Varley v. Tarrytown Associates, Inc., No. 540
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | HAYS, MULLIGAN and OAKES, Circuit |
| Citation | 477 F.2d 208 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Arbitration of Controversies between Gerald M. VARLEY, doing business under the tradename and style of Varley Textile Associates, Petitioner-Appellee, v. TARRYTOWN ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | Docket 72-2221.,No. 540 |
| Decision Date | 23 April 1973 |
477 F.2d 208 (1973)
In the Matter of the Arbitration of Controversies between Gerald M. VARLEY, doing business under the tradename and style of Varley Textile Associates, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
TARRYTOWN ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent-Appellant.
No. 540, Docket 72-2221.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued March 13, 1973.
Decided April 23, 1973.
Michael S. Colo, Rocky Mount, N. C. (Lans, Feinberg & Cohen, New York City and Spruill, Trotter & Lane, Rocky Mount, N. C., of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Daniel Cohen, New York City (Ballon, Stoll & Itzler, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner-appellee.
Before HAYS, MULLIGAN and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
MULLIGAN, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from an order and judgment of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, Jr., United States District Judge, entered on August 13,
Varley is a textile consultant who entered into an oral agreement with Tarrytown which agreed to retain his company for a twelve month period at a rate of $1000 per month plus expenses and a per diem fee. Varley reduced the terms to writing in the form of a letter which was mailed to Tarrytown at its home office in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. The letter contained an arbitration clause not previously discussed but accepted by Tarrytown when the agreement was finally executed in North Carolina on March 3, 1971. The clause provided:
Any controversy arising under this agreement or breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association.
On April 29, 1971 Varley was paid $1000 plus his expenses and Tarrytown advised him that it was terminating the contract. Varley did not agree and on September 23, 1971 submitted the dispute to the American Arbitration Association. On October 20, 1971 Tarrytown advised Varley and the American Arbitration Association that it elected to rescind its agreement to arbitrate under the law of North Carolina which, according to respondent, considers agreements to arbitrate future disputes to be unenforceable and subject to rescission by either party. The arbitration proceeding was held in any event without Tarrytown making any appearance. On May 9, 1972 Varley was awarded $11,000 without interest, in full settlement of all claims. The award was served on Tarrytown and in June 1972, the proceeding below was commenced to confirm the award and for entry of judgment against Tarrytown pursuant to the United States Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. § 9.
Tarrytown concedes that the law of North Carolina is not applicable and that the United States Arbitration Act creates a national substantive law encompassing all questions of interpretation and construction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke County Public Schools Bd. of Ed. v. Shaver Partnership, No. 94
...U.S. 817, 82 S.Ct. 31, 7 L.Ed.2d 24 (1961) (contract to paint housing project in Florida). 9 See, e. g., Varley v. Tarrytown Assoc., Inc., 477 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1973) (textile consulting agreement whereby plaintiff would evaluate plants and fabrics manufactured throughout the country for de......
-
Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., Ltd., Nos. 505
...its coverage. See Mitsubishi, 105 S.Ct. at 3354; Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 24, 103 S.Ct. at 941; Varley v. Tarrytown Associates, Inc., 477 F.2d 208, 209 (2d Cir.1973). Hence whether Genesco is bound by the arbitration clause of the sales confirmation forms is determined under federal law, ......
-
Litton RCS, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Civ. A. No. 73-1902.
...§ 9 of the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9 (1970)3 lacks power to confirm the award. Varley v. Tarrytown Associates, Inc., 477 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1973) so held with respect to a contract arbitration clause that stated: "Any controversy arising under this agreement or breach there......
-
Milk Drivers, Dairy and Ice Cream v. Roberts Dairy, No. 4:03-CV-40385.
...have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award . . . .'") (emphasis added) (citing Varley v. Tarrytown, 477 F.2d 208 (2d Cir.1973) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § In the Eighth Circuit, parties must have an express affirmative agreement providing for judicial confirmation of a......
-
Burke County Public Schools Bd. of Ed. v. Shaver Partnership, No. 94
...U.S. 817, 82 S.Ct. 31, 7 L.Ed.2d 24 (1961) (contract to paint housing project in Florida). 9 See, e. g., Varley v. Tarrytown Assoc., Inc., 477 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1973) (textile consulting agreement whereby plaintiff would evaluate plants and fabrics manufactured throughout the country for de......
-
Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., Ltd., Nos. 505
...its coverage. See Mitsubishi, 105 S.Ct. at 3354; Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 24, 103 S.Ct. at 941; Varley v. Tarrytown Associates, Inc., 477 F.2d 208, 209 (2d Cir.1973). Hence whether Genesco is bound by the arbitration clause of the sales confirmation forms is determined under federal law, ......
-
Litton RCS, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Civ. A. No. 73-1902.
...§ 9 of the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9 (1970)3 lacks power to confirm the award. Varley v. Tarrytown Associates, Inc., 477 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1973) so held with respect to a contract arbitration clause that stated: "Any controversy arising under this agreement or breach there......
-
Milk Drivers, Dairy and Ice Cream v. Roberts Dairy, No. 4:03-CV-40385.
...have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award . . . .'") (emphasis added) (citing Varley v. Tarrytown, 477 F.2d 208 (2d Cir.1973) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § In the Eighth Circuit, parties must have an express affirmative agreement providing for judicial confirmation of a......