Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · Hawaii · Hawaii Revised Statutes

[§658A-6] Validity of agreement to arbitrate.

309 words·~1 min read·/hi/658a-6

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

[§658A-6] Validity of agreement to arbitrate.
(a)An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.
(b)The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.
(c)An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.
(d)If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders. [L 2001, c 265, pt of §1]
Case Notes
Circuit court erred in determining that petitioner's claim that the arbitration provision in question was unconscionable on several grounds were beyond the scope of its review in deciding on a motion to compel arbitration; unconscionability is a generally applicable contract defense and is within the scope of the circuit court's review on the question of whether a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists. 130 H. 437, 312 P.3d 869 (2013).
The circuit court should have granted the petitioner's motion to compel arbitration because there was an arbitration agreement between the parties that clearly and unmistakably left the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. 132 H. 426, 322 P.3d 966 (2014).
Where substantively unconscionable terms pervaded the arbitration agreement and, therefore, no part of the arbitration agreement could be spared and given effect, circuit court erred in declining to invalidate the entire arbitration agreement. 140 H. 325, 400 P.3d 526 (2017).
Cited: 297 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (2003).
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.