Opinion ID: 2516625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusive right to purchase

Text: Tatibouet argues that the panel failed to follow Hawai`i law when it ruled that Ellsworth was entitled to an exclusive option to purchase the Mark Twain Hotel. He further contends that, because the Settlement Agreement did not contemplate an exclusive real estate option, the panel exceeded its authority. An arbitrator's interpretation of a contract cannot be vacated by the reviewing court. This court has noted that `[t]he Arbitrator's decision and award shall be final and binding on all parties to this Agreement and shall not be subject to appeal,' and it was his [or her] judgment they had bargained for, not a court's. Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Makahuena Corp., 66 Haw. 663, 670-71, 675 P.2d 760, 766 (1983) (citing Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. at 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358 (It is the arbitrator's construction which was bargained for; and . . . the courts have no business overruling him because their interpretation of the contract is different from his.) (some alterations in original)). In this case, the panel interpreted paragraph 5.4.2, which provided that closing shall take place no later than one hundred thirty five [sic] (135) days subsequent to Ellsworth's giving notice of the exercise of his option to purchase the hotel hereunder, to mean that Ellsworth had an exclusive right to purchase the Mark Twain Hotel . . . after notice was given of his intention to purchase the Mark Twain under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Inasmuch as this is clearly the panel's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, this court will not vacate the award. Tatibouet's argument is premised upon the assertion that the panel exceeded its powers when it fashioned a remedy not contemplated directly by the Settlement Agreement. On the contrary, the sale of the Mark Twain was conducted pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, however delayed. Ultimately, the parties provided their own remedy when they proceeded with the transfer of the Mark Twain Hotel, as designated by the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the panel remained within its scope of authority when it ruled that Ellsworth had an exclusive right to purchase the Mark Twain, and the circuit court did not err when it confirmed the award.