Arbitrator cannot delegate or reserve his authority.

Award must decide all

points referred.

Award of

third person

is bad.

Effect of a

partial delegation of authority.

the matter in dispute (Sherry v. Richardson, Pop. 15).

An arbitrator, as we have seen, cannot delegate his authority either to a stranger to the reference, or to his co-arbitrators where more than one are appointed. Neither can he reserve to himself any act of power or authority to be exercised by him after his award is published. In a reference where the award directed that so many trees should be left on certain lands for house-bote and hedge-bote, as the arbitrator upon the advice of counsel should appoint, it was held that the award was bad, as it reserved to the arbitrator certain judicial functions to be performed at some future time after his authority had expired by the giving of his award, and consequently that such award was not final. Where an award decides only upon some of the matters referred, and leaves others untouched upon, it will also be bad, as not being final (Hayward v. Phillips, 6 A. & E. 119). An arbitrator cannot award that the parties to the reference, or some of them, shall abide by the decision of a third person whom they shall name, as an award of that character would be a delegation of his authority to some person unknown, and would leave the result uncertain, and independent of himself, whose duty it is to make a final award. Also a partial delegation of authority by the arbitrator would have the same effect of making void the award; and where an award directed that A. should pay B. £50, and should also at such time and place as B. should appoint beg his pardon, the award was held void, as being a partial delegation of the arbitrator's authority, as it was his duty to fix both

time and place for the performance of both the acts mentioned (Glover v. Barrie, 1 Salk. 71). But although the duty of the arbitrator is to give a final award, and thereby finish the matter referred, and not leave anything to be done in connection with it at a future time, he has power nevertheless to give an alternative award; and if an arbitrator award that Alternative award is good. one party shall pay the other £100 by a certain day, and that if such sum is not paid by that day, then to pay £110 on a future day, such award is valid, as the direction given is clear and also final (Comyn's Digest, Arb. E. 15).

Arbitrator reserve or

must not

except any matter re

submission;

An arbitrator can neither reserve nor except any matters in dispute for future litigation, as if he do so his award is not final; and where the arbitrator in a reference of all matters in dispute between the parties ferred by the ordered one defendant to pay a certain sum to the complainant, in full satisfaction of all claims against him as executor, or against his testator's estate, but directed that the other defendants should be at liberty to prosecute their claims against the testator's estate as though no reference had been made, the Court of Chancery held the award void for not deciding the various claims existing between the co-defendants (Turner v. Turner, 3 Russ. 494). Where, in a reference, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff a sum of money unless within twenty-one days he should exonerate himself by affidavit from certain payments and receipts, in which case he was to pay a less sum, the award was held bad (Pedley v. Goddard, 7 T. R. 73).

If an arbitrator award that a party shall execute must sett

form of conveyance.

conveyances, to be settled by such counsel as he (the arbitrator) shall appoint, the award is bad; as although he need not of necessity draw the conveyance himself, he should indicate the form of it, and not leave that to the discretion of the conveyancer employed (Tandy v. Tandy, 9 Dowl. 1044).

Award must be certain.

CHAPTER XVIII.

AWARD MUST BE CERTAIN.

IF it is necessary (and we have seen in the last Chapter that it is) for an award to be a final determination of all matters in dispute between the parties, it is no less important to its validity that it should be certain in its meaning. The parties to the reference must be able to understand in what position they are placed by the award, and what are their duties and responsibilities in connection with it. Where an award does not possess those elements of certainty necessary to place its meaning beyond a doubt, the Court will come to the assistance of the parties, if it is possible to do so, and will make such alterations in the document as will make clear the meaning of the arbitrator in drawing it up. If sidered certain, the award show such a certainty as was contemplated by the parties to the submission, it will be upheld ; but uncertainty in a material part of it will be fatal

When award will be con

(Hawkins v. Colclough, 1 Bur. 274). Although this want of certainty in a material part of the award is sufficient to render it void in the majority of cases, still a want of conclusiveness, or any uncertainty that can be rectified by the Court, will not have that effect. Where a sum of money was ordered to be paid within a certain time from the date of the award, and the award bore no date, it was held to be sufficiently certain. The date of the award in this case would be calculated from the publication of it, from which time, as we have shown, it alone begins to be effective (Armit v. Breame, 1 Salk. 76). Where a bond was ordered to be given up to be cancelled within a certain time from the date, without stating the date, it was considered sufficient (Bell v. Gipps, 2 Ld. Raymond, 1141). An award that some act shall be done by A. or B. has been held void for uncertainty. In a case where an arbitrator awarded. that one party or the other should purchase certain lands at a certain price, the Court decided that the arbitrator should have said which of the parties was to purchase the land, as he had fixed the price at which such purchase should be made (Lawrence v. Hodgson, 1 Y. & J. 6). Where an arbitrator, however, awarded that one of the parties should do one or other of two things in the alternative, it was held that the award was good if either of the things were capable of being performed (Simmonds v. Swain, 1 Taunt. 549). Where an arbitrator states facts to raise a question of law for the Court, the facts should be stated with such a degree of certainty as will enable the Courts to draw their conclusions of law

Where possible, Court will remedy uncertainty.

Where money is awarded amount should be stated.

Nature of security

awarded must be stated.

from them, and he should not leave any fact to be implied by the Court (Watson on Awards, 209).

The award will be made certain where such certainty can be effected without unduly interfering with its provisions, all cases of uncertainty being governed by the legal maxim, "Id certum est quod certum reddi potest." An award to pay money or execute a release is sufficiently certain although no time is mentioned for the performance of either of those actions, it being understood that such performance must take place within a reasonable time. when an act is ordered by the award to be done, the direction should be given in unmistakeable language, and such as to leave no possible doubt on the minds of the parties who have to perform it (Price v. Popkin, 10 A. & E. 139).

But

Where an award directs the payment of a sum of money by one party to the other, the terms should not be ambiguous, but the precise sum should be mentioned. An award that orders one party to pay the other so much money as is due in conscience, without fixing the amount is void for uncertainty (Watson v. Watson, Sty. 28). Such also would be the case where the award ordered one party to pay the other so much as the land was worth, without determining the value of such land (Titus v. Perkins, Skin. 247). Also where the award directed that one party should give security for money, without stating the nature or amount of such security, the award was held to be bad (Thinne v. Rigby, Cro. Jac. 314). "The award is bad that directs one party to pay so much for every quarter of malt as malt may be sold