Opinion ID: 1451378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Signed Agreements and Unsigned Proposals

Text: Wild West asserts that the district court erred when it held that the arbitrators had authority to consider all gbs&h Architects' claims. Wild West contends that the scope of the arbitration proceedings was limited to the Phase I agreement. gbs&h Architects's claims for services which it performed under the Phase I agreement were subject to arbitration because the Phase I agreement contained a clear arbitration clause. 843 P.2d at 1192. gbs&h Architects's claims for services which it performed pursuant to the 1989 letter agreement were also subject to arbitration because the 1989 letter agreement clearly incorporated [a]ll terms and conditions of the existing [Phase I] contract, including the arbitration clause. The arbitrators, therefore, did not exceed their authority when they considered the claims for services which gbs&h Architects had performed under the Phase I agreement and the 1989 letter agreement. gbs&h Architects based its remaining claims upon unsigned proposed agreements. The proposed Phase II agreement contained an arbitration clause which was identical with the arbitration clause which was contained in the Phase I agreement, but it was not signed by Wild West. gbs&h Architects's revised first phase proposal did not contain an arbitration clause, and it also was not signed by Wild West. Neither proposal expressly incorporated the signed Phase I agreement or its arbitration clause. gbs&h Architects argues that the reference to the parties['] contract in the joint stipulation to arbitrate should be interpreted to include the proposals as being modifications to the written Phase I agreement. In support of its argument, gbs&h Architects cites S.A. Mineracao da Trindade-Samitri v. Utah International, Inc., 745 F.2d 190 (2d Cir.1984). The reasoning of that case does not apply here. In that case, either the original agreements which contained the arbitration clauses expressly contemplated and provided for the subsequent agreements or the subsequent agreements expressly refer[red] to the original agreements. 745 F.2d at 196. Here, the Phase I agreement expressly contemplated only Phase I of the project. Neither of the proposals referred to the Phase I agreement. The unsigned proposed agreements did not aris[e] out of or relat[e] to the signed Phase I agreement, as was required by paragraph 7.1, and were not subject to the arbitration provisions of the Phase I agreement.