Section 58 of the Arbitration Act does not mention “any compromise clause” as a reason for a people`s court to reject a sentence. (3) In addition, Article 18 of the Judicial Interpretation of arbitration provides that a compromise clause that a court has struck down or struck down must be considered “no compromise clause” under section 58. Article 7 of the judicial interpretation of arbitral law provides that a compromise clause (2) is invalid if the parties to the agreement agree that disputes can be resolved either by arbitration before an arbitration board or by litigation before a people`s court, unless one party files an appeal to form an arbitration tribunal and the other party does not object within the time limit set out in Article 20 , paragraph 2, of the right to arbitration. The decision of the Munich Court is not one that deals directly with an ordinary procedure. Nevertheless, this is an example of the current concern that state courts have about protecting athletes in sports arbitration proceedings, as shown by the Swiss Supreme Court decisions cited above. This is a concern that the sports refereeing community should consider. (3) Section 58 of the Arbitration Act provides that a party may request that an arbitration award be set aside by the intermediate tribunal of the place where the arbitration board is located when it can prove that (2) a compromise clause may appear in a contract concluded by the parties or in any other form of written agreement providing for the resolution of disputes by arbitration by the parties. The Florida court, which heard the case, rejected the company`s request to force arbitration and found that the court was the right place to criticize the allegation that the contract was illegal and inconclusive. On appeal, a Florida appeals court was set aside and ruled in favor of the company. However, a subsequent appeal to the Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision in favour of the plaintiffs. The state supreme court ruled that the application of an arbitration agreement in a contract deemed illegal would be contrary to public policy and state contract law. (II) In an even more surprising twist, the Munich court decided that it could not rule on the issue of the doping ban, although it considered that the arbitration agreement was invalid.
The Munich court found that the force of the matter judged was admissible because at the time of the CAS referral, the structural imbalance between the parties had been eliminated: the competition was over and Ms. Pechstein was represented by counsel. In light of Flanzman`s holding company, companies and employers in all areas of New Jersey practice and industry should review their arbitration rules to ensure they contain more than one general dispute settlement agreement – they must appoint an arbitration tribunal or otherwise define the arbitration process.