Cited by

As relevant to this appeal, an arbitral award may be vacated for a plain mistake of law if the arbitrator “clearly misapplied the law to the facts.” Finn, 169 N.H. at 146; see also John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 361-62 (2001) (concluding that arbitrator committed plain mistake when, due to “an error of law,” arbitrator denied plaintiff interest on an award).

RSA 542:2 (2007); see also John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 361 (2001) (“An arbitrator’s jurisdiction over an issue depends upon the voluntary agreement of the parties.”).

John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 355 (2001); Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 301-02 (2010).

Sherman, 152 N.H. at 121- 23 (reversing when parties disputed before arbitrator whether contract language was ambiguous, arbitrator found language ambiguous, and we disagreed); John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 361-62 (2001) (reversing arbitrator who did not award interest when the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contain a provision for the payment of interest on damages because we concluded that, given the “broad language” of the agreement, “the arbitrator could ha

John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 361-62 (2001) (holding that arbitrator could include interest in award where parties’ arbitration agreement was silent on issue of interest); Albee v. Wolfeboro Railroad Co., 126 N.H. 176, 181 (1985) (holding that statutory interest rate applied on amount owed after terms of interest called for by note had expired).

reas the second clause speaks of “expenditures,” and to adopt a construction that gives these terms the same meaning runs afoul of the well-recognized principle of construction that where the enacting body “uses two different words, it generally means two different things.” Guildhall Sand & Gravel v. Town of Goshen, 155 N.H. 762, 765 (2007); see also John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 357 (2001) (“It is proper to presume that the legislature was aware of the difference

“In the absence of clearly restrictive language, great latitude must be allowed in the framing of an award and fashioning of an appropriate remedy.” John A. Cookson Co. v. New Hampshire Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 361 (2001) (quotations omitted).

in accordance with the proportionate fault of each of the parties.” “In statutory interpretation, this court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 357 (2001) (quotation omitted).

“The scope of an arbitration provision contained in a contract presents a question of law for this court.” John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 355 (2001).

An arbitration decision may be corrected or modified upon a showing that the arbitrator committed “plain mistake.” RSA 542:8; John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 356 (2001).

John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 361-62 (2001).

“Plain mistake” refers to errors of fact and law that are “apparent on the face of the record and which would have been corrected had [they] been called to the arbitrator’s attention.” John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 356 (2001) (quotation omitted).

“In statutory interpretation, this court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 357 *738 (2001).

John A. Cookson Co. v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 147 N.H. 352, 361-62 (2001).