What is the difference between a &quot;broad&quot; and &quot;narrow&quot; arbitration agreement?
<p>For instance, if a contract calls for arbitration, but is hedged with numerous caveats and contingencies, does that make the agreement over arbitration narrow? If the contract calls for arbitration, but allows that parties "to seek any other remedies available under law or equity" is that a broad or narrow arbitration agreement?</p>

<p>Suppose one party wants to arbitrate more than the other. How does a broad versus narrow arbitration agreement affect the first party's chances of going to arbitration?</p>

<p>For instance, articles like <a href="http://www.wsmtlaw.com/blog/arbitration-pitfalls-broad-or-narrow-scope.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this one</a> do explain the difference between broad and narrow arbitration clauses, but I don't have enough of a legal background to interpret the rather technical language.</p>

<p>Here is a <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/international_law/2014/04/aba-nysba-international-boot-camp/CrossBorder11.authcheckdam.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sample clause</a> for a broad scope of an arbitration clause: "Any dispute, controversy, or claim relating to, connected with, or arising out of this Agreement..." Here are two for narrow scope: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“All disputes arising under this Agreement...” [precludes arbitration
  of matters that, while related to the agreement, do not arise out of
  it] “Any dispute, controversy, or claim relating to, connected with,
  or arising out of this Agreement, including any question regarding its
  existence, validity, or termination, but with the exception of claims
  arising under Article ___ of this Agreement....” [precludes specific
  claims, even if they arise out of the agreement]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, there is a contract and a dispute comes up. A <a href="https://www.muchshelist.com/news/article/parties-contract-take-heed-arbitration-clause-matters-too" rel="nofollow noreferrer">broad clause</a> will include, of course, contract disputes, but also perhaps torts or other claims related to that contract. A narrow clause will include certain disputes and can exclude others from arbitration. Narrow clauses will usually list out specific issues that should be sent to arbitration. </p>

<p>Also of note: there is usually a presumption in favor of arbitrability. Should there be a dispute over whether a claim should or is allowed to be submitted to arbitration, absent clear and convincing evidence otherwise, it will be decided in favor of arbitration. </p>

<p>In-depth reasoning as to why arbitration clauses should <em>typically</em> be broad as opposed to narrow is available here: <a href="http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2012/05/25/scope-of-arbitration-clauses-and-carve-out-clauses-erring-on-the-side-of-caution-or-on-the-side-of-daring/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2012/05/25/scope-of-arbitration-clauses-and-carve-out-clauses-erring-on-the-side-of-caution-or-on-the-side-of-daring/</a>. </p>

<p>With respect to your second paragraph question: a broad arbitration clause makes more things potentially available for a party to bring to arbitration. Therefore, if Party A wants to arbitrate and Party B does not, a broad arbitration clause favors Party A's interests. </p>

arbitration