Discussion on Supreme Court of Indiana | Assignment


Added on  2019-09-30

2 Pages766 Words313 Views
NATARE CORPORATION V. D.S.I., DURAPLASTEC SYSTEMS, INC.,D.S.I.,STEWART J. JASON MART AND AQUATIC RENOVATION SUSTEMS, INC., 855N.E. 985 (2006) Decision by the Supreme Court of IndianaFACTS:Natare Corporation and the Appellee companies are involved competing businesses. Uponhaving settled two cases against each other in the year 1998, both agreed not to disseminatedisparaging information about each other. It was agreed that in the event of any disputearising between the companies in future, the matter will be referred to arbitration. Further,they also agreed that in the case of breach of the terms, the breaching party would be liable topay a minimum amount of $ 5,000 to the non-breaching party as liquidated damages inaddition to other incidental expenses such as attorney fees and expenses incurred in settlingthe dispute.In 2002, Natare failed to win a contract from a potential client from Colorado, and allegedthat the Appellees caused disparagement. Therefore, arbitration was entered into by theparties in which Natare sought a relief of $45,000 as actual damages. Arbitrator Jerry Pittawarded $ 5,000 as liquidated damages for establishing breach but not actual damages orattorney fees.Natare filed a petition at the trial court against the order of arbitrator Pitt specifically, in notawarding attorney fees. The trial court denied relief to Natare. It held that neither did Nataresubmit any attorney fees, nor had the arbitrator had not exceeded his power and that theprovisions under Indiana Law did not justify modification of the award. Natare Corporation appealed in the Court of Appeals against the trial court decision. Thecourt reversed the decision of trial court and remanded the matter back to the arbitrator forfresh consideration. Later, the transfer was granted and an appeal is sought against the order. LEGAL QUESTION:Whether the arbitrator has exceeded his powers granted under the provisions of UniformArbitration Act, Indiana Code and whether modification or correction of the Arbitrator’saward is permissible in the act. Is Natare entitled to relief by seeking attorney fees underSection 34-57-2-13(a)-14(a)[ CITATION Jus16 \l 1033 ] of the Act?DECISION: Held, no, the arbitrator has not exceeded his power. Natare is not entitled to any relief formodification or corrections under the provisions of the Act. COURT’S RATIONALE: While the act emphasises the limited scope to modify arbitration awards, Natare has, due tohis inadvertence not submitted the attorney fees. Hence, the arbitrator was right in granting

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Pachowitz v. Ledoux: A Case on Invasion of Privacy and Attorney Fees

Consumer Protection Act Violations Assignment