Opinion ID: 1870807
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Transition to Pro Net Agreement

Text: Appellants next argue that Nitro and West Palm are bound to arbitrate under the Transition to Pro Net Agreement on the basis that Ken Stewart signed the agreement on behalf of his organization. Appellants' argument on this point, however, discounts the fact that Ken Stewart signed the agreement only in his individual capacity and not on behalf of any separate entity. The signature block of the agreement contains three lines: a By line, a Dated line, and a For line, and Stewart signed his name on the By line, leaving the For line blank. In contrast, a number of other signatories signed their names in the By line in addition to signing the name of the corporation on behalf of which they were signing in the For line. In short, the Transition to Pro Net Agreement does not indicate any intent on the part of Stewart to bind Nitro and West Palm. Appellants nevertheless maintain that paragraph 1 of the transition agreement proves the point that Stewart signed on behalf of his organization. That paragraph states: The Parties hereby agree to submit to final and binding arbitration with JAMS/ENDISPUTE, in accordance with Rule 7 of the Amway/ADA Arbitration Rules and Procedures any and all issues arising out of the transition of the Foley, Gooch, Childers, Stewart and Woods organizations from working with D & B Enterprises, Inc. and InterNet Services to being responsible for the training and education of their distributor organizations. The fallacy of appellants' argument, as Nitro and West Palm aptly put, is that this paragraph defines the scope of arbitrable claims, not the parties to it. The focus, or scope, is on the transition  the claims arising from the split between the five organizations and D & B Enterprises and InterNet Services. The agreement binds Stewart individually to arbitrate any claims he may have individually that arise from the transition of his organization to the Pro Net scheme. But the scope of the arbitration clause is irrelevant in the determination of which parties bound themselves to it. The clause itself is no evidence that Stewart agreed to submit his organization's claims to arbitration.