Weinrott v. Carp
New York Court of Appeals
32 N.Y.2d 190, 344 N.Y.S.2d 848, 298 N.E.2d 42 (1973)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
George Weinrott and others (collectively, Weinrott) (plaintiffs) and Emile Carp and others (collectively, Carp) (defendants) entered into a license agreement. In 1967, Weinrott brought an arbitration claim against Carp pursuant to their agreement’s arbitration clause. The clause provided for the arbitration of “all disputes, controversies or claims arising hereunder” and “the interpretation of any of the provisions or the performance called for thereunder.” Carp sought a court order staying the arbitration on the ground that the arbitration clause was procured by fraud. The New York Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the denial of Carp’s requested stay due to the lack of evidence that the arbitration clause was fraudulently induced. In doing so, the Court of Appeals adhered to its 1957 decision in Matter of Wrap-Vertiser Corp. (Plotnick), which held that whether a contract was the product of fraudulent inducement was a question for courts rather than for arbitrators. The arbitration resulted in a $30,000 award to Weinrott. The supreme court and appellate division upheld the arbitral award. Carp appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wachtler, 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.
