Court Opinion

ID: 9854277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:04:19.037465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:59.993719
License: Public Domain

*165PHILLIPS, Judge.
Respondents argue that their contract for the corporate stock is governed by the four-year statute of limitations provided for in G.S. 25-2-725 and the arbitration was not authorized since the claim was barred by that statute. Under the view of the appeal that we take whether the four-year statute is the correct one is irrelevant and we do not determine it; for by its terms the limitations period stated in G.S. 25-2-725 applies only to an “action,” which is a “judicial proceeding,” G.S. 25-1-201(1); and an arbitration is neither an “action” nor a “judicial proceeding,” but a non-judicial, out-of-court proceeding which makes an action or judicial proceeding unnecessary.
The parties’ contract does not limit the period in which arbitration can be demanded and no statute or court decision of this State of which we are aware does so either. Respondents’ contention that it was held in Adams v. Nelsen, 313 N.C. 442, 329 S.E. 2d 322 (1985) that defendant’s right to demand arbitration was barred because it was not filed before the three-year statute of limitations expired is mistaken; for in that case the parties’ contract explicitly provided that a demand for arbitration could not be made “after the date when such dispute would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” Ibid. at 447-448, 329 S.E. 2d at 325. Since the contract in this case contains no such stipulation, we conclude that the claimant’s right to an arbitration hearing was not barred by the statute of limitations. Nor should it be, in our opinion; because the contract to arbitrate was freely entered into with the implied or express knowledge that arbitrators are not bound to follow the law but may decide controversies according to what is good and equitable, Robbins v. Killebrew, 95 N.C. 19 (1886), and that an arbitrator’s mistake either as to law or fact is “the misfortune of the party.” Cyclone Roofing Co., Inc. v. David M. LaFave Co., Inc., 312 N.C. 224, 236, 321 S.E. 2d 872, 880 (1984). Thus, the arbitrators’ mistake, if any, as to the statute of limitations was a hazard that respondents assumed when they agreed to arbitration, and we know of no authority that entitles them to be relieved thereof.
Affirmed.
Judges WELLS and BECTON concur in the result.