Horton Automatics v. The Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of
America, AFL – CIO, 2013 WL 59204 (5th Cir. 2013)
Issue: Can a court set aside the order of the arbitrator according to which Ruben de la Garza is reinstated?
Rule: Federal Arbitration Act, par. 10 where the grounds for judicial review are enumerated.
Application: Many lawyers advise their clients to insert provisions in the covenantal agreements for arbitration that insist on the application of the law of the jurisdiction to the facts by the arbitrators and provide the sides with the right of appealing the decision if they are not satisfied with it or believe that the arbitrator exceeded his authority (arbitration clause). Interesting fact is that the people while negotiating and signing the contract are more inclined to insert an arbitration clause in it than when the dispute is already a reality.
Courts have limited merits to modify or vacate the arbitration awards. It has been stated that “arbitral awards are nearly impervious to judicial oversight" (Teamster’s Local Union No. 42 v. Supervalu, 2000). In paragraph 10(a), sec. 1 through 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act are enumerates the grounds as fraud, evident partiality, arbitrator’s misconduct and misuse of power that can lead to juridical review.
As a conclusion it can be said that in the case of Horton Automatics v. The Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America no one of the grounds for the review is in evidence.
Establishment Clause
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc. v. DeWeese
633 F. 3d 424 (6th Cir. 2011)
Issue: Does the poster with the Ten Commandments hanged in DeWeese’s room violate the establishment clause, according to the American Civil Rights Union(ACLU) of Ohio Foundation, Inc., and why.
Rule: First amendment to the United States Constitution that guarantees freedom to religion, free speech, etc.
Application: The Establishment clause is oriented towards the concerns of minority’s members faith who do not want the establishment of one state religion for the whole nation. The Virginia Statute for religious freedom was drafted in 1777 by Thomas Jefferson and much later was introdused in the General Assembly. Judge DeWeese argued that the poster is not promoting any religion but expressed his philosophical views of moral absolutism and relativism.
Conclusion: Since the poster showed the Ten Commandments which are an expression of human values that are an epitome of human virtues related to the whole humanity it should not be considered that they promote certain religion and do not violate the Establishment clause.
Contracts
Issue: What happens with a settlement when one of the parties is minor and the settlement needs court approval in case that the minor party dies before the approval?
Rule: Alabama survival statute, par. 6-5-462, Ala. Code of 1975 that declares that if there is a contract it “survives in favour of decedent’s personel representative, regardless if the fact that the decendent’s representative has not filed an action before his death.” (Alabama Supreme Court, 2013)
Application: The minor D. V. G. was injured in a car accident and his attorney negotiated $50000 damages. The dettlement was presented before the court for approval since D. V. G. was minor. Meanwhile he died in an other car accident not related to the case that is discussed. The insurance company after his death decided that they are not bound to the contract any more and wanted to declare the settlement void.
Conclusion: The settlement remains valid according the abovementioned statute of the Alabama Code.
Contract Performance
Issue: What happens if a contract is not executed according to the preliminary negotiated between the parties specification.
Rule: The statues of the Contract law in the part of breach of contract, where a substantial(specific) performance is granted first and then if the indecencies are not eliminated, the concerned party has the right of further actions.
Application: Specific performance is an equitable remedy which comes ahead when legal remedies (monetary damages) are inappropriate or inadequate. In this case there is a bad performance of construction work that was exactly specified in the contract. The client requires the fulfillment of all specific works as they are contracted or they should go on the breach of the contract
Judge Foti wrote in Hill v. Raffone: “Specific performance is an equitable remedy permitting courts to compel the performance of contracts for the sale of real property, and certain other contracts, pursuant to the principles of equity." (Hill v. Raffone, 2007)
Conclusion: The decision of the court, reported by Justice Foti is the only adequate and completely serves the regulations and the spirit of the contract law.
Defamation
Issue: What would be the results of Richard’s suit against Dun, alleging label on the basis of statements he had made in the letters.
Rule: First amendment to the U. S. constitution in close connection with tort law.
Application: As an employee in the Dun’s Construction Corp, Richard carelessly backs Dun’s truck into a passenger’s vehicle. Extremely angry Dun fires him and writes letters to the union where Richard is a member and to all other construction companies around stating that Richard is the worst driver he had seen. Richard filed a suit against him for defamation on the basis of libel that requires the false statement to be written in letters or spread in a similar way.
Since in the U. S. defamation law there are well-known two forms: Slander – when the false statement is outspoken and Libel where the false statement has to be spread in writing, Richard used the second basis.
Conclusion: Richard will win the lawsuit because the three necessary evidences are at the disposal of the court and the qualification that dun has made in his letter cannot be justified with two accidents for six months.
Works cited
Alabama Code of 1975, Alabama survival statute, par. 6-5-462, Web on Feb. 27, 2016
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc. v. DeWeese
633 F. 3d 424 (6th Cir. 2011) Web on Feb. 27, 2016
Federal Arbitration Act (Pub. L. 68–401, 43 Stat. 883, (1925), codified at 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) Web on Feb. 27, 2016
Hill v. Raffone, 930 A. 2d 788 (2007) Web on Feb. 27, 2016
Horton Automatics v. The Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America, AFL – CIO, 2013 WL 59204 (5th Cir. 2013), Web on Feb. 27, 2016
Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. Supervalu, 212 F.3d 59, 61 (1st Cir. 2000), Web on Feb. 27, 2016
