Park Imperial, Inc. v. E. L. Farmer Const. Co.
Decision Date | 12 May 1969 |
Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
Citation | 454 P.2d 181,9 Ariz.App. 511 |
Parties | PARK IMPERIAL, INC., an Arizona corporation, Appellant, v. E. L. FARMER CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., an Arizona corporation, Appellee. 501. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Johnson & Shaw, by Marvin Johnson and Felix F. Gordon, Phoenix, for appellant.
Lewis, Roca, Beauchamp & Linton, by John P. Frank, John J. Flynn, Robert A. Jensen, Scott E. Little and James Moeller, Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court upholding and affirming an arbitration award.
We are called upon to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the award.
On 16 March 1964, the plaintiff, E. L. Farmer Construction Co., Inc., and Park Imperial, Inc., both Arizona corporations, entered into a contract providing for the construction by E. L. Farmer of a 60 unit apartment complex. As a part of the contract there was a printed section copy-righted by the American Institute of Architects titled, 'The General Conditions of the Contract for the Construction of Building.' Articles 39 and 40 of said section provided for submission to arbitration of dusputes arising under the contract.
Prior to 31 December 1964 certain disputes and controversies did arise and plaintiff Farmer notified Park Imperial by letter of plaintiff's desire to arbitrate which was refused by Park Imperial. On 10 March 1965 a motion pursuant to A.R.S. § 12--1501 and § 12--1502, subsec. A entitled 'Motion to Compel Arbitration' was filed in the Superior Court of Maricopa County. The motion was resisted by Park Imperial and the motion was granted by the Superior Court. Three arbiters were selected to hear the matter, a contractor, an architect, and a practicing attorney. Hearings were held at which both sides were represented by counsel. The matter was strongly if not bitterly contested. An arbitration award was signed by two of the three members on 17 December 1965. The third member filed a dissent. The report was objected to by Park Imperial and a hearing was held by the trial court at which time additional testimony was taken.
and entered judgment thereon. From this judgment Park Inperial appeals.
This case can be distinguished from the recent decision of this Court in Funk v. Funk, 6 Ariz.App. 527, 434 P.2d 529 (1968), U.S. cert. denied in 393 U.S. 829, 89 S.Ct. 95, 21 L.Ed.2d 100 (1968), in which it was held that under the facts in that case, the arbitration agreement, not being a statutory arbitration, was governed by the common law. See Fineg v. Pickrell, 81 Ariz. 313, 305 P.2d 455 (1956) and Gates v. Arizona Brewing Co., 54 Ariz. 266, 95 P.2d 49 (1939). The facts in the instant case bring it under the Uniform Arbitration Act which was adopted by the Arizona State Legislature in 1962. § 12--1501, A.R.S., reads as follows:
'A written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration or a provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.'
Opposition to an award may be made only upon the following grounds:
Generally, in the absence of fraud or mistake the action of an arbiter empowered by a contract or statute to construe and determine its conditions is final and conclusive upon the parties. United States v. Ellis, 2 Ariz. 253, 14 P. 300 (1887):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Amberson v. McAllen (In re Amberson)
...Inc. , 738 A.2d 1214 (D.C. 1999) ; Graber v. Comstock Bank , 111 Nev. 1421, 905 P.2d 1112 (1995) ; Park Imperial, Inc. v. E. L. Farmer Const. Co. , 9 Ariz.App. 511, 454 P.2d 181 (1969).6 Azcon Constr. Co., Inc. v. Golden Hills Resort, Inc. , 498 N.W.2d 630 (S.D. 1993) ; MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. ......
-
City of Livingston v. Mont. Pub. Emps. Ass'n ex rel. Tubaugh
...No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 177 Ariz. 431, 868 P.2d 1014, 1021 (Ariz.Ct.App.1993) (citing Park Imperial, Inc. v. E.L. Farmer Constr. Co., 9 Ariz.App. 511, 454 P.2d 181, 183–84 (Ariz.Ct.App.1969) (“This Court on appeal is bound to view the action of the trial court in a light most favorabl......
-
Canon School Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Const. Co., Inc.
...of a trial court to set aside an arbitration award under an abuse of discretion standard. See Park Imperial, Inc. v. E.L. Farmer Constr. Co., 9 Ariz.App. 511, 514, 454 P.2d 181, 184 (1969). However, an abuse of discretion includes "an error of law committed in the process of reaching the di......
-
Atreus Communities Grp. of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc.
...Systems, Inc. v. Gabbay, 206 Ariz. 360, 364 n. 3, ¶ 12, 78 P.3d 1081, 1085 n. 3 (App.2003); Park Imperial, Inc. v. E.L. Farmer Constr. Co., 9 Ariz.App. 511, 513–14, 454 P.2d 181, 183–84 (1969). ¶ 14 The standard of review and procedure to review an arbitrator's interpretation of the parties......