Wolsey, Ltd. v. Foodmaker, Inc.

Caution
144 F.3d 1205·98 Daily Journal DAR 5235·1998 WL 257282·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 10099·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3793
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 19, 1998No. 96-56345California3,519 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Scannlain, J.

In this suit to compel arbitration, we must examine the' interplay between federal and state law in the application of a contract’s arbitration clause.

I

In February of 1991, Foodmaker International (“Foodmaker”), a franchiser of Jack in the Box fast food restaurants, entered into a Development Agreement with Wolsey, Ltd. (‘Wolsey”), a Hong Kong corporation, which gave Wolsey the right to develop Jack in the Box restaurants in Hong Kong and Macau for five years. The Development Agreement established a three-step dispute resolution process to be used for all disputes between Foodmaker and Wolsey: (1) a senior executive officer meeting; (2) non-binding arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association; and (3) litigation in federal court.

In March of 1994, Wolsey invoked the dispute resolution procedure in the Development Agreement. Wolsey alleged that it had been fraudulently induced to enter into the Development Agreement by the express and implied misrepresentations of various Food-maker executives that, if Wolsey successfully opened Jack in the Box restaurants in Hong Kong, Foodmaker would give Wolsey similar development rights to expand into China and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.