contract containing the arbitration clause in Alabama

2015Second, ‘[t]his Court is required to compel arbitration if, under “ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts,” the contract containing the arbitration clause is enforceable.’ Quality Truck & Auto Sales, Inc. v. Yassine, 730 So.2d 1164, 1167 (Ala.1999).

2001See Quality Truck Auto Sales, Inc. v. Yassine , 730 So.2d 1164 , 1167-68 (Ala. 1999) (`This Court is required to compel arbitration if, under "ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts," the contract containing the arbitration clause is enforceable.') (quoting Crown Pontiac, Inc. [v. McCarrell] , 695 So.2d [615,] 617 [(Ala. 1997)]).

2000See Quality Truck Auto Sales, Inc. v. Yassine , 730 So.2d 1164 , 1167-68 (Ala. 1999) (`This Court is required to compel arbitration if, under "ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts," the contract containing the arbitration clause is enforceable.') (quoting [ Crown Pontiac, Inc. v. McCarrell , 695 So.2d 615 , 617 (Ala. 1997)].

1999Crown Pontiac, Inc. v. McCarrell, 695 So.2d 615, 617 (Ala. 1997).

2025The same panel also 'agree[d] unanimously that one consequence of that principle is that the FAA does not countenance motions to compel arbitration of claims that lack a requisite "nexus" to the contract containing the arbitration clause.' Id. (citations omitted). … That is, 'when the dispute is wholly unrelated to the contract, the FAA is silent; federal courts have no power to compel arbitration.' Revitch v. DIRECTV, LLC, 977 F.3d 713, 723-24 (9th Cir. 2020) (O'Scannlain, J., concurring) (citing David Horton, Infinite Arbitration Clauses, 168 U. Pa. L.

2012In keeping with the federal policy in favor of arbitration, this Court has stated further that the question of arbitrability of a given dispute is not answered by “whether the dispute arose from the contract containing the arbitration clause but, rather, whether the dispute arose from the relationship described in the arbitration clause.” Thompson Tractor Co. v. Fair Contracting Co., 757 So.2d 396, 399 (Ala. 2000) (emphasis added).

2009Kakiuchi & Co., Ltd., 815 F.2d 840, 846 (2d Cir.1987). " On closer scrutiny, however, it is apparent that the cases employing the `touch matters' test do not involve a choice between two contracts (as here), or, indeed, contractual claims at all.

2009Kakiuchi & Co., Ltd., 815 F.2d 840, 846 (2d Cir.1987).

2009In some cases, the Circuit has required the claim to `implicate issues of contract construction or the parties' rights and obligations under' the contract containing the arbitration clause, Louis Dreyfus Negoce v. Blystad Shipping & Trading, Inc., 252 F.3d 218, 225 (2d Cir.2001); Collins & Aikman, 58 F.3d at 23 , while in others it has required only that the claim `touch matters' covered by the contract, a test which potentially sweeps a broader set of claims into arbitration, Genesco, Inc. v. T.

2009In some cases, the Circuit has required the claim to ‘implicate issues of contract construction or the parties’ rights and obligations under’ the contract containing the arbitration clause, Louis Dreyfus Negoce v. Blystad Shipping & Trading, Inc., 252 F.3d 218, 225 (2d Cir.2001); Collins & Aikman, 58 F.3d at 23 , while in others it has required only that the claim ‘touch matters’ covered by the contract, a test which potentially sweeps a broader set of claims into arbitration, Genesco, Inc. v. T.

2003As a defense applicable to contracts in general, this void-contract caselaw is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. § 2 . "[A] party cannot be forced to arbitrate if the contract containing the arbitration clause, which gives the arbitration clause viability, is found to be void." Alabama Catalog Sales v. Harris , 794 So.2d 312 , 316 (Ala. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2003As a defense applicable to contracts in general, this void-contract caselaw is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. § 2 . "[A] party cannot be forced to arbitrate if the contract containing the arbitration clause, which gives the arbitration clause viability, is found to be void." Alabama Catalog Sales v. Harris, 794 So.2d 312, 316 (Ala.2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2003The only contract which contains an arbitration clause in this case is the retail buyer's order between an Alabama seller and an Alabama buyer for a car which "`had come to a permanent rest,'" Ex parte Kampis, 826 So.2d 819, 823 (Ala.2002) (quoting A.L.A.

