ÿWPCæ( …#†V %Ü 0 fâ 0ñH49 M 0Z\ 0D¶ 0Jú U>D U>‚ 0TÀ 0^ 0hr 0rÚ 0|L 0†È 0N 1uÞU,S 0dU,ãU 6B)E BnDC‹ AMÎU*IE Ž D3›ŸÎ™m 0@(Fv~nvÓì AO¿&Æ' 0‚Ô' 0DV( D/š( BÉ(˜HP LaserJet IIP PlusHPPCL,,,,,,,,0ÙP Ÿ4þ ×:·^%¯Ð% X(>6\$¡¡Ô€¼S§¼¼¼ÔÔ€XËûX¼¼S§Ô(¡(2þ¯$¤¤Ý ƒ6\!ÝÔ€X³-XXXÔÔ€X³-XXX³-ÔÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€X³-XXX³-Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóc`…`3|xZ `ú,Þ0OpinionForm for Draft OpinionsÑŒ Œ ÑÑÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ ¸ §X°œXÓÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€sE¼¼d¼¼d7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òJanuary€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€"XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313(a)(3).Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd •Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€"XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhile€òòFirst€Options€of€Chicagoóó€concerns€the€FederalÏArbitration€Act,€we€note€that€the€purpose€of€the€Federal€andÏUniform€Arbitration€Act€is€the€same:€€to€promote€privateÏsettlement€of€disputes,€thereby€bypassing€the€courts.€€As€such,Ïthe€scope€of€review€advanced€by€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏhas€equal€application€in€a€case€under€the€Uniform€Arbitration€ActÏto€the€extent€that€such€review€furthers€the€common€goal€of€theÏacts.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€"XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313€provides€for€vacation€of€an€awardÏwhere:ÌÌà0 à(1)à àThe€award€was€procured€by€corruption,€fraud€or€otherÏundue€means;Ìà0 à(2)à àThere€was€evident€partiality€by€an€arbitrator€appointedÏas€a€neutral€or€corruption€in€any€of€the€arbitrators€orÏmisconduct€prejudicing€the€rights€of€any€party;Ìà0 à(3)à àThe€arbitrators€exceeded€their€powers;Ìà0 à(4)à àThe€arbitrators€refused€to€postpone€the€hearing€uponÏsufficient€cause€being€shown€therefor€or€refused€to€hearÏevidence€material€to€the€controversy€or€otherwise€soÏconducted€the€hearing,€contrary€to€the€provisions€of€ðð€29„5„306,€as€to€prejudice€substantially€the€rights€of€a€party;€orÌà0 à(5)à àThere€was€no€arbitration€agreement€and€the€issue€was€notÏadversely€determined€in€proceedings€under€ðð€29„5„303€and€theÏparty€did€not€participate€in€the€arbitration€hearing€withoutÏraising€the€objection.ÌÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€"XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„314€provides€for€modification€orÏcorrection€of€an€award€where:Ìà àÌà0 à(1)à àThere€was€an€evident€miscalculation€of€figures€or€anÏevident€mistake€in€the€description€of€any€person,€thing€orÏproperty€referred€to€in€the€award;Ìà0 à(2)à àThe€arbitrators€have€awarded€upon€a€matter€not€submittedÏto€them€and€the€award€may€be€corrected€without€affecting€theÏmerits€of€the€decision€upon€the€issues€submitted;€orÌà0 à(3)à àThe€award€is€imperfect€in€a€matter€of€form,€notÏaffecting€the€merits€of€the€controversy.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Z3vˆ$¢¢Ý ƒ6\!ÝÔ€X³-XXXÔÔ€X³-XXX³-ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÓ ` §XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€³-¼XdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ7€³-XXdȼXdÈ7Ñ€€ÌÌÙ€€ÙßL€&(%;+'h|¥` Å `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌROSALIND€BOWER€ARNOLD€and€€€€€€€€€à à)ÌJIMMY€LYNN€ARNOLD,€Individuallyà à)Ìas€Joint€Tenants€with€theirà àà à)ÌChildren,€JOHN€TRACY€ARNOLD,à àà à)€€€FOR€PUBLICATIONÌULESS€JOSEPH€ARNOLD,à àà àà à)ÌLILLIAN€HANNA€ARNOLD,à àà àà à)ÌBENJAMIN€CHRISTOPHER€ARNOLD,€andà à)€€€FILED:€JANUARY€16,€1996€ÌJIMMY€BOWER€ARNOLDà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleesà àà àà àà à)€€€KNOX€CHANCERY€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€HON.€H.€DAVID€CATE,€€€€€€€€ÏMORGAN€KEEGAN€&€COMPANY,€INC.,à à)à à€€€CHANCELLORÌand€D.€STANLEY€SHELTONà àà àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àAppellants€€€€€€à à€à à)€€€NO.