Kulukundis Shipping Co. v. Amtorg Trading Corp.
1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4821, 1942 A.M.C. 364, 126 F.2d 978 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court must first determine whether a contract containing an arbitration clause was formed. If the court finds a contract exists, a party that denied the contract's formation is not precluded from seeking a stay of the lawsuit pending arbitration of arbitrable issues, such as damages, as specified in that contract's clause.
Facts:
- Kulukundis Shipping Co. S/A, through its broker Blidberg Rothchild Co. Inc., entered into negotiations with Amtorg Trading Corporation, through its broker Potter & Gordon, Inc., for the charter of the ship 'Mount Helmos'.
- On March 15, 1940, the brokers acting on behalf of both parties agreed upon the charter's terms.
- Amtorg's broker, Gordon, executed and delivered a 'fixture slip' to Kulukundis's broker, Rothchild, memorializing the agreement, which is a standard trade practice for concluding charter negotiations.
- The fixture slip set forth all material terms of the bargain, some of which were incorporated by reference to a prior charter for the steamer 'Norbryn'.
- The incorporated terms from the 'Norbryn' charter included a clause requiring arbitration in New York for 'a dispute of any nature whatsoever'.
- After the fixture slip was delivered, Amtorg Trading Corporation refused to sign the formal charter party document and repudiated the agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Kulukundis Shipping Co. S/A filed a libel (a lawsuit in admiralty) against Amtorg Trading Corporation in the U.S. District Court for breach of a charter party agreement.
- Amtorg filed an answer denying that a contract had been made by an authorized representative.
- Nine months later, Amtorg moved to amend its answer to include the defense that the suit was premature because the alleged contract contained an arbitration clause.
- The district court denied Amtorg's motion to amend its answer.
- Following a trial, the district court found that a valid contract existed, that Amtorg had breached it, and entered an order for Kulukundis to recover damages.
- The district court referred the case to a commissioner to ascertain the amount of damages.
- Amtorg Trading Corporation (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Kulukundis Shipping Co. (appellee) responded.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's denial of a contract's existence, which contains an arbitration clause, prevent that party from seeking a stay of court proceedings under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act pending arbitration of issues covered by the clause once the court has determined that a valid contract was formed?
Opinions:
Majority - Frank, Circuit Judge
No. A party who denies the existence of a contract is not precluded from seeking a stay of litigation under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, pending arbitration of claims like damages, once the court has first determined that a valid contract containing an arbitration clause was formed. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was enacted to reverse the long-standing judicial hostility towards arbitration agreements. Under the FAA, the court's role is to determine the 'gateway' issue of whether an arbitration agreement exists. A controversy over the very existence of the main contract is not an issue 'arising out of such contract' to be determined by arbitrators, as their authority is derived from the contract itself. If arbitrators were to find no contract existed, it would nullify their own authority. Once the court finds a contract and an arbitration clause were validly formed, it should not proceed to adjudicate issues that the parties agreed to arbitrate, such as the amount of damages. A party is permitted to plead in the alternative, denying the contract's existence while also asserting its right to arbitration if the contract is found to exist. A party's refusal to perform or denial of the contract does not constitute a 'default' under Section 3 of the FAA that would waive its right to a stay, as a 'default' occurs only when a party refuses a demand to arbitrate.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical division of labor between courts and arbitrators under the Federal Arbitration Act, clarifying that the court decides the threshold issue of contract formation. It affirms the principle of 'severability' in a functional sense, where the arbitration clause can be invoked even by a party that contests the validity of the contract containing it. This decision significantly strengthens the FAA's pro-arbitration policy by allowing defendants to contest a contract's existence without forfeiting their contractual right to arbitrate the merits of the dispute if the contract is found to be valid. This prevents parties from using a claim of non-formation as a way to circumvent a bargained-for arbitration clause.
