Unison Co., Ltd. v. Juhl Energy Dev., Inc., No. 14-1892 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseUnison, a South Korean company, manufactures, sells, delivers, and services Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs). JEDI is incorporated and located in Minnesota. In a Turbine Supply Agreement (TSA), Unison agreed to design, manufacture, and sell two WTGs to JEDI for installation in Minnesota for $2,574,900. In a Financing Agreement (FA), Unison agreed to lend to JEDI the TSA contract price. Unison sued JEDI in federal court in Minnesota, asserting 17 claims for relief under the FA. JEDI moved to compel arbitration, based on an arbitration clause in the TSA. The district court denied the motion. The Eighth Circuit reversed, concluding that the arbitration clause in the TSA covers the dispute. The court noted multiple cross-references, and the interdependent nature of the parties’ obligations under both the TSA and the FA, and concluded that they are “two parts of one overarching business plan between the same parties.”
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Arbitration. The relevant language of the supply contract between the parties covered any dispute that arose in connection with the agreement or any legal relationship associated with or contemplated by the supply agreement and was broad enough to cover a dispute arising out of the parties' separate financing agreement; the district court erred, therefore, in denying a motion to compel arbitration; on remand, the district court should determine whether it is appropriate to dismiss the action or stay the action. Judge Shepherd, concurring.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.