on an arbitration agreement.