[§658A-6] Validity of agreement to
arbitrate. (a) An agreement contained in a record to submit to
arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties
to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground
that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.
(b) The court shall decide whether an
agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to
arbitrate.
(c) An arbitrator shall decide whether a
condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract
containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.
(d) If a party to a judicial proceeding
challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an
agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final
resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders. [L
2001, c 265, pt of §1]
Case Notes
Circuit court erred in determining that petitioner's claim
that the arbitration provision in question was unconscionable on several
grounds were beyond the scope of its review in deciding on a motion to compel
arbitration; unconscionability is a generally applicable contract defense and
is within the scope of the circuit court's review on the question of whether a
valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists. 130 H. 437, 312 P.3d 869
(2013).
The circuit court should have granted the petitioner's motion
to compel arbitration because there was an arbitration agreement between the
parties that clearly and unmistakably left the issue of arbitrability to the
arbitrator. 132 H. 426, 322 P.3d 966 (2014).
Where substantively unconscionable terms pervaded the
arbitration agreement and, therefore, no part of the arbitration agreement
could be spared and given effect, circuit court erred in declining to
invalidate the entire arbitration agreement. 140 H. 325, 400 P.3d 526 (2017).
Cited: 297 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (2003).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case:
State v. Nakanelua, 323 P.3d 136 (Haw. App. 2014).
State v. Nakanelua, 323 P.3d 136 (Haw. App. 2014).
“In support of their contentions, both UPW and Employer cite to HRS § 658A-6 (Supp. 2013), which provides in relevant part: (a) An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is…”
Kahuku Holdings, LLC, No. CA 9991-VCG (Del. Ch. Sept. 16, 2014).
· cites it 3× “‖24 That statutory provision, codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6, provides that arbitrability is to be determined by ―The court,‖ a term defined in the Hawaii Code as ―any district or circuit court of competent jurisdiction in the State [of Hawaii].”
Straub Jr v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Wailea Ekahi, No. 1:23-cv-00214 (D. Haw. Sept. 28, 2023).
“” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6(a). If a party refuses to arbitrate, Section 658A-7(a) of the Hawaii Uniform Arbitration Act provides that upon a motion by a party, “the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and 8 order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there…”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6(a): 1 case
Straub Jr v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Wailea Ekahi, No. 1:23-cv-00214 (D. Haw. Sept. 28, 2023).
“” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6(a). If a party refuses to arbitrate, Section 658A-7(a) of the Hawaii Uniform Arbitration Act provides that upon a motion by a party, “the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and 8 order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there…”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6(b): 1 case
Kahuku Holdings, LLC, No. CA 9991-VCG (Del. Ch. Sept. 16, 2014).
“‖24 That statutory provision, codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6, provides that arbitrability is to be determined by ―The court,‖ a term defined in the Hawaii Code as ―any district or circuit court of competent jurisdiction in the State [of Hawaii].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.