Food Services of America Inc. v. Pan Pacific Specialties Ltd

(1997) 32 B.C.L.R.(3d) 225 (1997)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Food Services of America Inc. v. Pan Pacific Specialties Ltd

British Columbia Supreme Court
(1997) 32 B.C.L.R.(3d) 225 (1997)

Facts

Food Services of America, Inc. (Amerifresh) (plaintiff) entered an agreement with Pan Pacific Specialties Ltd (Pan Pacific) (defendant). Amerifresh was an American corporation with offices in Seattle, Washington, and Pan Pacific was a Canadian corporation with offices in Vancouver, British Columbia. The agreement contained an arbitration agreement providing that “Parties agree that all controversies and claims . . . shall be determined by arbitration in accordance with International Arbitration Rules of American Arbitration Association (AAA) and judgment on award rendered by Arbitrators may be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof.” The arbitration agreement also provided that the parties waived “any entitlement . . . to rely upon the provision § 36 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act of British Columbia (the Act).” A dispute arose between the parties, and the parties referred the matter to arbitration. The arbitral tribunal entered an award requiring Pan Pacific to pay Amerifresh a specific sum of damages. Amerifresh then filed suit in Canadian courts, seeking an order to enforce the award. Pan Pacific objected, citing § 36 of the act. Amerifresh countered that Pan Pacific had waived any right to challenge the award under § 36 of the act. Pan Pacific countered that the waiver only applied to awards entered pursuant to the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrators did not enter the award pursuant to the arbitration agreement. Pan Pacific argued that the arbitrators made certain errors and those errors rendered the arbitral proceedings not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Drossos, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership