One way to reduce the cost of arbitration procedures is by proceeding carefully. Disputes over the interpretation of an arbitration agreement are surprisingly frequent, and their resolution – through negotiations or intermediate hearings – is a costly matter. In the latest edition, Deborah Ruff and Charles Golsong gave instructions for the negotiation of an ICC arbitration agreement involving a state or state unit. Our questions and answers deal with the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. The policies contained a clause of Brazilian law and a compromise clause with a seat in London. The explicit choice of the material contract is a strong indication of the parties` intent with respect to the arbitration agreement, unless there are other factors indicating a different conclusion. This may include the terms of the arbitration agreement itself or the consequences on its effectiveness in choosing the appropriate right of the material contract. While there were powerful factors in the implicit choice of Brazilian law as the law of the arbitration agreement, two important factors attracted attention in the other direction. First, in the 1980s, the Supreme Court took a guess in favor of using arbitration in decisions with the FAA. He decided at Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v.
Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983), that when it comes to a particular dispute in an arbitration clause, the courts must resolve any doubts in favour of arbitration. Such a presumption has favoured the “federal liberal policy that favours arbitration agreements, regardless of the state`s substantive or contrary policy.” This statement of federal policy served as an integral part of arbitration law and justified the extraordinary extension of the FAA that followed. I. The recommended arbitration agreement for inclusion in contracts (agreements) as a compromise clause or as a separate arbitration agreement: If adopted, the AFA would effectively eliminate all mandatory arbitration procedures in the field of employment or consumption, as well as in the case of cartels and civil rights. In its opinion on the results of the Congress, the proposed AFA refers in particular to the problems faced by workers and consumers, who have little effective choice in concluding binding arbitration agreements, on the adverse effects on the development of public law and on the absence of judicial review.67 Sulamérica has been the subject of litigation as a result of insurance contracts for a hydroelectric power plant in Brazil.