This lawsuit centered around a contract providing a guaranty of performance in connection with an underlying broadband network access contract. The underlying contract called for binding arbitration of any disputes and required the parties "to continue performing their respective obligations under the Agreement ... while the dispute is being resolved." The guaranty did not contain the same "continuing performance" clause, but it did include a clause incorporating "all other provisions [of the underlying agreement] relating to dispute resolution or arbitration." The guarantor argued that the "continued performance" clause of the underlying contract only imposed an obligation on its subsidiary, the party to the underlying contract. But, according to the court, "this argument makes no sense." "[W]hen the parties to the Guaranty agree that they incorporate a clause saying that the 'Parties agree to perform their respective obligations under the Agreement ... while a dispute is being resolved,' then that incorporation plainly means that the parties to the incorporating contract (i.e., the Guaranty) agree to perform their obligations under that contract pending resolution of any dispute. Otherwise, the incorporation would do no work." As such, the guaranty's incorporation of "all other provisions relating to dispute resolution or arbitration" subjected the guarantor to the underlying contract's continuing performance obligations pending resolution of the dispute. , Case No. 17-1607 (1st Cir. Apr. 25, 2018)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.