This principle prevents the validity of one agreement from being affected by the other; effectively establishes the full autonomy of an arbitration agreement and the integrity of the arbitration. Nevertheless, these two can be evaluated together. However, given the separation of the arbitration agreement, it is important to consider whether the choice of law established by the parties in the main contract is applicable to the arbitration agreement. Therefore, dispute resolution and choice of law clauses should be developed with the utmost caution and caution. The CICC stated that the usual rules of offer and acceptance applied to determine whether the parties had indeed reached agreement on an arbitration. The claimant`s sending of the «initialled version» of the contractual documents constituted an offer; and the impermeability and surrender of those documents by the defendant was a hypothesis. The arbitration agreement in the form of a clause is due to the above-mentioned conduct. There were no further disputes or negotiations between the parties regarding the arbitration clause after the conclusion of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the arbitration clause was valid and binding, although the claimant never affixed his seal to the most recent contractual documents. One of the most confusing doctrines in federal arbitration jurisprudence is the doctrine of severability. Since Prima Paint in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that courts must impose arbitration clauses within treaties, even if the entire contract is invalid or unenforceable.
(Most non-referee geeks don`t believe me when I tell them it`s the law.) The only time a court can raise the invalidity argument is when the person concerned addresses it specifically in the arbitration clause. For example, an argument that the elf contract with Santa Claus is invalid because it is illegal to pay them in sugar bars is an argument about the contract as a whole and would be sent to arbitration if the elves` contract had a valid arbitration clause. On the other hand, an argument that the arbitration clause in the elf contract with Santa Claus is unscrupulous because it seeks arbitration at the South Pole with Ms. Claus as arbitrator is specific to the arbitration clause and should be decided by the court. Unless the arbitration clause clearly and unambiguously delegates questions of validity to an arbitrator. It should also be noted that, although no contract containing the arbitration clause listed all the parties related to the transaction as contracting parties, the DECISIONS OF THE CICC in all three judgments appeared to treat all those related parties in such a way that they accepted the arbitration clause. . . .