Courts Differ on Mandating Arbitration

Courts Differ on Mandating Arbitration Arbitration In Cash America International, Inc. v. Mr. Payroll Corp., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) f 12,353 (Tex. App. 2002), the Texas Court of Appeals found that a check-cashing franchisee that agreed to arbitrate "any and all" disputes with its franchisor and a guarantor could not proceed in court. The appellate court rejected the franchisee's two pri? mary arguments that: (1) it was proceeding only under lease doc? uments that contained no arbitra? tion clause, and (2) the landlord was an indispensable party to the proceeding and could not be forced to arbitrate. This case is an example of how powerful the phrase "any and all disputes" can be in ensuring that all possible franchise disputes will be arbi? trated. The ruling on the minimal impact of an indispensable par? ty's presence in an otherwise arbitrable dispute is consistent with long-established principles of arbitration law. A similar lesson on the impor? tance of careful drafting can be found in Trapp Chevrolet-Oldsmo bile-Cadillac, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 1 12,360 (E.D. La. May 31, 2002). In 1999, Trapp, a Louisiana Chevrolet dealer, bought the Oldsmobile and Cadillac lines from a neighboring dealer. Later, GM phased out the Oldsmobile line, Trapp. Trapp attempted to sue "only" Steven B. Felrman