Standard Bent Glass Corp. v. Glassrobots Oy
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
333 F.3d 440 (2003)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Standard Bent Glass Corporation (Bent Glass) (plaintiff), a Pennsylvania business, negotiated with Glassrobots Oy (Glassrobots) (defendant), a Finnish business, to purchase glass-fabricating machinery. Bent Glass sent an offer to Glassrobots with explicit terms. Glassrobots replied with an offer letter and its own standard sales agreement. Glassrobots’s standard sales agreement referenced Orgalime S92, a set of industry guidelines that included a binding arbitration clause for all contractual disputes. The parties continued to send sales documents back and forth, debating the terms and failing to officially sign the forms. Each transmission included reference to the Orgalime S92 arbitration provision. Despite not signing any of the agreements, the parties continued to perform the core terms of the sale, exchanging money for the equipment. After receiving the equipment, Bent Glass noticed defects in the product and filed a complaint against Glassrobots in state court. The case was removed to federal court, and Glassrobots moved to compel arbitration under the Orgalime S92 arbitration provision. The district court granted the motion to compel, and Bent Glass appealed to the Third Circuit, claiming that it never agreed in writing to the arbitration provision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scirica, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