€03„S„01„9410„CH„00091ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellants:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellees:óóÌÌMichael€Richards€€€€€€à àà àà àà àCharles€A.€Wagner,€IIIÌCourtney€N.€Pearreà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TNÌJohn€R.€BransonÌMemphis,€TNÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòOPINIONÌÌÌÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌREVERSE€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS;à àà àBIRCH,€J.ÌREINSTATE€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THE€TRIAL€COURT.ÌÇÓÓà àWe€accepted€this€application€for€review,€filed€by€MorganÏKeegan€&€Company,€Inc.€and€D.€Stanley€Shelton€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€11,€in€order€to€clarify€the€standard€under€which€a€finalÏdecision€rendered€by€an€arbitration€panel€may€be€judiciallyÏreviewed.€€We€find€that€under€the€facts€and€circumstances€hereÏpresent,€the€review€conducted€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€was€undulyÏextensive;€we€reverse€the€judgment€and€reinstate€the€order€of€theÏtrial€court€upholding€the€ruling€of€the€arbitration€panel.ÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àThe€record€reveals€that€upon€the€death€of€her€father€inÏ1981,€Rosalind€Arnold,€the€appellee,€inherited€a€large€number€ofÏshares€in€the€Interco€Corporation.€€As€a€result€of€Interco'sÏreorganization€in€October€1988,€its€stock€became€virtuallyÏworthless.€€Thereafter,€Arnold€sought€to€replace€her€IntercoÏinvestment€with€one€capable€of€producing€as€steady€an€income€flowÏas€had€Interco,€while€preserving€the€principal.€€She€discussed€theÏmatter€with€Stanley€Shelton,€her€broker,€an€employee€of€MorganÏKeegan.ÌÌà àInitially,€Arnold€suggested€the€purchase€of€$1.4€millionÏin€certificates€of€deposit€with€staggered€maturities.€€BecauseÏthis€investment€plan€would€not€produce€income€sufficient€to€meetÏher€requirements,€Shelton€recommended€the€purchase€of€Series€FÏpreferred€stock€in€First€Executive€Corporation€(FEXCO).€€SheltonÏadvised€Arnold€that€the€FEXCO€investment€included€a€"sinkingÏfund,"€a€feature€he€described€as€an€"insurance€policy."€€ThisÏ"sinking€fund,"€Shelton€stated,€guaranteed€that€in€1991€FEXCOÏwould€repurchase€its€stock€for€the€original€price€of€$25€perÏshare.€€Shelton€told€her€that€FEXCO€stock€was€as€safe€as€aÏcertificate€of€deposit.€€At€the€time€of€the€discussion,€FEXCOÏstock€was€highly€rated.ÌÌà àOn€January€11,€1989,€Arnold€purchased€approximatelyÏ25,000€shares€of€FEXCO€preferred€stock€at€a€total€cost€ofÏ$619,387.50.€€This€investment€produced,€over€the€following€year,Ïapproximately€$70,000€in€dividends.ÌÌà àRegarding€Arnold's€investment€experience,€the€recordÏshows€that€prior€to€her€dealings€with€Shelton€she€had€managed€herÏportfolio€of€stocks€and€bonds€in€the€approximate€total€value€ofÍ$750,000.€€Also,€she€had€conducted€business€with€other€investmentÏbrokerage€firms.€€Moreover,€Arnold€continued€to€make€many€of€theÏinvestment€decisions€herself,€even€after€her€association€withÏShelton€and€Morgan€Keegan.€€Her€financial€acumen€notwithstanding,ÏArnold€testified€that€in€the€purchase€of€the€FEXCO€shares€sheÏrelied€completely€upon€Shelton€and€Morgan€Keegan.ÌÌà àThe€value€of€FEXCO€stock€plummeted€approximately€a€yearÏafter€Arnold's€purchase.€€This€drop€in€value€was€attributed€byÏsome€to€the€negative€publicity€surrounding€the€junk€bond€scandal.€ÏShelton€informed€Arnold€that€the€"sinking€fund"€did€not€appear€toÏbe€as€he€had€originally€described€it.€€As€a€consequence€of€theÏdecrease€in€the€stock's€value€and€the€fact€that€no€sinking€fundÏexisted,€Arnold€sold€her€FEXCO€stock€at€a€substantial€loss.ÌÌà àThe€agreement€between€Arnold€and€Morgan€Keegan€providedÏfor€the€resolution€of€disputes€by€arbitration€and€permitted€theÏcustomer€to€choose€the€forum.€€The€agreement€provided€in€pertinentÏpart:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àArbitration€is€final€and€binding€onÏthe€parties.€€The€parties€areÏwaiving€their€right€to€seek€remediesÍin€court,€including€the€right€toÏjury€trial.