Similarly, the Montana Supreme Court sent a ability to adjudicate to an arbitrator in Peeler v. Rocky Mountain Log Homes Canada, Inc., 2018 WL 6498693 (Mount. 11.12.2018). At Peeler, an owner sued both the contractor and the contractor for claims related to the construction of a custom blockhouse. Only the contractor`s agreement had a compromise clause, but the complaint stated that the design company was a related unit that had to be treated in the same way as the contractor. Thus, the contractor and design company moved to force arbitration. The owner argued that the arbitration agreement was permissive and non-compulsory and that the defendants had waived their right of conciliation pending its claim until he took legal action. These arguments did not arise in court or before the Court of Appeal. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the accused did not waive their right to conciliation and that the owner did not challenge the validity or applicability of the arbitration agreement, his arguments should be heard by an arbitrator. Finally, the court found that the design company could impose an arbitration procedure as a fair Estoppel issue.
The ICCC considered whether the arbitration clause was valid and effective. In considering the existence of a compromise clause for the engagement of the parties, the ICCC recognized and confirmed the fundamental legal doctrine that an arbitration agreement, whether a compromise clause or a stand-alone agreement, is separable and independent of the main transaction contract. Under the relevant legislation of the People`s Republic of China (PRC), Article 10, paragraph 2, of the interpretation of the arbitration right of the People`s Republic of China, an arbitration agreement may still be valid even if the underlying contract is not concluded. Two courts have recently had the opportunity to remind the parties to the proceedings of the doctrine of separation. In Rogers v. Swepi LP, 2018 WL 6444014 (6th Cir. 10 Dec 2018), the sixth arrondissement struck down a district judge who did not apply the separation doctrine. At Rogers, an alleged class of landowners sued Shell for making leases.
Shell responded by trying to force arbitration. The landowners submitted that the compromise clause in the lease (as well as the entire “second phase” of the lease) was only triggered with the payment of a bonus. The court found that this was an attack on more than the arbitration clause, and therefore the application of the doctrine of the subpoena required for the issue of arbitration to be tried by an arbitrator.