•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This article re-examines the position of the UAE law towards the arbitration agreement when being concluded by “permitted-minor of managing or trading”. The general rules of legal competency are that a “permitted-minor” shall be considered adult, i.e. a person with full capacity, with regards to legal issues within the boundaries of that permission. Thus, making their arbitration agreement valid and binding. This article provides a new perspective to such rule and a thorough examination justifies for a different opinion. It is well established that the authority bestowed by the Permission for Managing is not as wide as of the Permission for Trading. It is also established that legal acts are categorized into three types: acts of disposition, acts of managing, and acts of conservation. Each type requires a specific legal competency to yield the act valid. Although the arbitration agreement is considered a civil contract, it has a unique nature that differs it from other types of contracts. The arbitration clause itself is severed from the primary contract in which it is included. Therefore, the arbitration agreement does not inherit the primary contract’s attributes whether the latter was a civil, commercial, or administrative contract. Therefore, this article tackles the various types of legal competencies, legal acts, and the nature of the agreement of arbitration as to determine its position among these acts. In addition, it analyzes and studies the pros and cons of allowing the permitted-minor to conclude an arbitration agreement. The article finds that allowing a permitted-minor to conclude an arbitration agreement is very risky and detrimental. It also reveals that the arbitration’s unique nature makes it contradictable with the legislator’s goal of the permission scheme for the minors. Finally, the article recommends the involvement of the court in all permitted-minor’s transactions, specifically arbitration, so that the court would have the proper control over it.

Share

COinS