Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. ITT Consumer Financial Corporation, 211 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir.2000) (common law ground for vacating an arbitration award under the FAA includes when an award is arbitrary or capricious); Ainsworth v. Skumick, 960 F.2d 939, 940-41 (11th Cir.l992)(arbitration award may be vacated as arbitrary and capricious when court cannot infer any ground for the awards from the facts); U.S. Postal Service v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 847 F.2d 775, 778-79 (11th Cir.1988) (award may be vacated as arbitrary and capricious if it exhibits a wholesale departure from the law). Hall Street precludes the use of any common-law grounds as an independent basis for vacatur of an arbitration award. See Royce Homes, L.P. v. Bates, 315 S.W.3d 77, 90 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); LeFoumha v. Legend Classic Homes, Ltd., No. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that hall street restricts the grounds for vacatur to those set forth in section 10 of the faa (B) holding that common law grounds such as manifest disregard of law and gross mistake were not valid grounds for vacatur of arbitration award as hall street forecloses any common law grounds for vacatur (C) holding that the statutory grounds for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards may not be supplemented by contract (D) holding that arbitrary and capricious ground for vacatur recognized along with the four grounds for vacatur specified in chapter 1 of the faa could not be used to vacate award under the convention (E) holding that a transcript is necessary if the asserted grounds for vacatur of arbitration award are grounded in the conduct of the proceeding
Output (English): holding that hall street restricts the grounds for vacatur to those set forth in section 10 of the faa