QAD Inc. petitioned the Delaware federal court to confirm an arbitration award it obtained against Block & Company Inc. Block cross-moved to vacate the award. The arbitrator awarded QAD more than $740,000 in connection with a contract dispute between the parties. In moving to vacate the award, Block claimed the arbitrator exceeded his authority in declaring that a limit of liability provision in the contract was unconscionable, despite also finding the contract language itself was unambiguous. Block argued that QAD drafted the provision, and there was no evidence of a gross imbalance between the two sophisticated parties in negotiating the term. The court nonetheless confirmed the award, and denied Block’s motion to vacate, finding Block had not satisfied its “heavy burden” under FAA section 10(a)(4) to show that the award was not “rationally derived from the agreement or supported by the record.” Even if the arbitrator had erred in his interpretation of the case law on unconscionability, the court explained that its power to vacate the award would be constrained because “[e]xceeding one’s powers … is not synonymous with making a mistake.” Because the arbitrator based his assessment of unconscionability on the facts on the record and applicable law, the court held that it could not re-litigate the merits of the unconscionability ruling, regardless of whether the arbitrator reached the correct decision.
QAD, Inc. v. Block & Co., Inc., No. 1:21-mc-00370 (D. Del. Apr. 25, 2022).