2020 Georgia Code
Title 9 - Civil Practice
Chapter 9 - Arbitration
Article 1 - General Provisions

- Ga. L. 1988, p. 903, effective July 1, 1988, repealed the Code sections formerly codified at this article and enacted the current article. The former article consisted of §§ 9-9-1 through9-9-11 and was based on Orig. Code 1863, §§ 2824 - 2834, 4157; Code 1868, §§ 2832 - 2842, 4189; Code 1873, §§ 2883 - 2893, 4248; Code 1882, §§ 2883 - 2893, 4248; Civil Code 1895, §§ 4474 - 4485; Civil Code 1910, §§ 5019 - 5030; Code 1933, §§ 7-101 - 7-111. Part 1 of the present article formerly existed as Part 3 of Article 2 of this chapter.

- For article, "Of Courts and Statutes and Sanitary Landfills," see 21 Ga. St. B.J. 72 (1984). For article, "Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel: New Defenses in Construction Litigation?," see 21 Ga. St. B.J. 108 (1985). For article, "Proposed Changes in the Arbitration Law of Georgia," see 23 Ga. St. B.J. 152 (1987). For article, "Five Things Every Attorney Should Consider Before Approving Construction Contracts for Owners, Developers or Lenders," see 23 Ga. St. B.J. 134 (1987). For article, "International Arbitration in Georgia," see 16 (No. 6) Ga. St. B.J. 13 (2011). For annual survey on construction law, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 27 (2014).

PART 1 ARBITRATION CODE

Law reviews.

- For article, "International Arbitration in Georgia," see 16 (No. 6) Ga. St. B.J. 13 (2011). For annual survey on construction law, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 27 (2014).

Federal arbitration law does not preempt the entire field of state arbitration law in all cases involving commerce; state law may apply where parties agree to be bound by state arbitration law, so long as that law does not conflict with the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., North Augusta Assocs. v. 1815 Exchange, Inc., 220 Ga. App. 790, 469 S.E.2d 759 (1996).

- This part did not apply to an appraisal arising out of an appraisal clause in an insurance contract. Eberhardt v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 223 Ga. App. 478, 477 S.E.2d 907 (1996).

- The Arbitration Act, O.C.G.A. § 9-9-1 et seq., is in derogation of common law and must be strictly construed and not extended beyond its plain terms. Pinnacle Constr. Co. v. Osborne, 218 Ga. App. 366, 460 S.E.2d 880 (1995).

- The application of the Georgia Arbitration Code, O.C.G.A. § 9-9-1 et seq., to a dispute arising after its effective date to contracts entered into at an earlier date was contemplated in its enactment; the law does not provide a new remedy or repair any obligation under the contract and its application to such a dispute does not violate the constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws. Weyant v. MacIntyre, 211 Ga. App. 281, 438 S.E.2d 640 (1993).

- Operation of Arbitration Code and materialmen's lien law is interdependent and compatible. H.R.H. Prince Ltc. Faisal M. Saud v. Batson-Cook Co., 161 Ga. App. 219, 291 S.E.2d 249 (1982).