€.€.€.€The€arbitrators'Ïaward€is€not€required€to€includeÏfactual€findings€or€legal€reasoningÏand€any€party's€right€to€appeal€orÏto€seek€modification€of€rulings€byÏthe€arbitrators€is€strictly€limited.€ÏThe€panel€of€arbitrators€willÏordinarily€include€a€minority€ofÏarbitrators€who€were€or€areÏaffiliated€with€the€securitiesÏindustry.€€I€agree,€and€by€carryingÏmy€account€you€agree€that€allÏcontroversies€which€may€ariseÏbetween€us€concerning€anyÏtransaction€or€the€construction,Ïperformance,€or€breach€of€this€orÏany€other€agreement€between€usÏpertaining€to€securities€and€otherÏproperty,€whether€entered€intoÏprior,€on€or€subsequent€to€the€dateÏhereof,€shall€be€determined€byÏarbitration.€€Any€arbitration€underÏthis€agreement€shall€be€conductedÏpursuant€to€the€Federal€ArbitrationÏAct€and€the€laws€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee,€before€the€AmericanÏArbitration€Association,€or€beforeÏthe€New€York€Stock€Exchange,€Inc.€orÏan€arbitration€facility€provided€byÏany€other€exchange€of€which€you€areÏa€member,€or€the€NationalÏAssociations€of€Securities€Dealers,ÏInc.€or€the€Municipal€SecuritiesÏRulemaking€Board€and€in€accordanceÏwith€the€rules€obtaining€of€theÏselected€organization.€€I€may€electÏin€the€first€instance€whetherÏarbitration€shall€be€by€the€AmericanÏArbitration€Association,€or€by€anÏexchange€or€self„regulatoryÏorganization€of€which€you€are€aÍmember€.€.€.€.€The€award€of€theÏarbitrators,€or€of€the€majority€ofÏthem,€shall€be€final,€and€judgmentÏon€the€award€rendered€may€be€enteredÏin€any€court,€state€or€federal,Ïhaving€jurisdiction.ÌÓÓÌà àArnold€filed€a€claim€for€arbitration€and€chose€theÏAmerican€Arbitration€Association.€€The€arbitration€panel€convened.€ÏAfter€hearing€testimony,€the€panel€found€in€favor€of€MorganÏKeegan.€€In€its€seven„page€opinion,€the€panel€rejected€Arnold'sÏposition€that€Shelton€had€made€material€misrepresentations€to€her.€ÏThe€panel€found€Arnold€to€be€a€relatively€sophisticated€investorÏwho€remained€firmly€in€control€of€her€portfolio„„a€person€whoÏexercised€independent€judgment€at€all€times.€€The€panel€furtherÏfound€that€although€Shelton€may€have€made€mistakes€or€omissions€inÏdescribing€the€"sinking€fund"€to€Arnold,€they€did€not€amount€toÏmaterial€misstatements,€and€Arnold€did€not€rely€upon€them.€€AfterÏweighing€the€conflicting€testimony€and€considering€Arnold'sÏinvestment€objectives,€her€sophistication,€and€other€relevantÏfactors,€the€panel€concluded€that€she€would€have€made€the€FEXCOÏinvestment€regardless€of€any€misstatements€which€Shelton€may€haveÏmade.€€The€panel€also€rejected€Arnold's€version€of€theÍconversation€in€which€the€investment€was€allegedly€described€asÏ"absolutely€safe."ÌÌà àPursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313,€Arnold€moved€theÏChancery€Court€of€Knox€County€to€vacate€the€panel's€decision.€€SheÏinsisted€that€(1)€the€award€was€procured€by€undue€means;€(2)€thereÏwas€evident€partiality€by€the€arbitrators;€(3)€the€arbitratorsÏexceeded€their€powers;€and€(4)€the€award€was€completelyÏirrational,€was€based€on€gross€mistake€of€fact,€and€was€inÏmanifest€disregard€of€the€undisputed€facts€and€the€lawÏacknowledged€by€the€arbitrators€to€be€applicable.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€that€consisted,Ïprimarily,€of€a€review€of€the€verbatim€transcript€of€theÏarbitration€proceedings.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€anÏarbitration€decision€should€not€be€vacated€merely€because€theÏtrial€court€disagrees€with€the€result€reached,€nor€should€theÏtrial€court€permit€the€issues€to€be€relitigated.€€Accordingly,€theÏtrial€court€overruled€Arnold's€motion€to€vacate€and€confirmed€theÏpanel's€decision.€€€ÌÌà àOn€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€Arnold€asserted€theÏsame€grounds€as€had€been€submitted€to€the€Chancery€Court.€€TheÏCourt€of€Appeals,€finding€that€the€arbitrators€had€"exceeded€theirÏpowers,"× ƒ) ××  ×€vacated€the€arbitration€decision.