Opinion ID: 2516625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ready, willing, and able and fully integrated agreement

Text: Tatibouet asks this court to reverse the circuit court's order and vacate the arbitration award based on the panel's ruling that Ellsworth need not prove he was ready, willing, and able to purchase the Pickwick Hotel. He also argues that the Settlement Agreement was fully integrated, and, therefore, the panel was bound by the choice-of-law provision, which selected solely Hawai`i law. He contends that the arbitration panel exceeded its scope of authority when it failed to apply Hawai`i law, which resulted in a pursu[it of] their own brand of industrial justice under the guise of `equity.' Because the choice-of-law provision required the panel to adhere to Hawai`i law, Tatibouet contends that the panel violated HRS § 658-9(4). Tatibouet's assertion that the panel's award must be vacated because it failed to apply the ready, willing, and able requirement, as mandated by Hawai`i law, is untenable. As discussed in section IV.A., supra, even if the panel's ruling was based on the misinterpretation of Hawaii law, this court will not vacate the award on that basis. His assertion fails to allege one of the four grounds set forth in HRS § 658-9, and the record is devoid of evidence that the panel exceeded its statutorily prescribed powers. The circuit court was compelled to confirm the award because Tatibouet failed to allege that the panel violated one of the four bases to vacate an arbitration award. Accordingly, it did not err in this respect.