Opinion ID: 1649625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Alabama Arbitration Act

Text: The second objection of Palm Harbor and Southern Lifestyle to the trial court's order stands on better ground. It held the Alabama Arbitration Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-1 et seq., to be applicable. In this respect, it erred. The Installment Contract provided: THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE PURSUANT TO A TRANSACTION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT AT 9 U.S.C. SECTION 1. (Capital letters in original.) The parties' agreement to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act is express and clear. Indeed, the Knapps concede that there is no legal basis for the application of the Alabama Arbitration Act. Palm Harbor and Southern Lifestyle have thus shown a clear, legal right to relief from that portion of the order. As to that portion of the order, therefore, the petition is granted. PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; AND WRIT ISSUED. MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, LYONS, BROWN, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur. SEE, J., concurs in part, concurs in the result in part, and dissents in part.