Opinion ID: 455788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Party's Agreement

Text: 7 Clause 21 of the charter party between Sedco and Permargo provides that they would submit any dispute or difference between the parties to arbitration in New York under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. 8 Sedco is a Texas company; Permargo is a Mexican company. Both Mexico and the United States are signatories to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Convention), 3 U.S.T. 2517, T.I.A.S. No. 6957, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 [1970], republished as a note following 9 U.S.C. Sec. 201. 9 The Convention contemplates a very limited inquiry by courts when considering a motion to compel arbitration: 8 1) is there an agreement in writing to arbitrate the dispute; in other words, is the arbitration agreement broad or narrow; 10 9 2) does the agreement provide for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory; 10 3) does the agreement to arbitrate arise out of a commercial legal relationship; 11 4) is a party to the agreement not an American citizen? 12 Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno, 684 F.2d 184, 185-86 (1st Cir.1982). 13 If these requirements are met, the Convention requires district courts to order arbitration. Language similar to that used in the charter party arbitration clause between Sedco and Permargo has been described by the Court in Caribbean Steamship Co. v. Sonmez Denizcilik Ve Ticaret, 598 F.2d 1264, 1266 (2d Cir.1979). The court said [i]t is difficult to imagine broader general language than that contained in the charter party's arbitration clause, 'any dispute'.... 11 Additionally, when confronted with arbitration agreements, we presume that arbitration should not be denied unless it can be said with positive assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation which would cover the dispute at issue.... Commerce Park of DFW Freeport v. Mardian Construction Co., 729 F.2d 334, 338 (5th Cir.1984), quoting Wick v. Atlantic Marine, Inc., 605 F.2d 166, 168 (5th Cir.1979). Thus, as a general rule, whenever the scope of an arbitration clause is in question, the court should construe the clause in favor of arbitration. United Steel Workers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1353, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); City of Meridian, Miss. v. Algernon Blair, Inc., 721 F.2d 525, 527 (5th Cir.1983). We hold that the arbitration agreement between Sedco and Permargo is of the broad type.