Judgments. FISSER v. INTERNATIONAL BANK. F.2d Important Paras. It is true that under the Act, a “written provision in any maritime transaction * * * to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such * * * transaction” is the sine qua non of an enforceable arbitration agreement. 9 U.S.C. § 2, 4. It does not follow. Buscador de productos fischer. Descubre cuál es el producto que necesitas. Consulta al departamento técnico. Nuestros profesionales del departamento técnico te ayudarán con una atención personalizada. Contáctenos. +52 (55) ext [email protected] Comprar productos. Material de información.
Cursos Academia fischer Contactar academia. Divisiones Contacto Prensa. Productos Servicios Cursos Soluciones para. Sellador y adhesivo MS Express. Lanzamiento del Adhesivo PegadoTotal. Para cada problema fischer le da la solución — Descargue nuestra APP.
Learn more about the North Data Premium Service. If you put a person on your watch list, we’ll notify you on your email address when there are new company publications regarding this person. The data on this page is generated by a fully automated algorithm. It may have errors, and is provided on an “as is” basis with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.
Country filter. Restrict the search to companies and persons in specific countries by selecting the desired countries here. United Kingdom.
GRUPO FISHER’S. Fisher´s. Decrab. Don Capitán. Muy Fisher’s | Servicios a domicilio. Easy Cooking. Fisher’s App. EXCELENCIA EN MARISCOS. DESDE The limited partnership Fisser & osabus.dkm GmbH & Co. is a German shipping company based in Hamburg, which is active in maritime shipping worldwide. history. The company was founded on October 2nd, in Emden. The founders Carl Heinrich Gerhard Fisser and Christoph Diedrich van Doornum initially built up a coal and timber trade and came into contact with the shipping business through the.
Lesbisk sex dk
The immediate issue for decision is whether the respondent-appellee, International Bank, may be directed to submit to arbitration the determination and measure of any liability it may owe to libelants-appellants, 1 German coal importers, 2 by reason of the conceded breach of a written contract of affreightment signed solely by the libelants and Allied Transportation Corporation, a Liberian corporation which libelants charge was the alter ego of the respondent.
The court below answered this question in the negative. It reasoned that whatever liability might ultimately attach to the respondent growing out of the contract default of Allied, its alleged instrumentality or adjunct, the respondent could not be compelled to arbitrate the issue of its liability or the measure thereof because it had not signed the formal charter-party and hence as to it there was no “written provision” for arbitration within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act of , 9 U.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the libel with its accompanying petition for the enforcement of arbitration. It does not follow, however, that under the Act an obligation to arbitrate attaches only to one who has personally signed the written arbitration provision. Ordinary contract principles determine who is bound by such written provisions 5 and of course parties can become contractually bound absent their signatures.
It is not surprising then to find a long series of decisions which recognize that the variety of ways in which a party may become bound by a written arbitration provision is limited only by generally operative principles of contract law. The charter-party here under consideration clearly contains a written provision in which it is agreed that a controversy such as that now presented shall be submitted to arbitration, 7 and the sole issue for determination is whether the respondent, as well as the formal signatories to the charter-party, is bound by the arbitration provision.
Libelants argue that if in fact Allied was the respondent’s mere alter ego , making this a proper case to pierce the corporate veil of Allied and to hold those controlling it as one with it, then consistency and the alter ego doctrine itself require that the respondent be obligated not only to respond in damages for Allied’s breach of contract but to specifically perform Allied’s other contractual obligations, including that of arbitration.
We agree. While we discover no authority on this precise point, it is clear that the consequence of applying the alter ego doctrine is that the corporation and those who have controlled it without regard to its separate entity are treated as but one entity, and at least in the area of contracts, the acts of one are the acts of all.