Arbitration Agreement Translation
As it applied to the provision of the Westmont Arbitral Tribunal, the Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence showed that the applicants of the owner of the mobile home did not really have a practical choice to accept the lease agreements that contained the arbitration clause. The ICAC rules recommend the following text of the arbitration clause (here you can download the translation into other languages): the Court of Appeal refused to enforce the arbitration agreement. While the court acknowledged that ramos` express confirmation of reading and understanding of the English contract containing the arbitration clause would normally tie it to its terms, the court argued that “the circumstances of this case are not typical.” The tribunal ruled that “there was no mutual consent” for an arbitration “because the arbitration agreement was hidden in the English treaty and did not appear” in the Spanish translation. As a result, Westlake`s failure to provide a translation of the arbitration clause of the sales contract meant that it was unable to prove that Ramos was willing to settle its dispute with Westlake. However, in the version of the treaty translated into Spanish, the arbitration clause contained in the English version was omitted. Ramos later sued Westlake, claiming that an optional insurance policy he purchased by car violated California`s laws against unfair competition. Westlake requested that arbitration proceedings be commenced against Ramos` claim on the basis of the arbitration clause. In that decision, the court said language barriers did not justify a finding of scrupulous scruples if there was no evidence that the plaintiffs had been subjected to “high-pressure tactics” to induce the plaintiffs to sign on the spot without verifying the conditions. The court cited Ragone v. Atl. Video at the Manhattan Ctr., 595 F.3d 115, 121 (2nd cir. 2010) in which the court stated that “New York courts have repeatedly held that even the fact that a potential employee has an imperfect understanding of English does not exempt the employee from making the effort to have the document explained to him.” In accepting the defendant`s request for arbitration, the Tribunal took into account the fact that there was no evidence that the claimants had ever taken steps to have them declare the arbitration agreement or that they had asked the defendant`s secretary, who spoke Chinese, to translate or explain the document to them in English.
Similarly, the Court held that the applicants had never sought to negotiate the terms of the arbitration agreement and that they had never requested a translated version of the agreement. Furthermore, the applicants did not argue that the defendants used high-pressure tactics to induce the applicants to sign the documents. . . .