Courts tend to hold parties to the bargain they make in a contract. In the contract in this particular case, specific language supports the idea that under certain conditions, a clause can be severed from the contract without affecting the enforceability of the rest of the contract.
1. What are the reasons for this decision? How does the attitude of the courts toward arbitration serve as a reason in this instance?
Clue: Ask yourself, “What grounds did the court provide to substantiate its conclusion?”
2. Why do the parties care whether the clause is severed? What ethical norms support the court’s reasoning?
Clue: What happens if the court rules that the clause cannot be severed from the contract?