Resolving these arguments requires us to analyze, under the standards of Rosenthal v. Each agreement contained a clause, which respondents individually initialed, that required the parties to submit disputes to arbitration. The adoption of the prescribed mode is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the exercise of the power to contract at all, and that power can be exercised in no other manner.” (Ibid., fns.omitted.)That parallel authority suggests that if a statute prescribes the only method in which a valid contract can be made, a contract that fails to follow that method is void.
We evaluate the record to determine if the order was correct as a matter of law. Instead, Valenti generally relies on the strong California preference for enforcing arbitration agreements, and contends arbitrators have sole authority to decide the legality of the contracts and arbitration clauses. Rptr.3d 422.) This could mean that fraud claims such as these, based on fraudulent inducement of an underlying contractual arrangement, normally might be arbitrable, as in a case of disappointed expectations in the performance of the contract.
On January 19, 2007, the superior court denied Valenti's motion to compel arbitration. We accordingly need not reach the arguments concerning unconscionability of the arbitration clauses. Duffens paid ,000, Shaulis paid ,000, and Marnell paid ,000.3.
The ruling stated the agreements violated the dating service statutes, by failing to contain provisions complying with section 1694.3. We affirm the trial court's order denying Valenti's motion to compel arbitration. The arbitration clauses required a panel of three arbitrators.
That section requires such contracts to have provisions that address the purchaser's or successor's rights to relief from contractual obligations in the event of death or disability of the purchaser, and that allow for refunds and relief from contractual obligations in the event that the buyer relocates his or her primary residence more than 50 miles from the dating service office. omitted.) “A motion to compel arbitration is, in essence, a request for specific performance of a contractual agreement. Each party had the ability to choose one arbitrator and the third arbitrator would be chosen by the first two. 689.) However, under Loving & Evans, “the legality of the underlying agreement should first be judicially determined.” (Green, supra, at p.
(§ 1694.3, subds.(a) & (b).) The court impliedly found another violation of the dating service statutes when it noted in its ruling: “Also, it is alleged that the contracts were entered into under misleading circumstances.” (§ 1694.4, subd. Rptr.2d 659.) “[U]nder both federal and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. The trial court is therefore called upon to determine whether there is a duty to arbitrate the matter; necessarily, the court must examine and construe the agreement, at least to a limited extent. omitted.)Courts may be called upon to determine the legality of contracts either before or after arbitration has taken place. The clauses required that the third arbitrator have at least seven years of experience as “a Ph. Psychologist, specializing in marriage and family counseling.”4. 689, the proper reading of the rule established by Loving & Evans v.