Skip to content
DWT logo
People Expertise Insights
About Locations Careers
Search
People
Expertise
Insights
About
Locations
Careers
Search
Blog Posts

Notice Defense Is Subject to Arbitration, Not "Predicate Requirement" to Enforcement of Arbitration Clause

01.28.09
Share
Print this page
The contract in this case stated a time limit on claims -- 21 days after occurrence of the event giving rise to the claim (fairly typical AIA clause).   The subcontractor argued that the arbitration clause did not apply because (1) the contractor failed to comply with the 21 day notice rule and (2) the 21 day notice rule was a "condition precedent" to enforcement of the arbitration clause.Division 1 held that the notice defense is for the arbitrator to decide and was not a condition precedent.  In distinguishing the Mike Johnson case, however, the Court seemed to suggest that the parties are generally free to rewrite the arbitration clause to make the 21 day notice rule a true condition precedent (and thereby preserve the notice issue for judicial -- not arbitral - resolution).Copy of opinion available here Download file

Related Articles

DWT logo
©1996-2022 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
NAVIGATE
Home People Expertise Insights
About Locations Careers Events Blogs
STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe to stay informed.

Subscribe
Employees
DWT Collaborate
EEO
Affiliations
Legal notices
Privacy policy
©1996-2022 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Close
Close

CAUTION - Before you proceed, please note: By clicking “accept” you agree that our review of the information contained in your e-mail and any attachments will not create an attorney-client relationship, and will not prevent any lawyer in our firm from representing a party in any matter where that information is relevant, even if you submitted the information in good faith to retain us.