From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
United States Supreme Court
460 U.S. 1, 103 S. Ct. 927, 74 L. Ed. 2d 765 (1983)
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital (hospital) (defendant) contracted Mercury Construction Corporation (contractor) (plaintiff) to build additions for the hospital. The hospital drafted the contract, which contained dispute-resolution provisions. All disputes regarding interpretation of the contract or performance were to be referred to J. N. Pease Associates (Pease), the architectural firm that oversaw the project. With a few express exceptions, Pease’s dispute decision could be submitted to binding arbitration within specified time limits under the contract’s broad arbitration provision. At Pease’s request, the contractor agreed to withhold any potential claims against the hospital for delaying the project until the construction was substantially completed. Construction was completed several months after the deadline, and the delay was due to the hospital’s actions. After completion of the project, the contractor submitted claims for delay and impact costs to Pease. The hospital notified the contractor that it would not pay the claims. The hospital filed suit against the contractor and Pease in North Carolina state court, asserting that the contractor had no right to arbitration and no legal basis for its claims. The contractor filed suit in federal district court to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The district court stayed the contractor’s suit pending resolution of the similar state-court claims regarding the contractor’s arbitration rights. The contractor appealed the stay to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the district court’s decision and found the parties’ contractual dispute to be within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The court remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration, and the hospital appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
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 607,000 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
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 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 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.