In Brief
A shipping agent and a seafood exporter entered into a contract evidenced by a Multimodal Transport Document (Bill of Lading) containing an arbitration clause in its printed terms. The exporter sued for recovery of cargo value but the agent sought to refer the dispute to arbitration. The lower courts rejected the arbitration plea, treating the printed clause as not binding because it was unsigned. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot selectively rely on a Bill of Lading as the basis for its lawsuit while rejecting the binding arbitration clause also contained therein. The Court affirmed that arbitration agreements need only be in writing, not signed, and that express agreement to be bound by all terms and conditions on the Bill of Lading incorporates the arbitration clause. The appeals were allowed and the matter was remitted for arbitration.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.