Court Opinion

ID: 9672709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:59:07.225098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:17.935520
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(specially concurring).
Parties must abide by their contracts.* Rather fundamental.
Pursuant to the contract documents, arbitration was held under the supervision of the American Arbitration Association under American Arbitration Association Construction Industry Arbitration Rules. See also, SDCL ch. 21-25A, Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements, which is applicable to this case.
Paragraph 8.3.1 of the general conditions of the contract document provides:
If the Contractor is delayed at any time in the progress of the Work by any act or neglect of the Owner or the Archi*388tect, or by any employee of either, or by any separate Contractor employed by the Owner, or by changes ordered in the Work, or by labor disputes, fire, unusual delay in transportation, adverse weather conditions not reasonably anticipatable, unavoidable casualties, or any causes beyond the Contractor’s control, or by delay authorized by the Owner pending arbitration, or by any other cause which the Architect determines may justify the delay, then the Contract Time shall be extended by Change Order for such reasonable time as the Architect may determine. (Emphasis added.)
There is no provision for extra or additional costs. The contract is simply silent on this point. The Spearfish School District extended the time; it did not agree to pay additional costs and this is apparent by the minutes of its meetings. There was no waiver. A parol'modification of this written contract would be improper for there is no provision for compensatory damages caused by factors beyond the contractor’s control. Therefore, the arbitrator did not misconstrue the contract documents. Furthermore, a most fair and full hearing was accorded the disputants by the arbitrator.
Under Articles 7 (5C-3), 8.3, 12.1, 12.3, 14.1.1 and pages 3 and 4 of the Special Conditions of this construction contract, relief was allowable for an “extension of time” and relief was permitted for a “change in work.” There was no change of work.
Under the conditions of the AAA Construction Industry Arbitration Rules, Section 43, an arbitrator “may grant any remedy or relief which is just and equitable and within the terms of the agreement_” (Emphasis supplied.) These parties bargained for arbitration. There existed a freedom of contract between the parties. Neither party had to “adhere” to entering into a contract calling for arbitration. A final award in arbitration must be founded upon the basic tenet that a just, mete, and equitable award must necessarily be within the terms of the agreement. Were it otherwise, arbitrators could subvert the basic premise that parties must abide by their contracts. In this tenet, the arbitrator saw his duty and performed it.
In effect, the trial court sustained the arbitrator. I likewise vote to affirm the trial court. I approve of the legal thesis that a review by the trial court is extremely limited. This thesis is set forth below:
The purpose of arbitration is to permit a relatively quick and inexpensive resolution of contractual disputes by avoiding the expense and delay of extended court proceedings. Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 431-32, 74 S.Ct. 182, 184-85, 98 L.Ed. 168 (1953); Office of Supply v. New York Navigation Co., 469 F.2d 377, 379 (2nd Cir.1972). Accordingly, it is a well-settled proposition that judicial review of an arbitration award should be, and is, very narrowly limited.
Diapulse Corp. of America v. Carba, Ltd., 626 F.2d 1108, 1110 (2nd Cir.1980). In South Dakota, trial courts are limited to vacating arbitration awards as specifically set forth by SDCL 21-25A-24. These grounds for vacation are equivalently cited in Diapulse, 626 F.2d at 1110, as set forth in I/S Stavborg v. Nat’l Metal Converters, Inc., 500 F.2d 424, 429-30 n. 11 (2nd Cir. 1974). These cases should serve as a platform of thought for trial courts in this state in the future. Leastways, in my humble opinion.

 Exceptions are contracts which are harsh, oppressive, and unconscionable now referred to as contracts of adhesion. This was not briefed nor urged in this case. See Green v. Clinic Masters, Inc., 272 N.W.2d 813, 815-16 (S.D.1978); Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'n v. Nelson, 223 N.W.2d 494, 497 (N.D.1974); Bekken v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 70 N.D. 122, 142-43, 293 N.W. 200, 212 (1940); SDCL 57-A-302 (unconscionable contracts under Uniform Commercial Code); 5A Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 1164 (1964); 79 Harv.L.Rev. 1299 (1965); 53 Colum. L.Rev. 1072 (1953); 43 Colum.L.Rev. 629 (1943). "One-sided agreements whereby one party is left without a remedy for another party's breach are oppressive and should be declared unconscionable.” Durham v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 315 N.W.2d 696, 700 (S.D.1982) (citing United States Leasing Corp. v. Franklin Plaza Apts., 65 Misc.2d 1082, 319 N.Y.S.2d 531 (1971)).