FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2282812282> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2282812282 startingPage "1719" @default.
• W2282812282 abstract "INTRODUCTIONStolt-Nielsen owns several shipping companies that provide a significant portion of parcel tankers for the global economy.1 AnimalFeeds contracted with Stolt-Nielsen to ship its products using Stolt-Nielsen's parcel tankers and used a standard contract in maritime trade, a charter party, to charter those vessels.2 AnimalFeeds along with other charterers, however, ultimately brought a class-action lawsuit against Stolt-Nielsen, alleging the company was engaging in price-fixing.3 Since the charter party contained an clause, the parties agreed to arbitrate the price-fixing dispute.4What happened next is extremely important to this Note's analysis: the parties agreed to submit the question of whether their agreement allowed for class arbitration to a panel of arbitrators bound by rules developed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA).5 Accordingly, [t]he parties selected a panel of arbitrators and stipulated that the clause was 'silent' with respect to class arbitration.6Pursuant to AAA rules, the arbitrator must decide the question of class arbitration.7 After consideration, the AAA panel of arbitrators concluded that the clause allowed for class arbitration.8 Stolt-Nielsen then moved to vacate the award.9 The District Court vacated the award, the Second Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the District Court and reversed the Second Circuit ruling.10What happened to giving deference to arbitrators, as all arbitral case law suggests, particularly in a case where the parties expressly submitted the question at issue to the panel?11 A problem throughout arbitral case law generally (and the opinions in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds specifically) is that when silence in a contract is put at issue, the application of the law is not varied based on the kinds of silences (or gaps) at issue, or the different ways in which an arbitrator might have filled those gaps. This Note suggests that the law should turn on the interpretation of the particular gap in the contract, and on how and why an arbitrator, or in this case a panel of arbitrators, decides to fill that gap.It should be noted that a later decision by a unanimous Supreme Court in Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter,12 appears to limit the application of the StoltNielsen decision. Indeed, the holding in Oxford Health seems to directly contradict the holding in Stolt-Nielsen.13 The Oxford Health decision is likewise discussed in the analysis below, and just as with the Stolt-Nielsen decision, it would have benefitted from a delineation of gap-filling based upon the type of gap being filled.Stolt-Nielsen is a complicated and controversial 5-3 Supreme Court opinion in arbitral legal doctrine.14 This Note will not opine about the motivations of either the majority or dissenting opinions. Rather, this Note provides a suggested framework, a tool, for untangling the murky and inconsistent reasoning found in the Stolt-Nielsen opinions. Part I describes the context in which gap-filling relates to the enforceability of international arbitral awards in the United States. Part II explores the cases that have informed arbitral doctrine as it relates to international commercial disputes. This Note then proceeds to detail four gap-filling methods proposed as part of the suggested framework of gap-filling analysis, using the facts of Stolt-Nielsen to flesh out the difference in analyses. Part III evaluates gap-filling when a contract lacks an essential term. Part IV then analyzes gap-filling when a contract lacks a non-essential (or desirable) term. Part V proceeds to show how the rewriting of a contract by an arbitrator can be seen as gap-filling, and finally Part VI distinguishes situations in which gap-filling results in arbitrators constructing contracts. The goal of this Note is to provide professionals in the field of international commercial disputes with a categorization tool that promotes clearer and more predictable international arbitral contracts. …" @default.
• W2282812282 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2282812282 creator A5091540630 @default.
• W2282812282 date "2015-10-01" @default.
• W2282812282 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2282812282 title "Standardizing Gap-Filling Arbitration Cases: Untangling the Supreme Court Opinions in Stolt-Nielsen V. Animalfeeds" @default.
• W2282812282 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2282812282 type Work @default.
• W2282812282 sameAs 2282812282 @default.
• W2282812282 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2282812282 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2282812282 hasAuthorship W2282812282A5091540630 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C160151201 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C160786031 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C2776607877 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C2776687834 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C2777134139 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C2777366047 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C2777596936 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C11413529 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C144133560 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C160151201 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C160786031 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C17744445 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C199539241 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C2776607877 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C2776687834 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C2777134139 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C2777366047 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C2777596936 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C2778272461 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C41008148 @default.
• W2282812282 hasConceptScore W2282812282C48103436 @default.
• W2282812282 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2282812282 hasLocation W22828122821 @default.
• W2282812282 hasOpenAccess W2282812282 @default.
• W2282812282 hasPrimaryLocation W22828122821 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W1735778247 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2010184505 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2110632294 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2136735416 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2146322955 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2190516419 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2211141499 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2258081080 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2299249608 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2359607961 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2462765744 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2497985148 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W257049378 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2788226163 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2897825100 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W2992232898 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W328924403 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W364431844 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W45921306 @default.
• W2282812282 hasRelatedWork W74115522 @default.
• W2282812282 hasVolume "95" @default.
• W2282812282 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2282812282 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2282812282 magId "2282812282" @default.
• W2282812282 workType "article" @default.