{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff176\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f169\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f176\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman TUR;}{\f185\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f186\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f188\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f189\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f190\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f191\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f192\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f193\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{\*\cs16 \additive 
\scaps\fs17 GCA Footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \scaps\fs17 GCA Header;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid2829319\rsid5270195\rsid8596553\rsid9508377\rsid13311813}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}
{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr16\min12}{\version4}{\edmins2}{\nofpages10}{\nofwords2669}{\nofchars15219}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws17853}{\vern16391}}\margl2160\margr2160\margt2606\margb2606 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot13311813 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13311813 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13311813 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13311813 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13311813 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery2606\footery2606\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid13311813\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs17\b\scaps\fs17\insrsid13311813 
Sumitomo vs. Zhong Ye, 1997 Guam 8, (Opinion)
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\fs22\insrsid13311813 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\fs22\insrsid13311813 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 
\f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
\par TERRITORY OF GUAM
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\b\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 SUMITOMO CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par Petitioner-Appellee,}{\f0\insrsid13311813 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid2829319\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 vs.}{\f0\insrsid13311813 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid2829319\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\b\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 ZHONG YE, INC.,
\par }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid5270195 Respondent-Appellant.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Civil Case No. CVA96-014
\par Filed: July 11, 1997
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\b\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Cite as: 1997 Guam 8
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and Submitted on January 29, 1997
\par Agana, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par Appearing for the Petitioner-Appellee:
\par Thomas C. Sterling, Esq.
\par Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson
\par Suite 1008, Pacific News Building
\par 238 Archbishop F.C. Flores Street
\par Agana, Guam 96910}{\f0\insrsid2829319\charrsid2829319 
\par 
\par }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Appearing for the Respondent-Appellant:
\par Daniel R. Del Priore, Esq.
\par Law Offices of Del Priore & Associates, P.C.
\par Suite 507, GCIC Building
\par 414 West Soledad Avenue
\par Agana, Guam 96910
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 ___________________
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\b\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 OPINION
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice, JANET HEALY WEEKS, and MONESSA G. LUJAN}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\b\fs22\super\insrsid13311813 
\chftn }{\b\fs20\insrsid13311813 Justice Lujan heard argument and participated in the resolution of this matter but passed away before this opinion had been completed.}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , Associate Justices.}{\f0\insrsid13311813 

\par }{\f0\insrsid2829319\charrsid2829319 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 SIGUENZA, C.J.:
\par }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qj \fi432\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
The appellant, Zhong Ye, appeals the Superior Court's decision confirming an arbitration award. Appellant supports its position by focusing upon various grounds for vacating arbitration awards. Appellee, Sumitomo Construction Co. Ltd., in opposition, asse
rts that the Guam statute addressing this issue precludes the grounds upon which appellant rests his appeal.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qj \fi432\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
We believe that the wrong standards were used to confirm the award. We find, however, that under the appropriate standards, the arbitration award would still be confirmed. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 s decision.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par \tab I.}{\f0\insrsid2829319\charrsid2829319  }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL}{\f0\insrsid2829319  }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 HISTORY
\par 
\par [1]\tab Between 1991 and 1992, appellee Sumitomo Construction Company (}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Sumitomo}{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 ) was the general contractor on two construction projects, the Leo Palace Hotel (}{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Leo Palace}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 ) and the Pia Marine Condominiums (}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Pia Marine}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
). As to the Leo Palace, it is undisputed that Sumitomo entered into a subcontract with Nga Brothers Corporation (}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 NBC}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
). In turn, NBC entered into a subcontract with the appellant Zhong Ye. Zhong Ye then entered into a subcontract with Liao Tong Construction (}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Liao Tong}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
). The parties, however, dispute whether the same relationship existed between these entities as to the Pia Marine. Appellant maintains that it was not involved in this project whatsoever w
hile appellee conversely asserts that contractual relationships similar to the Leo Palace project existed between the entities, although undocumented.
\par 
\par [2]\tab Based on the failure of Liao Tong to pay its employees, the Government of Guam filed liens against b
oth construction projects in 1992. The lien on Leo Palace was initially assessed at $242,231.07 while the Pia Marine lien totaled $72,828.93. The defense of these liens fell upon Sumitomo. Sumitomo had earlier attempted to tender the defense of the Leo Pa
l
ace lien to Zhong Ye. The appellant, however, denied responsibility and rejected the tender. As a result, appellee withheld payments totaling $125,041.50 from the Leo Palace project. Sumitomo maintains that this amount was owed to NBC while Zhong Ye asser
ts that it should have received the payment.
\par 
\par [3]\tab The liens against both the Leo Palace and the Pia Marine were eventually settled for $43,530.40 and $10,799.06 respectively and paid out of the previously retained payments. Sumitomo also reimbursed itself f
or attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of the litigation. The retention balance of $24,780.00 was eventually paid to Zhong Ye.
\par 
\par [4]\tab Zhong Ye eventually instituted arbitration proceedings against Sumitomo for recovery of the retained payments, atto
rneys fees, and punitive damages. Sumitomo, although initially asserting a lack of a contractual relationship, eventually agreed to arbitrate the dispute. The arbitration proceedings were held on Guam on April 24 and 25, 1995. The arbitrator decided that 
S
umitomo was obligated to pay Zhong Ye the total amount of $834.00. Sumitomo later filed a petition in the Superior Court of Guam to confirm the award; the petition was opposed by Zhong Ye on the same grounds now before this Court. In a written decision, t
he lower court granted the petition and entered judgment accordingly. The lower court, in reaching its decision, relied exclusively upon cases from California and from the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam.