€€In€formulating€itsÏruling,€the€Court€of€Appeals€conducted€an€extensive€review€of€theÏtranscript€of€the€arbitration€hearing.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€conducted€a€reviewÏfar€too€extensive€than€permitted€by€the€provisions€of€theÏarbitration€statute€and€misinterpreted€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313(a)(3).€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€discussion€of€the€standards€of€review€toÏbe€used€by€a€trial€court€when€reviewing€an€arbitration€award€andÏby€the€Court€of€Appeals€when€reviewing€the€trial€court's€judgmentÏin€an€arbitration€case.€€Tennessee€has€adopted€the€UniformÏArbitration€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€29„5„301€through€320€(Supp.Ï1995).€€This€Act€"governs€the€scope€of€judicial€review€ofÍarbitration€awards."€€òòInternational€Talent€Group,€Inc.€v.ÏCopyright€Management,€Inc.óó,€769€S.W.2d€217,€218€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€ÏFor€guidance,€we€can€look€to€other€jurisdictions€which€haveÏadopted€the€Uniform€Arbitration€Act.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„320Ï("This€part€shall€be€so€construed€as€to€effectuate€its€generalÏpurpose€to€make€uniform€the€law€of€those€states€which€enact€it.").ÌÌà àThe€standard€to€be€applied€by€the€trial€court€is€aÏnarrow€one.€€It€is€well€established€that€courts€should€play€only€aÏlimited€role€in€reviewing€the€decisions€of€arbitrators.€€òòUnitedÏPaperworkers€Int'l€Union,€AFL„CIO€v.€Misco,€Inc.óó,€484€U.S.€29,€36Ï(1987).ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à[W]here€the€party€has€agreed€toÏarbitrate,€he€or€she,€in€effect€hasÏrelinquished€much€of€[the€right€to€aÏcourt's€decision€on€the€merits].€ÏThe€party€still€can€ask€a€court€toÏreview€the€arbitrator's€decision,Ïòòbut€the€court€will€set€that€decisionÏaside€only€in€very€unusualÏcircumstances.óóÌÓÓÌòòFirst€Options€of€Chicago,€Inc.€v.€Kaplanóó,€115€S.€Ct.€1920,€1923Ï(1995)(emphasis€added)(citations€omitted).× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€trial€court€isÏlimited€by€the€provisions€of€the€statute€which€allow€a€vacation€orÏmodification€of€an€award.€€òòSeeóó€òòInternational€Talent€Groupóó,€769ÏS.W.2d€at€218.ÌÌà àThe€statute€itself€provides€that€upon€application€of€aÏparty€to€the€arbitration,€the€trial€court€"shall€confirm€an€award,Ïunless,€within€the€time€limits€hereinafter€imposed,€grounds€areÏurged€for€vacating€or€modifying€or€correcting€the€award."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€29„5„312.€€Section€29„5„313€provides€that€the€trialÏcourt€"shall"€vacate€an€award€under€certain€specificallyÏenumerated€circumstances.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Section€29„5„314€provides€forÍmodification€or€correction€of€award€under€alternative€enumeratedÏcircumstances.× ƒ. ××  ×€€Under€the€terms€of€the€statutes,€a€trial€court€mayÏnot€vacate€an€award€simply€because€it€disagrees€with€the€result.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313(5).ÌÌà àThe€limiting€language€of€the€statutes€governing€vacationÏand€modification€of€arbitration€awards€evidences€an€intent€toÍlimit€òòseverelyóó€the€trial€court's€authority€to€retry€the€issuesÏdecided€by€arbitration.€€As€the€New€Mexico€Supreme€Court€observedÏin€òòMelton€v.€Lyonóó:€€"It€is€not€the€function€of€the€Court€to€hearÏcases€de€novo€and€consider€evidence€presented€to€the€arbitrators,Ïbut€rather€to€conduct€an€evidentiary€hearing€and€enter€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law€upon€each€issue€raised€in€theÏapplication€to€vacate€or€modify€the€award."€€773€P.2d€732,€733Ï(N.M.€1989)(citation€omitted).€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€mustÏaccord€deference€to€the€arbitrator's€award.ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àOnce€an€arbitration€award€isÏentered,€the€finality€that€courtsÏshould€afford€the€arbitrationÏprocess€weighs€heavily€in€favor€ofÏthe€award.