## Facts

- A retail owner entered a written construction contract with a contractor to build a department store.
- The contractor was unable to secure necessary financing and attempted to withdraw from performance.
- The contract contained an arbitration clause expressly authorizing the arbitrator to grant equitable relief, including specific performance.
- The owner demanded arbitration; the arbitrator ordered the contractor to specifically perform its contractual obligations.
- The contractor commenced a proceeding to vacate the award; the trial-level court confirmed it, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.
- The contractor appealed to the state’s highest court, challenging confirmation of an arbitral decree of specific performance.

## Issues

1. Whether an arbitrator may award specific performance of a construction contract when the arbitration agreement expressly authorizes equitable relief.
2. Whether a court may refuse to confirm such an award on the theory that specific performance is beyond arbitral power or contrary to public policy.
3. Whether asserted financing difficulty and hardship justify vacatur where the parties committed remedial discretion to the arbitrator.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the order confirming the arbitration award.
- It held that, where the parties’ arbitration clause expressly empowers the arbitrator to award equitable relief, an award of specific performance is within the arbitrator’s authority.
- It declined to substitute judicial views of appropriate relief for the remedy selected in arbitration.
- It found no basis to vacate the award on narrow statutory grounds or on a clear public-policy violation.

## Legal Principles

- Arbitrators may award equitable remedies, including specific performance, when the arbitration agreement expressly grants that remedial power.
- Judicial review of arbitration awards is limited; courts generally confirm awards that fall within the scope of the parties’ submission and are not tainted by recognized vacatur grounds.
- Public policy limits on confirmation require a clear conflict with strong policy (e.g., illegality); practical enforcement concerns or alleged hardship ordinarily do not suffice.
- Economic difficulty in performing (such as inability to obtain financing) is typically a merits-related contention for the arbitrator and does not, without more, render a specific-performance award unenforceable.

## Conclusion

The court upheld confirmation of an arbitration award compelling specific performance of a construction contract, reasoning that the parties’ clause expressly authorized equitable relief and that courts may not overturn such an award absent a narrow, well-established ground for vacatur or a clear public-policy violation.


In re Grayson-Robinson Stores, Inc., 202 N.Y.S.2d 303 (N.Y. 1960)