2021 Georgia Code
Title 9 - Civil Practice
Chapter 9 - Arbitration
Article 1 - General Provisions
Part 1 - Arbitration Code
§ 9-9-1. Short Title

This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Georgia Arbitration Code."

(Code 1933, § 7-301, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 2270, § 1; Code 1981, §9-9-80; Code 1981, §9-9-1, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1988, p. 903, § 1.)

- For annual survey of construction law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (2004). For article, "Methods for Discovery in Arbitration," see 13 Ga. St. B.J. 22 (2008). For survey article on construction law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 59 (2008). For annual survey of law on trial practice and procedure, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 339 (2010). 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). For note, "'A Manifest Disregard of Arbitration?' An Analysis of Recent Georgia Legislation Adding 'Manifest Disregard of the Law' to the Georgia Arbitration Code as a Statutory Ground for Vacatur," see 39 Ga. L. Rev. 259 (2004).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of similarity to the provisions, decisions under former Code Section 9-9-80 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

- Trial court erred in finding that, in an asset management contract under which a manager was engaged to administer an owner's real estate assets, the choice of remedies which the parties intended was between arbitration and litigation because the contract unambiguously provided that their choice was between termination for default on notice and arbitration after a good faith 30-day effort to resolve their dispute; thus, the manager was entitled to compel arbitration. JOJA Partners, LLC v. Abrams Props., 262 Ga. App. 209, 585 S.E.2d 168 (2003).

- Where homebuyers did not initial a sales contract's arbitration provision, it could not have been enforced, and even if it could have been enforced, the homebuyers did not agree in writing to submit to arbitration as required by the agreement; since the homebuyers, in their case against the homebuilder, did not sue pursuant to the warranty or sign any document agreeing to submit to the arbitration provision, that provision in the warranty applied only, if at all, through the sale agreement, which gave no notice of the warranty's mandatory arbitration provision, and the trial court erred in ordering the parties to arbitration. Laird v. Risbergs, 266 Ga. App. 107, 596 S.E.2d 412 (2004).

- Pursuant to both O.C.G.A. § 9-9-1 et seq. and the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., the trial court properly considered the scope of the arbitrable issues in an employment agreement wherein companies sought to enjoin one of their executives from taking a position with their competitor, both for reasons of potential disclosure of trade secrets and confidential information and due to a non-competition covenant in the employment agreement. Although a court should not pass on the merits of an arbitrable controversy but rather merely determine the arbitrability thereof pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-9-4(d) and (e), the trial court properly found that the non-compete covenant was overly broad and therefore unenforceable, and it was not included in either the temporary restraining order issued against the executive's employment with the competitor or the order compelling arbitration. BellSouth Corp. v. Forsee, 265 Ga. App. 589, 595 S.E.2d 99 (2004).

Because the jurisdictional issues the subcontractor raised could not be resolved until after a de novo examination of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute, the superior court's order confirming an arbitration award had to be vacated, and the case remanded, and if the court found that the parties agreed to the version of their subcontractor's agreement which contained the choice of forum and arbitration clause, personal jurisdiction and venue were proper and the arbitrator's award was to be confirmed. Panhandle Fire Prot., Inc. v. Batson Cook Co., 288 Ga. App. 194, 653 S.E.2d 802 (2007).

- Regardless of whether the attorney violated an ethic's rule by entering into a mandatory arbitration clause in an engagement agreement without first apprising the company of advantages and disadvantages of arbitration, the clause was not void as against public policy as no court has held that such clause may never lawfully be included in an attorney-client contract. Innovative Images, LLC v. Summerville, 309 Ga. 675, 848 S.E.2d 75 (2020).

Cited in Phillips Constr. Co. v. Cowart Iron Works, Inc., 250 Ga. 488, 299 S.E.2d 538 (1983); City of Atlanta v. Brinderson Corp., 799 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1986); Davis v. Gaona, 260 Ga. 450, 396 S.E.2d 218 (1990); Primerica Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Wise, 217 Ga. App. 36, 456 S.E.2d 631 (1995); Ekereke v. Obong, 265 Ga. 728, 462 S.E.2d 372 (1995); Parks v. Anderson, 221 Ga. App. 270, 470 S.E.2d 811 (1996); Results Oriented, Inc. v. Crawford, 245 Ga. App. 432, 538 S.E.2d 73 (2000); Turner County v. City of Ashburn, 293 Ga. 739, 749 S.E.2d 685 (2013).

2A Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Arbitration and Award, §§ 2, 98.

- Validity and effect under state law of arbitration agreement provision for alternative method of appointment of arbitrator where one party fails or refuses to follow appointment procedure specified in agreement, 75 A.L.R.5th 595.

Enforceability of arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements as regards claims under federal civil rights statutes, 152 A.L.R. Fed. 75.

Validity and effect under Federal Arbitration Act (9 USCA § 1 et seq.) of arbitration agreement provision for alternative method of appointment of arbitrator where one party fails or refuses to follow appointment procedure specified in agreement, 159 A.L.R. Fed. 1