Yale Materials Handling Corp. v. White Storage & Retrieval Systems, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1990 |
| Citation | 573 A.2d 484,240 N.J.Super. 370 |
| Parties | YALE MATERIALS HANDLING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WHITE STORAGE & RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Robert M. Axelrod, for defendant-appellant (Sills, Cummis, Zuckerman, Radin, Tischman, Epstein & Gross, attorneys, Robert M. Axelrod, Newark, of counsel and on the brief).
Fredrick E. Sherman, pro hac vice, for plaintiff-respondent (Schaff, Motiuk, Gladstone, Moeller & Reed, Flemington, and Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, New York City, attorneys, Robert B. Reed, Robert W. Becker, Flemington, Fredrick E. Sherman and Kenneth R. Puhala, New York City, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges PRESSLER, GRUCCIO and LANDAU.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
LANDAU, J.A.D.
Defendant-appellant White Storage & Retrieval Systems, Inc. (White) appeals from orders denying its motions to compel arbitration and to stay, pending arbitration, a lawsuit brought by plaintiff-respondent Yale Materials Handling Corporation (Yale) in which Yale sought, inter alia, damages and a declaration that it properly cancelled a purchase order for a White automated materials handling system because of failure to timely deliver. 1
The complete system which included both hardware and software necessary to operate the hardware was the subject of an agreement consisting of various documents executed at different times. Not atypically, these documents sometimes cross-referenced, and sometimes purported to incorporate, terms of each other, a common practice which occasionally loses in consistency what may be achieved in expedition.
Among the several documents executed was a one-page "contract" signed by White on September 21, 1988 and by Yale on September 29, 1988. The first paragraph of this document reads: "Yale Materials Handling Corporation, hereafter referred to as buyer, contracts with White Storage & Retrieval Systems, hereafter referred to as seller, for the following integrated and automated material handling system." Terms of the contract were then set forth by reference to numbered attachments. The last paragraph of the contract states: "Buyer and Seller agree that the contract is governed by: Attachment 9--Terms and Conditions ..."
Attachment 9 bears on its face the language:
Terms and Conditions
Thus, the Software License Agreement (SLA) in Attachment 9, although signed only by White in the record supplied to us, was at least facially incorporated as part of the contract executed on September 29, 1988. As more fully discussed below, resolution of this appeal does not require that we here determine whether this constituted a definitive incorporation of all provisions of the SLA for all purposes, but only whether the effect of this incorporation and certain language in the several documents was sufficient to create an ambiguity respecting arbitrability.
Paragraph 11.5 of the SLA provides:
Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement or the breach of it shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The prevailing party in any action related to or arising under this agreement shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees. Notwithstanding the above, the parties agree that each shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief from a court of competent jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability or pendency of any arbitration proceeding.
Paragraph 3.1 of the SLA provides:
All software listed in White's proposal dated 9/21/88 will be shipped to Customer within a reasonable time after execution by all parties of this agreement.
Paragraph 13.3 of the SLA provides:
This agreement and its exhibits contain the entire agreement between the parties hereto, superceding the previous agreements, representations, understanding and negotiations related to this Software License Agreement. This Software License Agreement may not be amended other than by a writing signed by an authorized representative of each of the parties hereto. Notwithstanding the above, the provisions and enforceability of the contract between Yale Materials Handling Corporation and White Storage & Retrieval Systems dated September 19, [sic] 1988, are not diminished by the terms of this Software Agreement.
Other contractual documents were a letter from White dated September 21, 1988 to which were attached the SLA, the one-page "contract" and attachments; a White letter dated September 26, 1988 which included both the contract and an updated SLA; Yale's purchase order dated October 3, 1988 and its amendment dated November 15, 1988. The printed purchase order forms issued by Yale contain a clause considered by the trial judge and one clause which may not have been so considered. Paragraph 14 of the printed provisions of the purchase order gives Yale the right to cancel, "in addition to and not in lieu of any remedies which [it] may have in law or equity." We also note, however, that Paragraph 4 of the same printed provisions on the back of the purchase order makes reference generally to the buyer's "other rights and remedies" if delivery is not in accordance with the contract.
