Opinion ID: 2552191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rephrasing of the Submission Agreement

Text: ¶ 17 First, Softsolutions argues that the district court erred in refusing to vacate or modify the award because the arbitrator erroneously recast the eight issues submitted to the arbitrator. Softsolutions argues that by restating the first and primary issue submitted for decision, the arbitrator improperly obtained unfettered jurisdiction to determine any matter relating to royalties, whether based upon the contract or not. In other words, Softsolutions argues that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his jurisdiction by deleting terms and modifying others to add royalty obligations not found within the terms of the Agreement. We disagree. ¶ 18 The first issue charged the arbitrator with determining: What amount of royalties were earned under the D-Search licensing agreement(s) with BYU; and what amount has been paid? The arbitrator reframed this question into What amount of royalties are due BYU by Softsolutions, Inc.? The district court also adopted this wording. We are not convinced that the rephrasing of this issue, or any other presented for our review, gave the arbitrator unbounded jurisdiction to determine any issue relating to the royalties, as Softsolutions suggests. Rather, the arbitrator stayed within the confines of the first question submitted for resolution. Specifically, the arbitrator stated that Softsolutions is indebted to BYU in the amount of $1,672,467 as a result of the D-search technology, and that Softsolutions did not make royalty payments as dictated in the contract. This ruling, although framed differently than the question submitted for resolution, certainly addresses what royalties were earned and the amount paid by Softsolutions. Because the arbitrator ruled on the matter submitted for resolution and did not stray from the scope of authority delegated to him by the parties, this challenge presents no basis to vacate or modify the arbitration award.