2003This Court held, however, that "the law in Alabama is that agreements to arbitrate are enforceable if they are part of a valid contract involving interstate commerce." 742 So.2d at 163 (citing Georgia Power Co. v. Partin, 727 So.2d 2, 5 (Ala.1998)).

2001Id. at 989 (discussing Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass'n, 64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir.1995)).

2000Clearly, if a party cannot be forced to arbitrate if the contract does not contain a valid arbitration clause, then a party cannot be forced to arbitrate if the contract containing the arbitration clause, which gives the arbitration clause viability, is found to be void." Id. at 1275; see Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 , 115 S.Ct. 834 , 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995) (Justice Breyer stated that a state retains the power to regulate contracts, including arbitration clauses, under general contract-law principles, and may invalidate an arbitration clause upon such grounds as exist at

2000Clearly, if a party cannot be forced to arbitrate if the contract does not contain a valid arbitration clause, then a party cannot be forced to arbitrate if the contract containing the arbitration clause, which gives the arbitration clause viability, is found to be void." Id. at 1275; see Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 , 115 S.Ct. 834 , 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995) (Justice Breyer stated that a state retains the power to regulate contracts, including arbitration clauses, under general contract-law principles, and may invalidate an arbitration clause upon such grounds as exist at

2000See Green Tree Agency, Inc. v. White , 719 So.2d 1179 (Ala. 1998) (stating that there can be no fraudulent suppression when the matter allegedly suppressed is disclosed to the plaintiff in a contract that the plaintiff could have read and understood).

1999See Coastal Ford, Inc. v. Kidder , 694 So.2d 1285 , 1286 (Ala. 1997) (the language of an arbitration clause applying to "all claims, demands, disputes, or controversies of every kind or nature that may arise . . . concerning the vehicle" was not ambiguous and was broad enough to encompass the claims at issue); Ex parte Lorance , 669 So.2d 890 , 892-93 (Ala. 1995) (the language of the arbitration clause subjecting to arbitration "`any controversy or claim arising out of . . . this contract'" was broad enough to encompass the plaintiff's claim alleging fraud in the inducement of the contract).

1999More specifically, the contract containing the arbitration clause was a contract for the purchase of real estate, and, under the well-known doctrine of merger , "a contract for the purchase of real estate is merged into the deed conveying the property." Thornton v. Guckiean Co. , 77 Ohio App.3d 794 , 799 , 603 N.E.2d 1066 , 1069 (1991).

1999More specifically, the contract containing the arbitration clause was a contract for the purchase of real estate, and, under the well-known doctrine of merger , "a contract for the purchase of real estate is merged into the deed conveying the property." Thornton v. Guckiean Co. , 77 Ohio App.3d 794 , 799 , 603 N.E.2d 1066 , 1069 (1991).

1998See the comment about the open-ended nature of such an agreement in AT T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America , 475 U.S. 643 , 651 , 106 S.Ct. 1415 , 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986), noted in Allstar Homes, Inc. v. Waters , 711 So.2d 924 (Ala. 1997). 1 The plaintiff argues that the contract containing the arbitration clause did not involve interstate commerce, but because this issue was not raised in the trial court, we do not address it on appeal.

1998Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409, 410 (Ala.1992). [2] In my concurring opinion in Ex parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales, Inc., 718 So.2d 33 (Ala.1998), I discussed the prospect for applying the doctrine of unconscionability to an arbitration agreement.

1998Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co. , 612 So.2d 409 , 410 (Ala. 1992). 2 In my concurring opinion in Ex parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales, Inc. , 718 So.2d 33 (Ala. 1998), I discussed the prospect for applying the doctrine of unconscionability to an arbitration agreement.

1998See the comment about the open-ended nature of such an agreement in AT T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America , 475 U.S. 643 , 651 , 106 S.Ct. 1415 , 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986), noted in Allstar Homes, Inc. v. Waters , 711 So.2d 924 (Ala. 1997). 1 The plaintiff argues that the contract containing the arbitration clause did not involve interstate commerce, but because this issue was not raised in the trial court, we do not address it on appeal.

1998See the comment about the open-ended nature of such an agreement in AT T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America , 475 U.S. 643 , 651 , 106 S.Ct. 1415 , 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986), noted in Allstar Homes, Inc. v. Waters , 711 So.2d 924 (Ala. 1997). 1 The plaintiff argues that the contract containing the arbitration clause did not involve interstate commerce, but because this issue was not raised in the trial court, we do not address it on appeal.