In PRESTON v. FERRER, (2008) there is a conflict between two individuals who have created a contract together. A contract between respondent Ferrer, who introduces himself on television as "Judge Alex," and petitioner Preston, an entertainment lawyer, requires arbitration of "any dispute... relating to the terms of the contract... . or to the violation, validity, or legality thereof... in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association." Preston appealed to this provision to receive payment due under the contract. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The problem began when Ferrer decided to deny payment to Preston, when in fact the contract stipulated that Ferrer would give a commission to Preston. The assignment would be based on Ferrer's TV character, "Judge Alex." However, Ferrer decided that he would not pay Preston, which is why Preston went to court to sort everything out. Ferrer petitioned the California Labor Commissioner to conclude that the contract was invalid and unenforceable due to California's Talent Agencies Act because Preston had entered into the contract as a talent agent without the required license. . Soon the main question was whether or not the contract was valid because Preston was acting as an authorized agent when the contract was created. This issue violated the rules of the Talent Agencies Act, causing an argument between the two parties. In Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., which originated in federal court, it was held that claims to the validity of an entire contract, as opposed to claims relating to the arbitration clause alone, are within reach of the referee. Buckeye held that the same rule must be followed in state courts. Because the contract at issue did not govern the order of proceedings and included a choice of law clause that adopted California law, the Volt Court recognized as gap-filling a California statute that authorized the state court to stay proceedings third-party judicial or arbitration proceedings to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions on a common issue. Here, however, the arbitration clause resolves the controversial issue; both parties are bound by the arbitration agreement. The question of Preston's status as a talent agent concerns the legality of the contract. Preston and Ferrer's contract includes a choice of law clause, which states that "the agreement will be governed by the laws of the state of California." A separate escape clause provides: “In the event of a conflict between this agreement and any present or future law,” the law prevails over the contract “to the extent necessary to bring [the contract] within the requirements of that law.” Such constitutional terms, according to Ferrer, require the application of California procedural law, including granting limited jurisdiction to the Labor Commissioner. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Customize Essay Ultimately, Ferror relied too heavily on Volt of Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 US. Relying on Volt caused another problem as the circumstances were different. In this case the arbitration clause regulates the subject of the dispute; it states that "any dispute... relating to... breach, validity, or legality" of the contract should be arbitrated in accordance with the rules of American Arbitration).