行业新闻

原文：
Valve Corporation appeals the district court's judgment declining to vacate an arbitration award, but directing the arbitrator to decide one disputed issue. We review the district court's decision de novo.Check Valves United States v. Park Place Assocs., 563 F.3d 907, 918 (9th Cir. 2009). The facts are well known to the parties, so we recite them only as necessary. Under the parties' contract, any dispute over royalties was to be arbitrated. Activision disputed almost the entire amount of royalties determined by the KPMG audit and specifically requested an offset for certain Butterfly Valves returned merchandise. Under the arbitration agreement, this is all that Activision was required to do to present the offset dispute to the arbitrator for resolution. The arbitrator, however, made an award without deciding the offset issue. Although Activision drew her attention to the issue and asked her to reopen the award to consider it, she declined, concluding that her authority was "limited to the resolution of Disputes agreed upon by the parties . . . ." The arbitrator wrote, "[s]ince there is no agreementSafety valves that this is an actual Dispute, this issue cannot be arbitrated by me." This was error. The arbitration agreement does not require the parties to agree on whether a matter is in dispute; if a properly noticed matter pertains to amounts owed, it must be arbitrated. Whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute for arbitration is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 82 (2002). The Reducing Valves district court held that the amount of royalties was arbitrable, and we agree. Arbitrators can exceed their powers by failing to arbitrate all matters submitted to them by agreement. W. Employers Ins. Co. v. Jefferies & Co., Inc., 958 F.2d 258, 262 (9th Cir. 1992). That happened here. We reject Valve's argument that the offset dispute had to be newly audited before it could be arbitrated. The dispute arose only when Activision received the audit's result and saw the auditor's calculations. TheAPI Cast Steel Valves arbitrator did not rely on the lack of a second audit in deciding not to arbitrate the offset issue, and the arbitration agreement does not require a second audit before the element of the dispute can be decided by arbitration.
原文来自：http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/24/nyregion/engineers-battle-to-restart-pump-to-halt-sewage-flow.html

Engineers Battle to Restart Pump to Halt Sewage Flow;是由上海一环流体控制设备有限公司提供的阀门新闻，中文译文仅供参考，以下提供站内导航搜索：

中国调节阀网调节阀产品调节阀知识调节阀厂商调节阀博客调节阀行业新闻

以下是参考译文：

译文：阀公司诉Activision暴雪股份有限公司
阀公司上诉地方法院的判决拒绝迁出仲裁裁决，但仲裁员的决定，指示一个闸阀争议问题。我们回顾了地区法院的决定从头。美国诉公园广场联合公司。，563 F.3d 907，918（第9西尔。2009）。事实是众所周知的当事人，所以我们只需要他们背诵。根据双方的合同，任何超过特许权使用费纠纷是可以仲裁。几乎Activision的争议由毕马威会计师事务截止阀所审计确定特许权使用费的全部金额，并为某些具体要求退货所抵消。根据该仲裁协议的，这是所有Activision公司是目前需要做的偏移量为解决争端提交仲裁。仲裁员，但是，在没有决定奖励的偏移问题。虽然Activision公司提请她注意的有关问题，并要求止回阀她重新考虑它的裁决，她拒绝了，最后，她的权力是“仅限于解决争端各方商定。。。。”仲裁员说，“[的]因斯没有协议，这是一个实际的纠纷，这个问题不能由我仲裁。”这是错误的。仲裁协议并不要求当事人同意就是否是一个有争议的问题，如果有适当发现的问题涉及欠款，必须仲裁。双方当事人是否已提交了一份特别的争议仲裁是司法的决心问题，除非当事人另有约定。豪萨姆诉蝶阀添惠雷诺兹公司，美国537 79 82（2002年）。地区法院认为，特许权使用费数额仲裁的，和我们同意。仲裁员可以不超出仲裁协议提交给他们的所有事项的权力。 W.雇主宏。公司诉杰弗里柱塞阀斯公司，公司，958卷第258，262（第9西尔。1992年）。这发生在这里。我们反对Valve的论点，即抵消新争端都必须经审核才可以仲裁。只有在发生争端安全阀的Activision收到审计的结果，看到了审计人员的计算。仲裁员并不依赖于第二个审计决定不缺乏仲裁失调问题，仲裁协议没有规定之前，争端元素的第二个审计可以通过仲裁决定的。

更多新闻