Court Opinion

ID: 9534173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:37:21.648624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:29.029127
License: Public Domain

Ryan, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree that when F. J. Siller and Company and the City of Hart agreed to arbitration "as a condition precedent to the filing of an action in any court” they intended to submit their differences to binding arbitration and to waive thereby their right to file an action in the circuit court.
The easy and obvious route to binding arbitration in this state is via MCLA 600.5001; MSA 27A.5001 which provides for a binding and irrevocable arbitration award providing the arbitration agreement contains the requisite statutory language to the effect that the circuit court may render judgment upon the award made pursuant to the agreement. In cases of such "statutory *583arbitration” the limited role of the circuit court is governed by GCR 1963, 769.1 et seq.
The agreement here in question did not call for binding statutory arbitration because the requisite language subjecting the agreement to the terms of the statute was not employed.
The parties opted instead for common-law arbitration by which they were free to make such agreement as pleased them whether for binding or nonbinding arbitration.
As is the case in construing all contracts, the meaning of the terms used in a common-law arbitration agreement is to be ascertained by discovering the intent of the parties by reference to the language of the agreement itself. Acme Cut Stone Co v New Center Development Corp, 281 Mich 32; 274 NW 700 (1937).
The agreement in this case is short and simple.1 *584Not only does it contain no hint of an intention to submit the parties’ disputes to the binding and irrevocable decision of an arbitrator, but declares that any arbitration be no more than a condition precedent, a mandatory prelude, to the mutual right of resort to the courts. We have recognized and enforced compliance with such conditions precedent in the past. Frolich v Walbridge-Aldinger Co, 236 Mich 425; 210 NW 488 (1926).
Judicial policy preferences encouraging binding arbitration to help preclude "legal pollution” and jammed civil court dockets should not interfere with our duty to give effect to the intent of the parties to an arbitration agreement as they expressed it in their own language.
I would affirm the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the circuit court.

 "140 — ARBITRATION
"a. General: Both parties to this contract agree that as conditions precedent to the filing of an action in any court involving the amount or rate of payment or settlement for work performed by the contractor under these contract documents, and as a condition precedent to the liability of the owner for any amount other than contained in the estimates approved by the engineer shall be referred to arbitration for decision and award. The arbitrator or board of arbitration shall have authority only to pass upon questions involving compensation to the contractor for work actually performed but not allowed by the engineer, and its authority shall not extend to the interpretation of the plans and specifications or the determination of the qualities or materials or workmanship furnished, nor shall it have authority to set aside or modify the terms or requirements of the contract.
"b. Selection of Arbitrators: The parties may agree on one arbitrator; otherwise a board of arbitration shall consist of three persons, one to be named in writing by each party to this contract within five (5) days after notice of arbitration is served by either party upon the other, and the third member chosen by the first two so named within five (5) days after notice of selection. In determining the award, the majority of the board shall govern. Certified copies of the findings and award shall be filed with the owner and the contractor.
“c. Compensation: The arbitrator or board of arbitration shall make such rules as it shall determine equitable to govern itself in the conduct of the investigation and determination of the award. Said member or members shall fix the amount of the cost of the proceed*584ings, including a fair and reasonable compensation to the arbitrators, and shall determine how the total cost shall be borne.”