IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Seat: Las Vegas, NV
Arbitrator: Zarak O. Ali, Arb.
REDACTED ARBITRATION AWARD Construction Dispute
All party names, dates, and identifying details have been removed or altered for confidentiality. This award is published solely as a sample of reasoning and structure, not as legal advice.
I. Background
This dispute arises out of a construction contract between [Owner] and
[Contractor] concerning a commercial project located in Las Vegas, NV.
The contract contained a broad arbitration clause requiring that disputes regarding delay,
defective work, and payment be resolved by binding arbitration.
Owner alleged substantial delay and defective workmanship in the building envelope.
Contractor denied material breach and asserted that delays were caused by design changes
and late approvals. The record consists of documentary exhibits, sworn witness statements,
and a one-day hearing held by videoconference.
II. Jurisdiction and Applicable Law
Jurisdiction is grounded in the parties’ written agreement to arbitrate. The Federal
Arbitration Act supports enforcement of that agreement. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v.
Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (courts are to rigorously enforce
arbitration agreements according to their terms).
Substantive issues are governed by the contract and the governing state law on
construction and contract remedies. As in United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car
Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960), the arbitrator’s task is to interpret and apply the agreement,
not to impose personal notions of industrial justice.
III. Findings of Fact (Redacted)
- The parties executed a guaranteed maximum price contract with a detailed schedule.
- Weather and permitting issues caused some delay, but a significant portion of later
delay resulted from Contractor’s staffing and sequencing decisions. - Certain waterproofing details were not performed in accordance with the specifications,
requiring remedial work. - Owner held retainage and offset change orders; Contractor asserted unpaid balances.
IV. Analysis
The burden of proving material breach lies with the party asserting it. The evidence
shows defective work that required correction, but not a failure that went to the essence
of the contract. Applying ordinary contract principles, the more appropriate remedy is
an offset for proven costs of cure rather than termination-level damages.
Delay is treated similarly. Neither side established with precision the number of days
attributable solely to the other. In such circumstances, an arbitrator must do what Judge
Learned Hand described in another context: decide as best he can on the evidentiary
record before him rather than remain inert in the face of uncertainty.
V. Award (Redacted)
- Owner is awarded a credit for remedial work in the amount of [Redacted].
- Contractor is awarded the unpaid contract balance less that credit, for a net award of
[Redacted]. - Each party shall bear its own legal fees. Arbitration costs are allocated as set out in
the administrative body’s rules.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, all remaining claims and counterclaims not expressly
granted are denied. This award is made in full settlement of all claims submitted. It is
final and binding on the parties.
Date Redacted
Zarak O. Ali, Arb.