| Abstract [eng] |
The consensual nature of arbitration has long led to the fact that a person's participation in the arbitration process could only be based on the latter's consent. The development of arbitration led to the timely questioning of the requirement of written form for an arbitration agreement, thus concluding that consent may be in more than written form. In the meantime, this work is intended to analyze the doctrine where the parties have not agreed to an arbitration clause, while at the same time seeking to identify and understand many doctrines of binding an arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the first part, going beyond continental law traditions, identifies and describes the doctrines of “expansion” of the arbitration agreement, while also seeking to determine their applicability in Lithuania. The purpose of this paragraph is also to distinguish between substantive differences and similarities between doctrines in assessing whether the arbitration clause is extended. The second part tries to answer the question of what law applies to the doctrines of “expansion,” while at the same time touching upon the question of what nature, that is to say, substantive or procedural, they are. The third part focuses on the conditions of application of the alter ego doctrine as set out in the judgments and theories of the courts while comparing them with the conditions of application of Article 2.50 (3) of the CC. |
