Thomson-Csf, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a non-signatory party may be subject to an arbitration agreement if her subsequent conduct indicates that she has assumed the obligation to arbitrate
• holding that although the unwilling party received a benefit, the benefit did not derive directly from the agreement containing the arbitration clause and thus arbitration could not be compelled
• holding that five theories, based in common law and agency 14 principles, justify binding nonsignatories to arbitration agreements: “1
• holding that although the unwilling party received a benefit, the benefit did not derive directly from the agreement containing the arbitration clause and thus arbitration could not be compelled
• holding that district court “improperly extended the limited theories upon which this Court is willing to enforce an arbitration agreement against a nonsignatory” by applying alternate estoppel theory when signatory sought to compel arbitration
• holding that an “indirect benefit” not derived from the agreement itself containing the arbitration clause, is “not the sort of benefit which this [c]ourt envisioned as the basis for estop- ping a nonsignatory from avoiding arbitration”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).