Legal Opinion · Dissent

Robert E. Hull v. Norcom, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Norman J. Kauffmann, an Individual

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided January 24, 1985No. 84-8104Published

1DissentNichols, Senior Circuit Judge

I dissent, with respect and deference. The case is close, but I think the policy of the law to favor arbitration should save the day for appellant. Clauses 7 and 10 are somewhat inconsistent, but rules of construction require us to give meaning and effect to both clauses if possible. See, e.g., Brown v. Financial Services Corp., 489 F.2d 144 (5th Cir.1974); Chase Manhattan Bank v. First Marion Bank, 437 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir.1971); Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170, 418 N.E.2d 377, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862 (N.Y.1981); Integrated Sales, Inc. v. Maxwell Corporation of America, 94 A.D.2d 221, 463 N.Y.S.2d 809…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Weiss v. WeissNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  3. Hamer v. . SidwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  4. Purchasing Associates, Inc. v. WeitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1963
  5. In re the Arbitration between Waldron & GoddessNew York Court of Appeals · 1984

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API