Originally from Journal of American Arbitration (JAA)

Preview Page

I.  OVERVIEW 

II. THE COURT’S DECISION 

A.  The Arbitration Clauses Contained in the Account Agreements  Were  Not “Separate and Independent Contracts” 

B.  The District Court Erred When It Ruled that the Parol Evidence  Rule  Did Not Bar Glazer’s Testimony 

C. Glazer Was Not Fraudulently Induced to Sign the Account  Agreements Containing the Arbitration Clauses 

D. The Arbitration Clause Contained in the 1996 Option Agreement  was Rendered Unenforceable Because it was Modified and/or  Superceded by Subsequent Events and/or Conduct