Propositions for the future Sample Clauses

Propositions for the future. The Supreme Court may be commended on its decision in the sense that it was indeed the “right” decision concerning the future of arbitration in Finland. When situations including non-signatory parties become more frequent, it is important that the arbitration regime, the laws and rules of interpretation, are up to date and capable of addressing the needs and demands of the environment. However, as discussed above, in addition to presenting no real rationales which might be used in future cases, KKO 2013:84 creates a rule of interpretation which is troublesome and rather unwieldy as an independent rule. Since the crucial factor in arbitration is essentially consensuality, there is rarely need to revert to legal tools other than those which employ party consent. One such exception is equitable estoppel, the doctrine which in itself is unfamiliar in our legal environment, but the fundaments and rationales of which can still be found deeply rooted in Finland. As for consent, it is true that this approach of dealing with non-signatory issues would emphasize the role of courts or arbitral tribunals because discovering consent is typically a matter of interpretation of factual circumstances, e.g. in determining implied consent. Then again, the author sees no difficulties with this approach – what better way to adapt to a variety of situations than a pliant rule of interpretation. Moreover, as for equitable estoppel, the essence of the doctrine does not require such fact oriented interpretation; it is applicable in a more straightforward manner. The requirement of written agreement, as imposed in Section 3 of the Finnish Arbitration Act, was an essential question in the thesis. Even though the non-existence of a written agreement was ultimately not an issue with regard to the non-signatory, the fact remains that, if interpreted accurately and “by the book”, the provision would effectively prevent binding any non-signatories.340 Therefore, following the universal trend of gradual liberalization – countries giving up the requirement in form – the written requirement of Section 3 could be revisited. In addition, an alternative for entirely giving up the formal 339 See Xxxxxxx 2004a, p. 292: ”the third party beneficiary is only bound to arbitrate where it is the claimant in a claim relying on the main agreement”.