Arbitration: A Look at its Form and Performance
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 113, Issue 3
Abstract
With arbitration, a person or panel approved by the disputants is charged with establishing an equitable settlement. At least in the construction industry, arbitration is primarily limited to smaller disputes between the contractor and owner, or the designer and owner. Now, however, as the costs and time required to litigate disputes increases, there is much greater interest in arbitration, and new forms of it are developing. Alternate approaches to arbitration are discussed herein, and their performance is evaluated. Special attention is given to the form and performance of arbitration used by state agencies.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
American Arbitration Association, Construction Industry Arbitration Rules, American Arbitration Association, New York, N.Y., 1974.
2.
Coulson, R., “Dispute Management Under Modern Construction Systems,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 46, 1983, pp. 127–135.
3.
Florida Arbitrational Board, Summary of Settlements for Arbitrated Hearings, State of Florida, Tallahassee, Fla., 1985.
4.
Florida State Statutes, Section 337.185, State Arbitration Board, Tallahassee, Fla., 1984.
5.
McOllough, P. R., “Eisenhower Memorial Tunnel—How the Colorado Department of Highways Improved Contracting Practices and Management,” Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, San Francisco, Calif., Vol. 1, 1981, pp. 1651–1668.
6.
North Dakota Civil Code, Section 24‐02‐26, Controversies to Be Arbitrated, Bismark, N. Dak., 1976.
7.
“An Overview of Mississippi's Construction Arbitration Act,” Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 53, Sep., 1983, pp. 501–520.
8.
Report to the Governor and to the Legislature, Office of Administrative Hearings, State of California, Sacramento, Calif., 1985.
9.
“Resolution of Contract Claims,” State of California Statutes, Chapter 466, Section 90, Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, Article 7.1, Sacramento, Calif., 1984.
10.
Richards, B. J., “Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions and Construction Contracts,” Federal Insurance Counsel Quarterly, Vol. 34, 1983, pp. 95–110.
11.
Standard Specifications, Section 109.10, Disputed Claims for Extra Compensation, State of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., 1984, pp. 67–68.
12.
Standard Specifications, Notice of Claim, State of Arizona, Phoenix, Ariz., 3 pp.
13.
Standard Specifications, Section 1109.13, Arbitration, State of Iowa, Department of Transportation, Ames, Iowa, 1984, pp. 71–72.
14.
State of Kansas, “Arbitration,” Special Provision to the Standard Specifications, Topeka, Kans., 1980, 2 pp.
15.
Binding Procedures for Settlement of Disputed Contractor's Claim, State of Oklahoma, Department of Transportation, Oklahoma City, Okla., Apr. 23, 1984, 4 pp.
16.
Sweet, J., Legal Aspects of Architecture, Engineering and the Construction Process, West Publishing, Racine, Wis., 1986.
17.
Thomas, H. R., Hester, W. T., Hunter, J. M., Logan, P. A., and Willenbrock, J. H., Highway Construction Contract Claims: Causes and Resolution Practices, Report to Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA‐TS‐85‐214, Tun., 1985, 245 pp.
18.
“Uniform Arbitration Act,” State of Delaware Statutes, Section 10, Part 4, Chapter 57, Dover, Del., 1974, pp. 308–318.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 113 • Issue 3 • September 1987
Pages: 353 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 ASCE.
History
Published online: Sep 1, 1987
Published in print: Sep 1987
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.