ESAB AUTOMATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HESCO SALES, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
ESAB Automation appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a breach of contract and warranty dispute over a robotic welder. The court reversed, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act governs the parties' arbitration agreement and requires the dispute to be arbitrated in Fort Collins, Colorado.
The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act governs the arbitration agreement because the controversy involves interstate commerce, and therefore the parties' arbitration agreement must be enforced and the dispute must be arbitrated in Fort Collins, Colorado as agreed.
[1] The Federal Arbitration Act governs disputes involving interstate commerce, mandating arbitration as agreed by the parties.
[2] A contract for the sale of goods shipped from one state to another involves interstate commerce for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it is undisputed on this record that the parties to the purchase and sale agreement herein agreed to arbitrate any controversy or claim arising from their agreement, which arbitration was to take place in Fort Collins, Colorado”
Establishes that the parties had a clear arbitration agreement with a specific venue in Colorado
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceESAB Automation, a Colorado-based seller, sold a robotic welder to Hesco Sales, a Florida buyer. The purchase and sale agreement contained an arbitrat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Compel Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant/seller ESAB Automation, Inc. from a non-final order denying its motion to compel arbitration in an action brought by the plaintiff/buyer Hesco Sales, Inc. for breach of contract and breach of warranties arising from the sale of a robotic welder. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and reverse. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v).
First, it is undisputed on this record that the parties to the purchase and sale agreement herein agreed to arbitrate any controversy or claim arising from their agreement, which arbitration was to take place in Fort Collins, Colorado. All agree that the Florida Arbitration Act is inapplicable because the contracted-for arbitration was to take place outside of Florida. Trojan Horse, Inc. v. Lakeside Games, 526 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Donmoor, Inc. v. Sturtevant, 449 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Butcher & Singer, Inc. v. Frisch, 433 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Second, we conclude that the instant controversy involves interstate commerce, and that accordingly the United States Arbitration Act [Federal Arbitration Act], 9 U.S.C. § 2 (1970), governs the contracted-for arbitration and requires that the instant controversy be arbitrated in Fort Collins, Colorado. We reach this result because this record establishes, without material dispute, that the robotic welder purchased by the plaintiff was shipped to Florida from the defendant’s place of business in Fort Collins, Colorado, in response to the plaintiff’s order for same. After the plaintiff placed its order in Florida for the robotic welder, John Bergen [the regional sales manager for the defendant in Fort Collins, Colorado] responded by a letter from the defendant’s Fort Collins plant, acknowledging the purchase order, stating that the order had been entered in the defendant’s production schedule, and inviting the plaintiff’s president “to come out to our plant to see your system in operation before it ships.” The welder was then shipped as promised to the plaintiff in Florida, and thereafter correspondence ensued between the plaintiff’s president in Florida and Mr. Bergen in Fort Collins, Colorado, when the welder did not allegedly perform as warranted. The warranty itself provided that the welder was to be shipped back to the defendant’s plant in Fort Collins, Colorado in the event the defendant was required to make good on the warranty. Nothing in the plaintiffs affidavit filed below contradicts any of the above facts. United Servs. Gen. Life Co. v. Bauer, 568 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Trojan Horse, Inc. v. Lakeside Games, 526 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
The non-final order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilman + Ciocia, Inc. v. Wetherald, 885 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…Care Group, Inc. v. Schlosser, 673 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Butcher & Singer v. Frisch, 433 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Victor v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 606 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); ESAB Automation, Inc. v. Hesco Sales, Inc., 582 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Donmoor, Inc. v. Sturtevant, 449 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). See also Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., 513 U.S. at 277, 115 S.Ct. 834. In construing whether an arbitration agreement comes within the scope of the FAA, due regard mu…
Authorities Cited
- Butcher & Singer, Inc. v. Frisch, 433 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Trojan Horse, Inc. v. Lakeside Games, 526 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- United Servs. Gen. Life Co. v. Bauer, 568 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Donmoor, Inc. v. Sturtevant, 449 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)