Opinion ID: 6346761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arbitrability of Green’s Authority

Text: Before deciding whether Green had authority to sign the Contract for GP3, we address Litong’s argument that the issue of Green’s authority is an issue for arbitration. Litong relies on Supreme Court precedent holding questions over the validity of a contract containing an arbitration provision are for the arbitrator in the first instance. See, e.g., Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 444–46 (2006). In Buckeye, the Supreme Court distinguished between two kinds of claims challenging the validity of arbitration agreements. One kind of claim challenges the validity of the arbitration provision itself, and a federal court may adjudicate these challenges. See id. The other type of claim challenges the validity of the contract as a whole, and these challenges are for the arbitrator. See id. The Court in Buckeye, however, stated that issues of contract formation— specifically, issues related to the authority of a signor—do not necessarily fall in the “validity of the contract as a whole” bucket of claims: -4- The issue of the contract’s validity is different from the issue whether any agreement between the alleged obligor and obligee was ever concluded. Our opinion today . . . does not speak to the issue . . . [of] whether the signor lacked authority to commit the alleged principal . . . . Id. at 444 n.1. The Court later affirmed “that where the dispute at issue concerns contract formation, the dispute is generally for courts to decide.” Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 296 (2010). Because a signor’s authority to bind a purported principal is an issue of contract formation, see Buckeye, 546 U.S. at 444 n.1, the issue of Green’s authority to bind GP3 was within the district court’s province to decide.