Savings Clause Operating Agreement
„It is true,“ the court continued, „that the Prima Paint rule allows a court to impose an arbitration agreement in a contract that the arbitrator later finds invalid. But it is also true that [the consumer] approach allows a court to refuse an arbitration provision in a contract that the court will later find perfectly applicable. Prima Paint solved this conundrum and solved it in favour of separate applicability from arbitration rules. We say today that, whether the challenge is brought before a federal or regional court, a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically the compromise clause, must be addressed to the arbitrator. In the end, the Court held that determining the predictability of a public right requires only a two-step investigation: first, to determine whether the parties` conciliation agreement has reached the legal question; it established that legal restrictions outside the parties` agreement excluded the arbitration procedure from those rights. Referring to Bremer, the court allowed that „[a party] that opposes arbitration can directly attack the validity of the agreement. In addition, the party may attempt to make a statement that would justify the cancellation of the forum selection clause – that the agreement was affected by fraud, inappropriate influence or bargaining power, that the application would be inappropriate and unfair, or that the procedure within the treaty forum will be so difficult and uncomfortable that the resistant party will be deprived of its day before the courts for all practical purposes. But without such a show . . . . there is no basis for the adoption of the forum insufficiently or its unfair selection . . .
And as long as the aspiring party to the trial can validly justify his legal actions before the Court of Arbitration, the statute will continue to serve both its remediation function and its deterrence function. The opinion: The court focused on the FAA`s „legal policy of fast and unfettered enforcement of arbitration agreements“ and recognizes that Section 2 of the FAA is „a statement by Congress of a liberal federal policy that favours arbitration agreements, regardless of state or procedural policy to the contrary.“ The effect of the section is to create an entity of federal material law of arbitration capacity, applicable to any arbitration agreement in the coverage of the law. The [FAA] stated that federal law must resolve any doubts as to the extent of arbitration issues in favour of an arbitration procedure, whether it is the very organization of the language of the contract or a charge of waiver, delay or similar defence of adjudicatorship. The savings clause states that the contractual clauses are independent of each other.