Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the inquiry mandated by Genesco. I. The first question we must address is whether the language in Paragraph 4N calling for the appointment of an independent tax counsel does indeed constitute an enforceable arbitration clause. We believe that the language clearly manifests an intention by the parties to submit certain disputes to a specified third party for binding resolution. It is, in our estimation, irrelevant that the contract language in question does not employ the word “arbitration” as such. Rather, what is important is that the parties clearly intended to submit some disputes to their “ ‘chosen instrument for the definitive settlement of [certain] grievances under ' the Agreement_’” International Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 549 F.Supp. 435, 437 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (<HOLDING>) (quoting General Drivers, Warehousemen & 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties (B) holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant (C) holding that binding review by a designated third party is arbitration even if not denominated as such in the contract (D) holding that an arbitration in accordance with aaa rules is a binding arbitration (E) holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties
Output (English): holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties