![United States / 20 June 2003 / U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit / Standard Bent Glass Corp. v. Glassrobots OY [Fin.] / 02-2169](./images/case-law.png)
United States / 20 June 2003 / U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit / Standard Bent Glass Corp. v. Glassrobots OY [Fin.] / 02-2169
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit |
| Date | 20 June 2003 |
| Parties | Standard Bent Glass Corp. v. Glassrobots OY [Fin.] |
| Case number | 02-2169 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(2) |
| Source | 333 F.3d 440 |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | An exchange of forms between the Buyer, a Pennsylvanian corporation, and the Seller, a Finish corporation, resulted in the performance of a sales contract which was not signed by the parties. A dispute arose and the Buyer filed a complaint against the Seller in state court. After removal to federal court, the Seller filed a motion to compel arbitration under an appendix to the standard sales agreement that the Buyer claimed it had never received. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the Seller’s motion and the Buyer appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court decision and granted the motion to compel arbitration. It held that the Seller’s standard agreement included three references to industry guidelines which provided for binding arbitration. The Court interpreted the Article II(2) NYC requirements of “signature” and “exchange of letters and telegrams” as being applicable to both “an arbitral clause in the contract” and “an arbitral agreement”. The Court ruled that there was a valid arbitration agreement because the Buyer was bound by the Seller’s terms contained in the exchange of letters. The Court concluded that the arbitration agreement was incorporated by reference into the contract. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
