PEH707

PEH707

71

Two merchants, involved in a dispute, each appointed an arbitrator and agreed in writing beforehand to be bound by the decision of the arbitrators, whether it took the form of a judgment or a settlement (????). When the arbitrators could not reach an agreement, they selected a third arbitrator as an umpire, and together the three rendered a decision. The losing party refused to accept the ruling, arguing that the decision was a settlement, which required unanimity. He further claimed that the arbitrators should not have appointed an umpire, as this might have led to one arbitrator being outvoted. Samuel Mendez de Sola upheld the validity of the arbitration decision. See also Case No. 300.

9

46

1786-05-26

1786-06-27

MendezS

Mendez de Sola, Samuel

AcohenDav

Acohen d'Azevedo, David