The trial judge concluded from the moving papers that:
In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, I find that the arbitration provision contained in paragraph 11.5 of the Software Licensing Agreement has limited scope and significance and it limits itself to the provisions of that agreement and not the general broad perameters [sic] of the parties.
I feel that it was not the parties intention because of the articles which may not be directly inconsistent in their text certainly lead to inconsistent results as indicated by this, the arguments and the briefs, which I might point out were very, very well done and put the matter in proper focus and perspective, so it was easy for the Court to distill these items. I find that the parties did not specifically agree with the provisions of arbitration in its broader scope apart from the Software Licensing Agreement and I find that the case of Cohen v. Allstate Insurance Company which was cited on page 8 of Yale's brief is the controlling language, and there was no agreement to arbitrate the entire contract.
Based upon those findings, White's initial motion to compel arbitration was denied.
On motion for reconsideration the court concluded that the parties had anticipated execution of the later purchase order, that all of the items should be considered as comprising a single integrated contract, and that "it was not the intention of the parties to require arbitration of all disputes and controversy surrounding every item of the integrated contract." Thus, the trial judge declined to grant the stay or to compel arbitration because his review of the documents satisfied him that the parties' intention to preclude arbitration was expressed in the terms of the "integrated contract." To support his rulings the trial judge relied heavily upon our opinion in Cohen v. Allstate Insurance Co., 231 N.J.Super. 97, 555 A.2d 21 (App.Div.1989), certif. den., 117 N.J. 87, 563 A.2d 846 (1989).
To the extent we declined in Cohen to enforce an insurance arbitration award, it was because the insurance contract plainly and unambiguously expressed the intention of the parties that either party could demand a trial if the arbitration award exceeded the minimum limit for liability specified by the financial responsibility laws of the State. We recognized that the court may not rewrite a contract to broaden the scope of arbitration, and that parties may agree to shape and limit the scope of arbitration in their contract. See Cohen at 101, 555 A.2d 21, and the authorities there cited.
Here, however, we do not read the several interrelated clauses to produce the kind of unambiguous expression found in Cohen. To the contrary, we read the above quoted document excerpts to be subject to the interpretation that Yale's September 29 signature on the September 21 contract "for the following integrated and automated material handling system" signified acceptance of the expressly incorporated SLA. As the SLA contained a software shipment provision, and a requirement for arbitration of disputes broadly phrased as "arising out of or relating to this agreement or the breach of it ..." (emphasis added), and as the parties' dispute arises out of the tardiness in delivery of a full operational system, including both software and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singer v. Commodities Corp. (U.S.A.)
...576, 238 A.2d 185 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 51 N.J. 467, 242 A.2d 15 (1968). In Yale Materials Handling Corp. v. White Storage & Retrieval Systems, 240 N.J.Super. 370, 375, 573 A.2d 484 (App.Div.1990), this court stated [i]f New Jersey's strong policy to encourage arbitration is to be mea......
-
UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Padussis
...630–31 (Law Div.2002) (New Jersey arbitration law was patterned after the FAA); Yale Materials Handling Corp. v. White Storage & Retrieval Sys., Inc., 240 N.J.Super. 370, 375, 573 A.2d 484 (App.Div.1990) ("New Jersey law [is] consonant with federal law which liberally enforces arbitration a......
-
Young v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Inc.
...Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 115 S.Ct. 834, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995); Yale Materials Handling Corp. v. White Storage and Retrieval Systems, Inc., 240 N.J.Super. 370, 376, 573 A.2d 484 (App.Div.1990). In any event, there is no evidence in the text or legislative history of CEPA or ......
-
In re Remicade (Direct Purchaser) Antitrust Litig.
...than one which covers claims merely arising out of a contract." Yale Materials Handling Corp. v. White Storage & Retrieval Sys., Inc. , 240 N.J.Super. 370, 573 A.2d 484, 486 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.1990) (citation omitted). New Jersey courts have interpreted the term "relating to" in the ......