€€Courts€are€justified€inÏexercising€great€caution€when€askedÏto€set€aside€an€arbitration€award,Ïwhich€is€the€product€of€theÏtheoretically€informal,€speedy€andÏinexpensive€process€of€arbitration,Ïfreely€chosen€by€the€parties.€€AllÏdoubts€are€to€be€resolved€in€favorÏof€arbitrability.ÌÓÓÌòòState€ex€rel.€Hooten€Const.€Co.€v.€Borsberry€Const.€Co.óó,€769€P.2dÏ726,€727€(N.M.€1989)(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àCourts,€thus,€do€not€sit€to€hear€claims€of€factual€orÏlegal€error€by€an€arbitrator€as€an€appellate€court€does€inÏreviewing€decisions€of€lower€courts.€€If€the€courts€were€free€toÏintervene€on€these€grounds,€the€speedy€resolution€of€grievances€byÏprivate€mechanisms€would€be€greatly€undermined.€€As€long€as€theÏarbitrator€is,€arguably,€construing€or€applying€the€contract€andÏacting€within€the€scope€of€his€authority,€the€fact€that€a€court€isÏconvinced€he€committed€serious€error€does€not€suffice€to€overturnÏhis€decision.ÌÌà àThe€agreement€in€this€case€provided€that€the€arbitratorsÏwere€not€required€to€make€written€findings€of€fact€and€law.€€SuchÏis€normally€the€case.€€Thus,€under€usual€circumstances,€any€groundÏfor€vacating€or€modifying€the€arbitration€award€will€usuallyÏappear€on€the€face€of€the€award,€not€within€the€transcript.€€ItÏwould€be€unfair€and€incongruous€to€hold€that€an€arbitration€awardÏin€hearings€in€which€a€transcript€was€made€is€more€open€to€attackÏthan€in€a€case€in€which€no€transcript€was€made.€€Thus,€the€caseÏunder€submission€was€no€more€open€to€review€by€the€trial€courtÏthan€was€any€other€arbitration€case.€€Moreover,€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à[a]rbitration€is€attractive€becauseÏit€is€a€more€expeditious€and€finalÏalternative€to€litigation.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àThe€very€purpose€ofÏarbitration€is€to€avoidÏthe€courts€insofar€as€theÏresolution€of€the€disputeÏis€concerned.€€The€objectÏis€to€avoid€what€someÏfeel€to€be€the€formali„ties,€the€delay,€theÏexpense€and€vexation€ofÏordinary€litigation.ÏImmediate€settlement€ofÏcontroversies€by€arbitra„tion€removes€the€necessi„ty€of€waiting€out€aÏcrowded€court€docket....€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àArbitration's€desirable€qualitiesÏwould€be€heavily€diluted,€if€notÏexpunged,€if€a€trial€court€reviewingÏan€arbitration€award€were€permittedÏto€conduct€a€trial€òòde€novoóó.ÌÓÓÌòòBoyd€v.€Davisóó,€897€P.2d€1239,€1242€(Wash.€1995)(òòen€bancóó)(citationÏomitted).ÌÌà àNow€we€consider€the€standard€of€review€to€be€applied€byÏthe€Court€of€Appeals€when€it€reviews€the€decision€of€a€trial€courtÏin€an€arbitration€case.€€We€look€again€to€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€for€guidance.€€In€òòFirst€Options€of€Chicago,€Inc.óó,Ïthe€Court€held€that€when€reviewing€a€trial€court's€decision€in€anÍarbitration€case€the€Court€of€Appeals€should€apply€ordinaryÏstandards.€€115€S.€Ct.€at€1926.€€Consequently,€it€should€acceptÏfindings€of€fact€that€are€not€"clearly€erroneous."€€The€CourtÏreasoned€that€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àit€is€undesirable€to€make€the€lawÏmore€complicated€by€proliferatingÏreview€standards€without€goodÏreason.€€More€importantly,€theÏreviewing€attitude€that€a€court€ofÏappeals€takes€toward€a€districtÏcourt€decision€should€depend€uponÏ"the€respective€institutionalÏadvantages€of€trial€and€appellateÏcourts,"€not€upon€what€standard€ofÏreview€will€more€likely€produce€aÏparticular€substantive€result.ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€(citation€omitted).ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€holdÏthat€when€the€Court€of€Appeals€reviews€a€trial€court's€decision€inÏan€arbitration€case,€it€should€review€findings€of€fact€under€aÏ"clearly€erroneous"€standard.€€We€observe€that€this€holding€doesÏnot€restrict€the€discretion€of€the€arbitratorsò ò;ó ó€it€simply€does€notÏallow€an€extra€measure€of€discretion€for€the€trial€court.€€As€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€law,€for€example,€tells€allÏcourts€(trial€and€appellate)€to€giveÏadministrative€agencies€a€degree€ofÏlegal€leeway€when€they€reviewÏcertain€interpretations€of€the€lawÏthat€those€agencies€have€made.