The underlying issue between the parties is a contractual dispute. The applicant is active in the construction sector. The defendant deals with the rental of uniforms and other property to commercial, industrial and commercial enterprises. The parties entered into a contract on 28 October 2008 or under which the defendant rents and cleans/replaces uniforms and other items to the claimant for an agreed fee. The agreement had a duration of 60 months and provided for automatic successive extensions of the same time limits, unless the applicant notified in writing the non-renewal at least 90 days before the next expiry date. The contract also contained a lump sum indemnification clause and a binding arbitration clause, which are reproduced below. All disputes of any kind between the Client and UniFirst arising out of or related to the negotiation, imputation or performance of this Agreement shall be settled exclusively by final and binding arbitration. Arbitration is conducted in accordance with the expedited procedures of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association and is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. The only allegation of error or “failure” invoked by the applicant is that the arbitrator enforced the lump sum clause of the contract, thereby rejecting the applicant`s argument that the lump sum damages clause was not legally applicable, and the precedent of a Supreme Court decision concerning a dispute between UniFirst and another client, did not follow. Rubino Bros, Inc. 2 The only subsection of § 52 – 418 that could be affected by this request for error would be subsection (4) (exceeding or imperfect exercise of arbitral powers). The analysis can be divided into two components: (1) What did the Rubino Bros case actually hold?, and (2) In this case, was the arbitrator`s arbitration award contrary to the rubino case`s position, so that he exceeded or imperfectly performed his arbitration powers? In 2009, the parties argued over their mutual obligations under the treaty.
The claimant terminated the contract on 9 April 2009, before the expiry of its full term. The applicant argued that the termination was caused by the defendant`s violation of an insufficient performance, such as the number of uniforms made available. The defendant argued that the claimant had breached the agreement by early termination and insisted on the payment of lump sum damages for the remainder of the term of the contract. The dispute was arbitrated by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Following an investigation, although not required to do so by the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules, the arbitrator wrote a reasoned arbitral award in which he found the problems in favor of the respondent. It found that “the defendant [Ray`s Construction] breached the agreement by receiving the payments in a spun manner. That breach terminated the claimant`s [UniFirst]`s obligations to continue to perform under the agreement and led to the entry into force of the liquidated damages clause. (Results 11.) The Panel awarded a lump sum compensation of $28,620.55, plus interest of $7,727.47 $US, and ordered Ray`s Construction to pay administrative costs of $2,550 and arbitration costs of $800. Shanahan Part 1: The claimant would have to prove his loss of profits for the balance of the contract term as soon as the defendant infringes an infringement, which would have been difficult without a lump sum damages clause. This fact was recognized in the agreement of the parties. (Arbitrator`s Decision No. 8).
Shanahan Part Two: It is assumed that the parties intend to do what was contained in their written agreement, even if a party has not read the agreement before signing. Therefore, the parties intended to have a flat rate clause. (Arbitrator`s Decision No. 9). UniFirst Corporation v. . . .