Brief analysis Sample Clauses

Brief analysis. Regardless of being the “right” decision in the author’s opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court is peculiar and problematic. First of all, the dismissal without further explanation of the factors supporting the opposite conclusion (C not being bound) is interesting, to say the least. The court clearly had the view that the absolute formal requirement of section 3 of the Finnish Arbitration Act is no longer absolute nor as essential as it has been before. However, the fact that no further grounds or explanation for this view was presented suggests that the Supreme Court took a shortcut in its construction of the decision. After all, it was the very reason why the District Court dismissed the case in the first place. Secondly, the Court of Appeal’s rationale for binding C to arbitration was based on the signatory parties’ power to grant the non-signatory beneficiary’s right conditionally. This view was based on the freedom of contract. However, the fact that the Supreme Court gave no thought (or at least no mention) to the reasoning of the Court of Appeal is peculiar and leaves open the question whether such conditional granting of rights was valid with regard to the arbitration clause (or vice versa). Moreover, in addition to the requirement of written form, the Supreme Court’s decision in general failed to mention any grounds for dismissing the facts presented by the Supreme Court itself which supported not extending the arbitration clause to bind C. Neither did the court present the logic behind binding a non-signatory (in particular) to the arbitration, at least when it comes to the fundamental requirement of agreement and consent. No mention was given to the intentions of the parties either. Instead, the Supreme Court’s decision seems to present a new rule of interpretation: in case resolving a dispute necessitates interpretation of an agreement which contains a valid (in relation to the signatory parties – obviously the validity with regard to non-signatories carries no significance) arbitration clause, the dispute must be settled in arbitration regardless of whether the claimant is a party to that agreement or not. There are certain substantial difficulties to this new point of view and the rule of interpretation it offers (or, more likely, imposes). The lack of reasoning to support it as well as the difficulty in its application due to that exact reason makes it remarkably dubious for any administrator of justice to use, be it a court or an arbit...