Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1048_8ok0.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Converteam SAS, 902 F. 3d 1316 (2018).  The court inter-
preted the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement 
of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention or Con-
vention) to include a “requirement that the parties actually 
sign  an  agreement  to  arbitrate  their  disputes  in  order  to
compel  arbitration.”  Id.,  at  1326  (emphasis  in  original).
The court concluded that this requirement was not satisfied
because  “GE  Energy  is  undeniably  not  a  signatory  to  the 
Contracts.”  Ibid.    It  then  held  that  GE  Energy  could  not 
rely on state-law equitable estoppel doctrines to enforce the 
arbitration  agreement  as  a  nonsignatory  because,  in  the 
court’s view, equitable estoppel conflicts with the Conven-
tion’s signatory requirement.  Id., at 1326–1327.  

Given  a  conflict  between  the  Courts  of  Appeals  on  this 

question,2 we granted certiorari.  588 U. S. ___ (2019). 

II 
A 
Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) permits
courts  to  apply  state-law  doctrines  related  to  the  enforce-
ment of arbitration agreements.  Section 2 of that chapter
provides that an arbitration agreement in writing “shall be 
. . . enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or 
in equity for the revocation of any contract.”  9 U. S. C. §2. 
As we have explained, this provision requires federal courts 
to “place [arbitration] agreements ‘ “upon the same footing 
as  other  contracts.” ’ ”  Volt  Information  Sciences,  Inc.  v. 
Board  of  Trustees  of  Leland  Stanford  Junior  Univ.,  489 
U. S. 468, 474 (1989) (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 
417  U. S.  506,  511  (1974)).    But  it  does  not  “alter  back-
ground principles of state contract law regarding the scope 
of  agreements  (including  the  question  of  who  is  bound  by 

—————— 

2 Compare  902  F. 3d  1316,  1326  (CA11  2018),  and  Yang  v.  Majestic 
Blue Fisheries, LLC, 876 F. 3d 996, 1001–1002 (CA9 2017), with Aggarao 
v. MOL Ship Mgmt. Co., 675 F. 3d 355, 375 (CA4 2012), and Sourcing 
Unlimited, Inc. v. Asimco Int’l, Inc., 526 F. 3d 38, 48 (CA1 2008).