€€But,Ïno€one,€to€our€knowledge,€hasÏsuggested€that€this€policy€of€givingÏleeway€to€agencies€means€that€aÏcourt€of€appeals€should€give€òòextraóóÏleeway€to€a€district€court€decisionÏthat€upholds€an€agency.€€Similarly,Ïcourts€grant€arbitratorsÏconsiderable€leeway€when€reviewingÏmost€arbitration€decisions;€but€thatÏfact€does€not€mean€that€appellateÏcourts€should€give€òòextraóó€leeway€toÏdistrict€courts€that€upholdÏarbitrators.ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€(citation€omitted).ÌÌà àOur€attitude€toward€review€of€arbitration€decisions€isÏdeferential,€as€is€our€standard€of€review.€€Under€this€deferentialÏstandard€of€review,€courts€are€not€permitted€to€consider€theÏmerits€of€an€arbitration€award€even€if€the€parties€allege€that€theÏaward€rests€on€errors€of€fact€or€misrepresentation€of€theÏcontract.€€òòMiscoóó,€484€U.S.€at€36.ÌÌà àJudicial€review€of€arbitration€decisions€is€statutorilyÏlimited,€and€any€judicial€review€must€be€conducted€within€thoseÍlimits.€€Nevertheless,€the€standard€of€review€to€be€used€by€theÏintermediate€court€in€reviewing€a€trial€court's€decision€thatÏrefuses€to€vacate,€or€confirms,€an€arbitrator's€award€is€an€issue.€ÏMost€of€these€controversies€will€be€determined€by€the€facts,€andÏthe€intermediate€court€should€accept€those€facts€as€found€unlessÏclearly€erroneous.€€òòFirst€Options€of€Chicagoóó,€115€S.€Ct.€at€1926.ÌÌà àMatters€of€law,€if€not€able€to€be€resolved€by€resort€toÏthe€controlling€statutes,€should€be€considered€independently,€withÏthe€utmost€caution,€and€in€a€manner€designed€to€minimizeÏinterference€with€an€efficient€and€economical€system€ofÏalternative€dispute€resolution.€€ÌÌà àSince€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€this€case€essentiallyÏconducted€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€arbitration€proceedings€ratherÏthan€a€more€restricted€review€of€the€trial€court's€action,€we€findÏthat€its€review€was€unduly€broad.ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àThe€question€remains,€however,€whether€the€arbitrationÏpanel€exceeded€its€powers,€as€Arnold€insists.€€ÌÌà àAs€stated€above,€the€trial€court€may€vacate€or€modify€anÏarbitration€award€only€as€provided€by€statute.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ29„5„313(a),€states:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à(a)à àUpon€application€of€a€party,Ïthe€court€shall€vacate€an€awardÏwhere:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)à àThe€award€was€procured€byÏcorruption,€fraud€or€other€undueÏmeans;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àThere€was€evident€partialityÏby€an€arbitrator€appointed€as€aÏneutral€or€corruption€in€any€of€theÏarbitrators€or€misconductÏprejudicing€the€rights€of€any€party;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àThe€arbitrators€exceeded€theirÏpowers;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)à àThe€arbitrators€refused€toÏpostpone€the€hearing€upon€sufficientÏcause€being€shown€therefor€orÏrefused€to€hear€evidence€material€toÏthe€controversy€or€otherwise€soÏconducted€the€hearing,€contrary€toÏthe€provisions€of€ðð€29„5„306,€as€toÍprejudice€substantially€the€rightsÏof€a€party;€orÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)à àThere€was€no€arbitrationÏagreement€and€the€issue€was€notÏadversely€determined€in€proceedingsÏunder€ðð€29„5„303€and€the€party€didÏnot€participate€in€the€arbitrationÏhearing€without€raising€theÏobjection.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€fact€that€the€relief€was€suchÏthat€it€could€not€or€would€not€beÏgranted€by€a€court€of€law€or€equityÏis€not€ground€for€vacating€orÏrefusing€to€confirm€the€award.ÌÓÓÌà àArbitrators€"exceed€their€powers"€when€they€go€beyondÏthe€scope€of€authority€granted€by€the€arbitration€agreement.€ÏòòInternational€Talent€Groupóó,€769€S.W.2d€at€218.