Shams v. Howard (Colo. App. 2007)
The Court of Appeals held that an arbitration clause was still enforceable even though the contract that it was contained in had expired. Also, although the claims brought sounded only in tort (such as negligent construction of a home), the arbitration clause in the expired contract still applied.
Finally, the Court of Appeals did not rule on the issue of whether the particular defendant (an individual) could rely on and enforce the terms of the arbitration clause, even though the contract was between the plaintiffs and an LLC. The Court of Appeals said that the plaintiffs had not raised the issue. According to the Court, "[w]e express no opinion whether [defendant] must be a direct or accommodation party to the warranty agreement in order to benefit from the arbitration clause because plaintiffs have not presented that issue."
Comments