DocketNumber: No. CV00-0275134-S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 3871
Judges: BOOTH, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/20/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On September 20, 2000, the plaintiff, Patricia Emond, filed the present action as a small claims matter against Gateway alleging that Gateway negligently advised her to reformat the hard disk drive of her computer. On December 4, 2000, Gateway moved to transfer the matter to the regular docket and that motion was granted on December 12, 2000.
The plaintiff purchased a personal computer from Gateway in December of 1997. Pursuant to the plaintiff's purchase of her Gateway computer, she accepted Gateway's Standard Terms and Conditions Agreement.
Paragraph 10 of that agreement contained the following language:
10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement, its interpretation or any related purchase shall be resolved exclusively and finally by arbitration. . . .
CT Page 3872
At the same time that the plaintiff contracted to purchase the computer, the plaintiff purchased a "site service agreement." The site service agreement contains no specific language providing for arbitration of dispute.
The plaintiff alleges that her claim against Gateway is grounded in its negligence in failing to fulfill its obligations under the "site service agreement.
Gateway claims that any obligations which it has to the plaintiff arising from the "site service agreement," are nevertheless covered by the broad arbitration clause contained in paragraph 10 of the "standard terms and conditions agreement."
DISCUSSION
Because this is a transaction occurring in interstate commerce, Gateway's request to compel arbitration is made pursuant to
The Act provides that the issue must be referable to arbitration in order for the court to order arbitration. It is only upon the court's satisfaction that the issue involved in such a suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under the agreement that the court shall stay the proceedings and order arbitration
The Federal Arbitration Act "expresses a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration in . . . commercial disputes. . . ." National Union FireInsurance Co. v. Belco Petroleum Corp.,
On a motion to compel arbitration, the court's inquiry is limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, and, (2) whether the specific dispute falls within the scope of the agreement.Houlihan v. Offerman Co., Inc.,
The Court finds that both factors are present here. The plaintiff would attempt to bifurcate the "standard terms and condition agreement," from the "site service agreement." It is undisputed that the service agreement was bought in conjunction with the purchase of the computer. This court is convinced that the site service agreement is a "related purchase, " which "shall be resolved exclusively and finally by arbitration."
The plaintiff attempts to create ambiguity in the meaning of the purchase contract. She appears to argue that it is in some manner inherently unfair that the plaintiff be bound to arbitrate the site service agreement when that agreement contains no specific obligation to arbitrate. The plaintiff sites no court authority for its position. Conversely the defendant sites Ms. Dealer Service Corps. v. Franklin,
Relying on the arbitration clause in the Buyers Order, Ms. Dealer filed a petition in the federal district court to compel Franklin to arbitrate her claims against it. The district court originally granted the petition. On reconsideration, however, the district court dismissed the petition on the ground that Ms. Dealer was not a signatory to the Buyers Order and, thus, did not have standing to compel arbitration, Ms. Dealer CT Page 3874 subsequently appealed.
In analyzing Ms. Dealers right to enforce arbitration, the Eleventh Circuit wrote as follows:
"In enacting the FAA, Congress demonstrated a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements . . . Therefore, questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitrations . . . Notwithstanding this strong federal policy, however, arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit . . . As a general rule, therefore, the parties' intentions control, but those intentions are generously construed as to issues of arbitrability . . ."
[citations and internal quotation marks omitted] Ms. Dealer
The Eighth Circuit concluded that Franklin's suit against Ms. Dealer was controlled by the arbitration requirement contained in the "Buyers Order."
This court concludes that the plaintiff, Patricia Emond's, dispute with Gateway under the terms of her service agreement are controlled by the general terms requiring arbitration contained in Gateway's "standard terms and condition agreement."
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's proceedings against Gateway 2000 are stayed and the plaintiff is directed to submit the dispute to arbitration.
By the Court,
Kevin E. Booth Judge of the Superior Court
MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin , 177 F.3d 942 ( 1999 )
national-union-fire-insurance-company-of-pittsburgh-pa-new-hampshire , 88 F.3d 129 ( 1996 )
Edward HOULIHAN; Agnes Houlihan, Appellees, v. OFFERMAN & ... , 31 F.3d 692 ( 1994 )
Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon , 107 S. Ct. 2332 ( 1987 )
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction ... , 103 S. Ct. 927 ( 1983 )