€€Arnold€assertsÏthat€the€panel€exceeded€its€powers€because€"the€arbitrationÏagreement€requires€the€arbitrators€to€apply€the€law€of€the€StateÏof€Tennessee,€and€the€arbitration€decision€is€completelyÏirrational€and€totally€contrary€to€the€undisputed€and€agreedÏevidence€and€the€law€acknowledged€to€be€applicable."ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€Arnold's€position€wasÏsimply€that€the€panel€had€made€a€mistake€of€law€or€fact€when€itÏfound€that€there€was€no€reliance€on€a€material€misrepresentation.€ÍWe€cannot€say€this€conclusion€was€erroneous.€€Since€the€trialÏcourt€is€not€empowered€to€retry€the€issues€before€the€arbitrator,Ïit€was€proper€for€the€court€to€accept€the€panel's€findings€unlessÏclearly€erroneous.€€Nothing€about€the€award€suggests€that€theÏpanel€failed€to€apply€Tennessee€law,€as€required€by€the€agreement.€ÏThus,€the€panel€did€not€go€outside€the€arbitration€agreement;Ïhence,€it€did€not€exceed€its€powers.ÌÌà àWe€further€note€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313(a)Ïspecifically€provides€that€"[t]he€fact€that€the€relief€was€suchÏthat€it€could€not€or€would€not€be€granted€by€a€court€of€law€orÏequity€is€not€ground€for€vacating€or€refusing€to€confirm€theÏaward."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313(a)(5).€€Thus,€an€arbitrationÏaward€is€not€subject€to€vacation€for€a€mere€mistake€of€fact€orÏlaw.€€òòSeeóó€€òòMcLeroy€v.€Walleróó,€731€S.W.2d€789,€791€(Ark.€Ct.€App.Ï1987);€òòSeither€&€Cherry€Co.€v.€Illinois€Bank€Bldg.€Corp.óó,€419ÏN.E.2d€940,€945€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1981);€òòWestern€Waterproofing€Co.€v.ÏLindenwood€Collegesóó,€662€S.W.2d€288,€291€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1983);ÏòòTurner€v.€Nicholson€Properties,€Inc.óó,€341€S.E.2d€42,€45€(N.C.€Ct.ÏApp.€1986).€€òòTurneróó€is€particularly€instructive€here:€€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àIn€essence€respondent€argues€that€anÏarbitrator€who€errs€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€exceeds€his€powers€and€as€aÏresult€the€award€can€be€vacated.€ÏAllowing€such€relief€is€inconsistentÏwith€the€general€rule€that€"errorsÏof€law€or€fact,€or€an€erroneousÏdecision€of€matters€submitted€toÏ[arbitration],€are€insufficient€toÏinvalidate€an€award€fairly€andÏhonestly€made."ÌÓÓÌ341€S.E.2d€at€45(citation€omitted).ÌÌà àArnold€urges€us€to€find€that€the€panel€did€not€make€aÏ"mere€mistake€of€fact€or€law,"€but€made€a€decision€so€far€outsideÏof€the€law€that€it€should€be€considered€irrational€and,€hence,Ïsubject€to€vacation.€€We€decline€to€do€so.€ÌÌà àFirst,€we€do€not€find€that€the€award€was€"irrational";Ïthat€is,€that€the€panel€failed€to€follow€the€law.€€Second,€even€ifÏit€were€"irrational,"€an€arbitration€award€may€be€vacated€only€forÏthe€reasons€set€forth€in€the€statute.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313(a)€simply€does€not€provide€for€the€vacation€of€an€awardÏbecause€it€is€irrational.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€courts€have€interpreted€the€FederalÏArbitration€Act€to€allow€an€arbitration€award€to€be€vacated€on€theÏground€that€it€is€irrational.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòStorer€Broadcasting€Co.Ïv.€American€Fed'n€of€Television€and€Radio€Artists,€ClevelandÏLocal,€AFL„CIOóó,€600€F.2d€45€(6th€Cir.€1979);€€òòSwift€Industries,ÏInc.€v.€Botany€Industries,€Inc.óó,€466€F.2d€1125€(3d€Cir.€1972);€òòO„SÏCorp.€v.€Samuel€A.€Kroll,€Inc.óó,€348€A.2d€870€(Md.€Ct.€Spec.€App.Ï1975).€€However,€the€language€in€the€Federal€Arbitration€Act€isÏsignificantly€different€from€the€Uniform€Act€adopted€by€Tennessee.€ÏFirstò ò,ó ó€in€the€Federal€Act€the€statute€provides€for€vacation€of€theÏaward€"[w]here€the€arbitrators€exceeded€their€powers,€or€soÏimperfectly€executed€them€that€a€mutual,€final,€and€definite€awardÏupon€the€subject€matter€submitted€was€not€made."€€9€U.S.C.€ððÏ10(a)(4)€Supp.€1992.€€Second,€the€Federal€Act€does€not€includeÏlanguage€like€that€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„3„313(a)€disallowingÏvacation€of€the€award€for€a€mistake€of€fact€or€law.