Opinion ID: 2585937
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of the Arbitrator's Authority

Text: Kinn and Singletary argue that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority under AS 09.43.120(a)(3) [37] by rescinding the property contract, but not the asset purchase agreement. But the question whether Kinn and Singletary successfully negotiated for a single contract (as opposed to two separate contracts) is a question of fact, and the determination whether rescission is an appropriate remedy and, if so, how that remedy should be applied, is a question of law. As Alaska Sales and Service correctly points out, we apply an extremely deferential standard of review to the arbitrator's decisions on questions of fact and law: under Alaska's Uniform Arbitration Act, the arbitrator's findings of fact are unreviewable, even in the case of gross error, and the arbitrator's legal conclusions are equally unreviewable, except where they pertain to arbitrability. [38] Claims that the arbitrator construed the contract in a manner exceeding his or her powers are reviewable, but will only be reversed if all fair and reasonable minds would agree that the construction of the contract made by the arbitrator(s) was not possible under a fair interpretation of the contract. [39] Kinn and Singletary point to our holding that [a] contract is severable . . . when it is of such a nature that it is clear that the formation of the contract itself was not dependent on all of its parts together, but rather that it could just as well have been entered into as several different agreements. [40] They also rely on the rule of construction that [w]here two or more contractual documents are executed substantially simultaneously and are clearly interrelated, they must be construed as the whole contract. [41] But whether and how these rules apply to the interpretation of the contract in the present case are questions of law, as is the question of the appropriate remedy. Although this court might reach a different result if it interpreted the contract on the merits, the arbitrator's interpretation is not so obviously wrong that all fair and reasonable minds [42] would find it impossible under the terms of the contract. The parties themselves provide strong support for this view: each of their briefs contains a lucid, detailed argumentrelying on authority from this and other jurisdictionsthat the party's preferred interpretation and remedy are the ones required by Alaska law. Because reasonable minds can differ on whether the arbitrator interpreted the contract(s) in a manner that exceeded his powers, we affirm the superior court's decision on this issue.