Prepakt Concrete Co. v. Whitehurst Bros., Inc., 77-31
| Decision Date | 13 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-31,77-31 |
| Citation | 552 S.W.2d 212,261 Ark. 814 |
| Parties | PREPAKT CONCRETE COMPANY, Appellant, v. WHITEHURST BROS., INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, for appellant.
Plegge, Lowe & Whitmore, Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellee Whitehurst Bros., Inc. was the General Contractor for the construction of the Central Fire Station for the City of Little Rock. At the time of letting the bids, appellant Prepakt Concrete Co. had submitted a proposal for a subcontract "To furnish equipment, material and labor to install 231 14 (inch) Diameter Cast-in-Place augered pile in accordance with plans and specifications by Wilkins, Griffin, Sims, Architects." After appellant had been approved by the owner and architect, appellee accepted appellant's subcontract proposal in Arkansas. Appellant subsequently caused the contract to be marked "Accepted by Prepakt: F. B. Akers, Jr., Executive Vice-President" at its home office in Ohio. The work has been performed in Arkansas. The issue now between the parties arises over whether the parties shall arbitrate the dispute in question in Ohio as contended by appellant or in Arkansas as contended by appellee. Appellee denies any liability to appellant but in the alternative makes demands against the City of Little Rock.
The arbitration agreement in the subcontract proposal submitted to appellee at the time of its bid on the General Contract provides:
The plans and specifications submitted by the architects provided for the settlement of claims and disputes "by arbitration in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act of Arkansas."
The trial court restrained appellant from demanding that the arbitration be held in Ohio and concluded "that the parties hereto must proceed in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act of Arkansas . . . ." We agree with the trial court but not necessarily for the same reasons.
In the first place, appellant has shown no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Archer
...to the intent of the parties as evidenced by the arbitration agreement itself. 5 Am.Jur.2d § 14; and see Prepakt Concrete Co. v. Whitehurst Bros., 261 Ark. 814, 552 S.W.2d 212 (1977). It is generally held that arbitration agreements will not be construed within the strict letter of the agre......
-
E-Z Cash Advance v. Harris, 01-570
...to the intent of the parties as evidenced by the arbitration agreement itself. 5 Am. Jur. 2d 14; and see Prepakt Concrete Co. v. Whitehurst Bros., 261 Ark. 814, 552 S.W.2d 212 (1977). It is generally held that arbitration agreements will not be construed within the strict letter of the agre......
-
Lee v. Hot Springs Village Golf Schools, CA
...it must be construed most strongly against the party who prepared it, which in this case is the appellee. Prepakt Concrete Co. v. Whitehurst Bros., 261 Ark. 814, 552 S.W.2d 212 (1977). Thus any inference to be made from the contract's silence should have been resolved in appellants' In thei......
-
Wessell Bros. Foundation Drilling Co. v. Crossett Public School Dist. No. 52
...to the intent of the parties as evidenced by the arbitration agreement itself. 5 Am.Jur.2d § 14; and see Prepakt Concrete Co. v. Whitehurst Bros., 261 Ark. 814, 552 S.W.2d 212 (1977). It is generally held that arbitration agreements will not be construed within the strict letter of the agre......