€€Finally,€evenÏif€the€Federal€Act€applied€in€this€case,€we€find€that€the€awardÏwas€not€irrational€within€the€meaning€of€the€cases€interpretingÏthe€Federal€Act.€€To€demonstrate€that€the€award€was€"fundamentallyÏirrational"€it€must€be€shown€that€the€award€"is€based€on€reasoningÏ'so€palpably€faulty€that€no€judge,€or€group€of€judges,€could€everÍconceivably€have€made€such€a€ruling.'"€€òòBettencourt€v.€BostonÏEdison€Co.óó,€560€F.2d€1045,€1050€(1st€Cir.€€1977);€òòLocal€1466,ÏInt'l€Brotherhood€of€Electrical€Workers,€AFL„CIO€v.€Columbus€&ÏSouthern€Ohio€Electric€Co.óó,€455€F.€Supp.€471,€474€(S.D.€OhioÏ1978).€€The€award€in€this€case€does€not€meet€this€standard.€€InÏany€event,€we€hold€that€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313(a)€anÏarbitration€award€cannot€be€vacated€because€it€is€"irrational."ÌÌà@ àIVÌÌà àWith€regard€to€arbitration€in€general,€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€of€North€Carolina€in€òòCarolina€Virginia€Fashion€Exhibitors,ÏInc.€v.€Guntheróó,€255€S.E.2d€414€(N.C.€Ct.€App.€1979),€has€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àIf€an€arbitrator€makes€a€mistake,Ïeither€as€to€law€or€fact,€it€is€aÏmisfortune€of€the€party,€and€thereÏis€no€help€for€it.€€There€is€noÏright€of€appeal€and€the€Court€has€noÏpower€to€revise€the€decisions€ofÏ"judges€who€are€of€the€parties'€ownÏchoosing."€€An€[arbitration]€awardÏis€intended€to€settle€the€matter€inÏcontroversy,€and€thus€save€theÏexpense€of€litigation.€€If€a€mistakeÏbe€a€sufficient€ground€for€settingÏaside€an€award,€it€opens€a€door€forÏcoming€into€court€in€almost€everyÏcase;€for€in€nine€cases€out€of€tenÍsome€mistake€either€of€law€or€fact,Ïmay€be€suggested€by€the€dissatisfiedÏparty.€€Thus€.€.€.€arbitration,Ïinstead€of€ending€would€tend€toÏincrease€litigation.ÌÓÓÌ255€S.E.2d€at€420.€€By€enacting€the€statutes€that€provide€forÏarbitration€of€disputes,€the€General€Assembly€has€recognized€thatÏthis€form€of€alternative€dispute€resolution€should€be€madeÏavailable€to€all€citizens.€€This€Court,€following€the€lead€of€theÏlegislature,€has€established€a€Commission€on€Alternative€DisputeÏResolution€and€has€recently€promulgated€rules€that€will€permit€andÏencourage€a€wider€judicial€presence€and€greater€participation€inÏalternative€dispute€resolution.€€Admittedly,€our€investment€inÏthis€process€is€heavy;€nevertheless,€if€alternative€disputeÏresolution€is€to€succeed,€there€must€be€finality„„finality€ofÏarbitration€awards€and€decisions.€€ÌÌà àStrong€reasons€support€this€need€for€finality.€€TheÏreason€for€attaching€such€a€high€degree€of€conclusiveness€to€anÏaward€made€by€arbitrators€is€that€the€parties€have,€themselves,€byÏagreement,€substituted€a€tribunal€of€their€own€choosing€for€theÏone€provided€and€established€by€law,€to€the€end€that€they€mayÏavoid€the€expense€usually€incurred€by€litigation€and€bring€theÍcause€to€a€speedy€and€final€determination.€€€To€permit€aÏdissatisfied€party€to€set€aside€the€arbitration€award€and€toÏinvoke€the€Court's€judgment€upon€the€merits€of€the€cause€wouldÏrender€arbitration€merely€a€step€in€the€settlement€of€the€dispute,Ïinstead€of€its€final€determination.€€These€reasons,€articulated€byÏthe€Supreme€Court€of€Florida€over€seventy„five€years€ago€inÏòòJohnson€v.€Wellsóó,€73€So.€188,€190„91€(Fla.€1916),€remain€relevantÏunder€today's€arbitration€legislation.ÌÌà àThus,€the€finality€and€enforceability€of€an€arbitrationÏaward€is€a€characteristic€of€arbitration€that€distinguishes€itÏfrom€other€forms€of€alternative€dispute€resolution.€€Its€integrityÏmust€not€be€undermined€or€compromised,€but€preserved€and€enhanced.ÌÌà àFor€all€these€reasons,€we€find€that€the€Court€of€AppealsÏmisinterpreted€its€scope€of€review€and€exceeded€the€authority€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„5„313(a).€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€reinstate€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JusticeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€White,€JJ.