Management and Technical Consultants S.A. v. Parsons-Jurden International Corp.

820 F.2d 1531 (1987)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Management and Technical Consultants S.A. v. Parsons-Jurden International Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
820 F.2d 1531 (1987)

Facts

Management and Technical Consultants S.A. (MTC), a Liberian corporation (plaintiff), and Parsons-Jurden International Corp. (PJ) (defendant), a United States corporation, entered into an agreement whereby MTC was to assist PJ in obtaining a contract or contracts with the government of Iran to develop mining facilities in Iran. The agreement provided that if PJ was awarded such a contract, PJ would pay MTC 5 percent of PJ’s gross billings to the Iranian mining company. A dispute arose regarding the meaning of the term gross billings. The parties reached a settlement agreement under which PJ paid MTC a certain amount, but which also contained a proviso that if PJ’s gross billings exceeded a total of $350 million, MTC would be entitled to additional compensation, the terms of which would be negotiated by the parties. The settlement agreement also contained an arbitration clause stating that any dispute between the parties would be resolved by arbitration. Thereafter, the disputes about the term gross billings continued, and MTC initiated arbitration proceedings. The arbitral panel issued an award in favor of MTC for $1.85 million plus interest and issued a separate award for costs. MTC filed an action in United States district court for enforcement of the awards. PJ opposed enforcement under Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), on the ground that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority in issuing a monetary award. Specifically, PJ argued that under the arbitration clause of the settlement agreement, the arbitrators had authority to decide whether the gross billings exceeded $350 million; however, once that decision was made, the arbitral panel lacked the authority to determine the amount of additional compensation due because the settlement agreement stated that the terms of such compensation would be negotiated by the parties. The district court granted MTC’s petitions to enforce the awards. PJ appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, 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 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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 810,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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