A submission agreement is a contract in which the parties agree to submit a particular existing controversy to arbitration and to abide by the award of the arbitrator or arbitration panel. The agreement is governed by the rules applicable to contracts generally, and consideration is supplied by the mutual covenants of the parties to be bound by the award rendered.
Title: Arizona's Submission to Arbitration in Disputes between Building Construction Contractor and Owner Keywords: Arizona, submission, arbitration, dispute, building construction contractor, owner. Introduction: In Arizona, when a dispute arises between a building construction contractor and an owner, both parties can choose to submit their case to arbitration. This process provides an alternative means of resolving conflicts outside of court. In this detailed description, we will explore the various types of arbitration available in Arizona and how they can be beneficial for both the contractor and the owner. 1. Mandatory Arbitration: In certain circumstances, Arizona law mandates arbitration for construction disputes. This type of arbitration is required when both parties have previously agreed in writing to resolve their conflicts via arbitration. Mandatory arbitration offers a cost-effective and efficient way to settle disputes, ensuring a quick resolution that avoids lengthy court battles. 2. Voluntary Arbitration: Apart from mandatory arbitration, Arizona grants the option of voluntary arbitration for construction disputes. If both parties mutually agree to submit their dispute to arbitration, they can do so voluntarily. This alternative dispute resolution method allows both the contractor and the owner to retain control over the outcome while avoiding the uncertainties associated with litigation. 3. Binding Arbitration: Binding arbitration is a form of arbitration that both parties must agree to and obligates them to abide by the arbitrator's final decision. After a hearing, the arbitrator or arbitration panel issues a binding ruling that is legally enforceable, ensuring a swift resolution to the dispute. Binding arbitration is often more expedient and cost-effective than traditional litigation, making it an attractive option for contractors and owners seeking a prompt resolution. 4. Non-binding Arbitration: Non-binding arbitration provides a more flexible approach. In this type of arbitration, the arbitrator's decision is advisory and does not legally bind either party. Non-binding arbitration is often employed as a preliminary step to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each party's case before considering additional negotiation or mediation options. 5. Construction Industry Arbitration Tribunal: In addition to standard arbitration, Arizona has established specialized arbitration tribunals to facilitate construction-related disputes. The Construction Industry Arbitration Tribunal (CAT) is a dedicated entity composed of expert arbitrators with a deep understanding of construction laws and practices. Parties involved in construction projects can benefit from the technical expertise provided by CAT, ensuring a fair and knowledgeable resolution. Conclusion: In Arizona, submitting construction disputes between contractors and owners to arbitration is a widely favored alternative to traditional litigation. With both mandatory and voluntary options available, parties can choose between binding or non-binding arbitration based on their specific needs. Additionally, the specialized Construction Industry Arbitration Tribunal provides valuable expertise in resolving construction disputes efficiently. By opting for arbitration, contractors and owners can save time, money, and maintain a more amicable working relationship.
