Non-signatories in Arbitration Proceedings With Focus on a Third Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel Doctrines in the United States

@article{ART002261304},
author={ 신승남 },
title={Non-signatories in Arbitration Proceedings With Focus on a Third Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel Doctrines in the United States},
journal={중재연구},
issn={1226-3699},
year={2017},
volume={27},
number={3},
pages={77-94},
doi={10.16998/jas.2017.27.3.77},
url={http://dx.doi.org/10.16998/jas.2017.27.3.77}

TY - JOUR
AU - 신승남
TI - Non-signatories in Arbitration Proceedings With Focus on a Third Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel Doctrines in the United States
T2 - 중재연구
PY - 2017
VL - 27
IS - 3
PB - 한국중재학회
SP - 77-94
SN - 1226-3699
AB - The United States has used legal theoretical constructions such as equitable estoppel and the third party beneficiary under which non-signatories of an arbitration agreement can be bound to the arbitration agreement of others. The third party beneficiary theory has been used when a signatory defendant argues that a non-signatory plaintiff is bound by an arbitration agreement, or a non-signatory defendant argues that a signatory plaintiff is required to arbitrate the plaintiff’s claims against the non-signatory. On the other hand, equitable estoppel has developed as two distinct theories. According to the first theory, if a non-signatory party knowingly accepted the benefits of an agreement, it can be estopped from denying its obligation to arbitrate. The second theory compels a signatory to arbitrate because of the close relationship between the entities involved and the fact that the claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.
KW - Non-signatory, Third Party Beneficiary, Equitable Estoppel, Strand A and B, Intertwined-ness Test, Direct Benefits
DO - 10.16998/jas.2017.27.3.77
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.16998/jas.2017.27.3.77
ER -

신승남 (2017). Non-signatories in Arbitration Proceedings With Focus on a Third Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel Doctrines in the United States. 중재연구, 27( 3), 77- 94.

신승남 . 2017, “Non-signatories in Arbitration Proceedings With Focus on a Third Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel Doctrines in the United States”, 중재연구, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 77-94. Available from: doi:10.16998/jas.2017.27.3.77

신승남 “Non-signatories in Arbitration Proceedings With Focus on a Third Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel Doctrines in the United States” 중재연구 27.3 pp. 77-94 (2017): 77.

신승남 . Non-signatories in Arbitration Proceedings With Focus on a Third Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel Doctrines in the United States 중재연구 [Internet]. 2017; 27( 3), : 77-94. Available from: doi:10.16998/jas.2017.27.3.77

신승남 . “Non-signatories in Arbitration Proceedings With Focus on a Third Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel Doctrines in the United States” 중재연구 27, no.3 (2017): 77-94. doi: 10.16998/jas.2017.27.3.77

홈 권호 목록 논문 목록 논문 상세

Non-signatories in Arbitration Proceedings With Focus on a Third Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel Doctrines in the United States

중재연구

약어 : -

2017, vol.27, no.3, pp.77 - 94

DOI : 10.16998/jas.2017.27.3.77

발행기관 : 한국중재학회

연구분야 : 무역학

신승남¹

¹이화여자대학교

인용한 논문 수 : 1 서지 간략 보기

초록

The United States has used legal theoretical constructions such as equitable estoppel and the third party beneficiary under which non-signatories of an arbitration agreement can be bound to the arbitration agreement of others. The third party beneficiary theory has been used when a signatory defendant argues that a non-signatory plaintiff is bound by an arbitration agreement, or a non-signatory defendant argues that a signatory plaintiff is required to arbitrate the plaintiff’s claims against the non-signatory. On the other hand, equitable estoppel has developed as two distinct theories. According to the first theory, if a non-signatory party knowingly accepted the benefits of an agreement, it can be estopped from denying its obligation to arbitrate. The second theory compels a signatory to arbitrate because of the close relationship between the entities involved and the fact that the claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.

키워드

Non-signatory, Third Party Beneficiary, Equitable Estoppel, Strand A and B, Intertwined-ness Test, Direct Benefits

참고문헌(30)

[학술지] 김지홍 / 2007 / 중재합의의 제3자에 대한 효력 / 중재연구 17 (3) : 101 ~ 119
[학술지] James Otis Rodner / 2014 / Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal in the Case of Multiple Contracts / 중재연구 24 (3) : 1 ~ 31
[학술지] 서세원 / 2008 / 미국에 있어서 비서명자에 대한 중재합의의 효력 / 중재연구 18 (1) : 71 ~ 96
[학술지] Matthew Berg / 2011 / Equitable Estoppel to Compel Arbitration in New York: A Doctrine to Prevent Inequity / Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 13 : 169
[학술지] James M. Hosking / 2004 / The Third Party Non-Signatory’s Ability to Compel International Commercial Arbitration: Doing Justice without Destroying Consent / Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 4 : 469
[학술지] Alexandra Anne Hui / 2007 / Equitable Estoppel and the Compulsion of Arbitration / Vanderbilt Law Review 60 : 711 ~ 737
[학술지] Clayton A. Morton / 2016 / Equitable Estoppel in the Context of Claims for Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations: Has Its Texas Supreme Court Gone Too Far? / South Texas Law Review 57 : 249
[학술지] J. Douglas Uloth / 2002 / Equitable Estoppel as a Basis for Compelling Non-signatories to Arbitrate / Rev. Litig 21 : 593 ~ 599
[학술지] Dwayne E. Williams / 2006 / Binding Non-signatories to Arbitration Agreements / Franchise Law Journal 25 : 175 ~ 179
[기타] / 2003 / Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Government of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347
[기타] / 1997 / Collins v. Int’l Dairy Queen, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 690 (M.D. Ga. 1997)
[기타] / 1998 / Collins v. Int’l Dairy Queen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1465 (M.D. Ga. 1998)
[기타] / 2005 / Denney v. BDO Seidman, L.L.P., 412 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2005)
[기타] / 2000 / Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2000)
[기타] / 1981 / Hughes Masonry Co.,Inc. v. Greater Clark County School Building Corp. 659 F.2d 836, at 836-37 (7th Cir. 1981)
[기타] / 2000 / Industrial Electronics Corp. of Wisconsin v. iPower Distribution Group, Inc., 215 F.3d 677 (7th Cir.2000)
[기타] / 2003 / InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 146 (1st Cir. 2003)
[기타] / 1988 / J.J. Ryan & Sons, Inc. v. Rhone Poulenc Textile, S.A., 863 F.2d 315, 320-21 (4th Cir. 1988)
[기타] / 2011 / Life Techs. Corp. v. AB Sciex Pte. Ltd., 803 F. Supp. 2d 270, 273-74 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
[기타] / 2001 / MAG Portfolio Consultant, GMBH v. Merlin Biomed Group LLC, 268 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2001)
[기타] / 1980 / McAllister Bros., Inc. v. A & S Transp. Co., 621 F.2d 519, 524 (2d Cir.1980)
[기타] / 1995 / Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995)
[기타] / 1984 / McBro Planning & Dev. Co. v. Triangle Elec. Constr. Co., 741 F.2d at 342 (11th Cir. 1984).
[기타] / 1999 / MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942 (11th Cir.1999)
[기타] / 2008 / Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMB Munai, Inc., 542 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2008)
[기타] / 1993 / Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753 (11th Cir. 1993)
[기타] / 2008 / The Rice Company (Suisse), S.A. v. Precious Flowers Ltd. 523 F.3d 528, 536-37(5th Cir. 2008)
[기타] / 1995 / Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995)
[기타] / 2016 / INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION RULES OF THE KOREAN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION BOARD, § 21 (2016)
[기타] / 1981 / RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS § 302