First we need to know as what arbitration means, provisions of the year 1996 portrays that it is a procedural law. “It is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the parties of dispute. In choosing arbitration the parties opt for a private dispute resolution procedure instead of going to a court.” There are two important things necessary for Arbitration- Consent and Agreement: If there is an agreement, only then the court can intervene. Consent merely means parties agreeing with the terms and conditions of the Contract. Award is binding on both the parties.
Each of the party must agree to the result of an agreement as expressed in the document to make the contract become valid. So, if one party without assent to enter into the contract, this imply that other party cannot coerce them go into the agreement. In this manner, damages in the contract demand often have to do with the misunderstanding or mistake between the parties in the contract, since they are normally aware of what they managing in the contract.
What is the process normally utilized in the selection of an arbitrator? Both labor and management pay arbitrator fees and have the ability to select who the arbitrator will be. The arbitrator is expected to provide a service and meet certain professional standards. They are there to decide disputes arising during the life of the collective bargaining agreement which allows them to learn, be familiar with the history and understand their reasoning. Permanent arbitration can help provide a stable union-management relationship, immediate assistance and are able to resolve disputes faster than in court.
This may be included in the length of the contract terms or may be a collateral contract to this effect. (Gentleman’s agreement). On this basis, the arbitrator can depart from the general rule. The foundation of arbitration is mutual consent and agreement of the parties. Unless there is an agreement contrary , the tribunal is obliged to adopt the principle that cost follows the event.
The rule is that had an officious bystander been present at the time the contract was made and had suggested that such a term should be included, it must be obvious that both parties would have agreed to it. The intention of the parties is taken into account and the court always considers the intention of the parties when implying a term into a
Determine the scope of the due diligence The scope of the legal due diligence is an essential starting block. It provides the roadmap for the rest of the process, helping determine the length and resources needed for appropriate procedure. The scope is generally determined by the type of business conducted by the target company of the deal. You must also take into account the type of acquisition or merger in question. These elements will help identify the composition of the due diligence team.
When parties choose .to proceed with .ad hoc arbitration, .the parties have the .choice of drafting their .own rules (most referred is the UNCITRAL Rules) and procedures .which fit their needs, as per the .nature of the dispute. Institutional arbitration, .on the other hand, is one in which .a specialized institution with a permanent character intervenes and assumes the functions .of aiding and administering .the arbitral process, as provided by the rules .of such institution.. Basically, the .contours and the procedures of the arbitral proceedings are .determined by the .institution designated by the .parties. Such institutions may also provide qualified arbitrators empanelled with .the institution. As a result of .the structured process and .administrative support provided .by institutional arbitration, it provides .distinct advantages, which are .unavailable to parties opting .for ad hoc arbitration. .Taking into consideration, the mentioned advantages, Law Commission of .India has suggested promotion .of institutional arbitration by recommending appropriate .proposals which it .hopes will be used .by the Supreme Court and High .Courts to promote institutional arbitration..
The reason they give for this is that it must be assumed that when a dispute arises, parties who are subject to arbitration agreements “are to be dealt with in accordance with the arbitration agreement”. This idea of interpreting arbitration agreements broadly has been expressed by Lord Hoffmann in Fiona Trust v Privlov and in the more recent case, by MacEochaidh J, in P Elliot & Co. Ltd v FCC Elliot Construction Ltd. Regarding the second issue, Mr Eve is a party to the arbitration agreement as he is a
Consideration can be define as “something in return”. It is one of the element of consideration for an agreement to become a contract but must both parties should provide a consideration then only can entered into a contract. If one of the parties do not have any consideration it wish to sue on contract. The element of the consideration refers to a transaction must be supported by consideration in order for it to be contract. In other words, something in exchanges for something which means I’m giving you something to consider an exchange to the contract.
Institutional arbitration is conducted according to a standing set of procedural rules and supervised, to a greater or lesser extent, by a professional staff. This reduces the risks of procedural breakdowns, particularly at the beginning of the arbitral process, and of technical defects in the arbitral award. The institution's involvement can be particularly constructive on issues relating to the appointment of arbitrators, the resolution of challenges to arbitrators, and the arbitrators' fees. Less directly, the institution lends its standing to any award that is rendered, which may enhance the likelihood of voluntary compliance and judicial enforcement. On the other hand, ad hoc arbitration is typically more flexible, less expensive (since it avoids sometimes substantial institutional fees), and more confidential than institutional arbitration.