\par 
\par \tab II. ANALYSIS
\par 
\par [5]\tab Guam's original arbitration statutes became effective on March 14, 1970 and were codified under Title VII of the Guam Code of Civil Procedure, }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  2110-2120. These statutes have never been amended or{\*\bkmkstart QuickMark}{\*\bkmkend QuickMark}
 modified and are currently codified at 7 GCA }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}
{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  42101-42111. A review of the legislative drafts concerning Guam's arbitration statutes indicates that they were patterned after the United States Arbitration Act found in Title 9 of the United States Code Annotated, }
{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 1-14 (1970)(originally codified on 
July 30, 1947). In particular, the Guam provisions addressing vacation of arbitration awards mirror exactly the corresponding federal statutes. Thus, when needed, this Court will appropriately consider federal authorities as persuasive sources of interpre
tation.
\par 
\par [6]\tab Our use of federal authority is in direct contrast with Guam precedent established by the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam. The Appellate Division previously held that California auth
ority should be used to interpret Guam's arbitration statutes. }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 L & T Builders v. Cruz, }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Civil Appeal No. 82-288A (D. App.Div. November 17, 1982); and }{
\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Episcopal Church in Micronesia v. Chung Kuo Insurance Co., }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Civil Appeal No. 84-0001 (D. App.Div. June 28, 1
984). Though pre-existing precedent continues to operate until addressed by this Court, decisions of the federal courts are not controlling upon our construction of the law.}{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 People of the Territory of Guam v. Dwayne S. Quenga}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , CRA96-005, 7, n.4 (Sup. Ct. Guam, May 13, 1997). And while we will not disturb precedent that is }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 well supported in law and well reasoned}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , we clearly are within our authority to modify those interpretations previously addressed by federal courts. }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Id. }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
When choosing to make such changes, we will use our own independent and reasoned analysis of the issues before us. Moreover, based on our familiarity with these matters, we will give consideration to l
ocal law and customs, if applicable, and provide for their proper effect.
\par 
\par [7]\tab The legislature modeled Guam's arbitration statutes after the United States Arbitration Act. Generally, when a legislature adopts a statute which is identical or similar to one 
in effect in another jurisdiction, it is presumed that the adopting jurisdiction applies the construction placed on the statute by the originating jurisdiction. Sutherland's Stat. Const. }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 52.01 (5th Ed). This rule of construction is useful in helping the judiciary interpret statutes adopted from federal acts. }{
\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Id.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  The interpretation of the statutes by federal courts, however, is only persuasive and does not bind or control this Court\rquote s analysis. }{
\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Id.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par 
\par [8]\tab We can pro
perly assume that the legislature meant to adopt the federal construction of Guam's arbitration statutes when it patterned these provisions after the United States Arbitration Act. Thus, use of California authority would be improper under the circumstance
s before us. While we may agree with the outcome under California case authority, we believe that use of federal interpretations would give proper effect to the legislature's objectives.
\par 
\par [9]\tab When reviewing the decision of a lower court confirming an arbitration award, questions of law are reviewed de novo while questions of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.}{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 First Option of Chicago, Inc., v. Kaplan}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 514 U.S. 938 (1995). These same standards apply to the trial court's review of the arbitrator's award.}{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 Carpenters Pension Trust v. Underground Construction Co.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 31 F.3d 776 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 th}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  Cir. 1994).
\par 
\par [10]\tab In arbitration cases decided under the federal act, the scope of review is quite narrow. This is complementary to a policy favoring consensual agreements and guaranteeing enforcement of contractual terms between the parties. }{
\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 473 U.S. 614 (1985). Although a serious question may arise as to the arbitrator's view of the law, an award }{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 will not be set aside by a court for error either in law or fact ... if the award 
contains the honest decision of the arbitrators, after a full and fair hearing of the parties.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Coast Trading Co., Inc. v. Pacific Molasses Co.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 681 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 th}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 Cir. 1982)(citations omitted). In other words, }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, a court's conviction that the arbitrator made a serious mistake or committed grie
vous error will not furnish a satisfactory basis for undoing the decision.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  }{
\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Advest, Inc. v. McCarthy}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 914 F.2d 6, 9 (1}{\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 st}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 Cir. 1990)(citations omitted). With these standards in mind, we now address Guam's arbitration laws.
\par 
\par [11]\tab Arbitration awards are binding unless certain limited exceptions exist upon which a court may vacate the grant. Specifically, upon application of a party, a court may vacate the award under the following circumstances:
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-709\li1418\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1418\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 1.\tab Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
\par 2.\tab Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.
\par 3.\tab Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown
, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi270\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx270\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f176\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
{\cs15\b\fs22\super\insrsid13311813 \chftn }{\b\fs20\insrsid13311813 Based upon the briefs, this exception is not at issue before this Court.}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par 4.\tab Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them so that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par 7 GCA }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  42108(a)-(d).
\par 
\par [12]\tab The appellant first argues that 
the facts of the case do not support the arbitrator's award and the subsequent confirmation by the lower court. Essentially, appellant asks this Court to review testimony and substitute its judgment for that of the lower court judge. We decline such under
t
aking for the following reasons. First, this exception is not recognized under Guam's statutory scheme of exceptions. Nowhere within our statutes are courts permitted to entertain such extensive review as that asked for by appellant. Second, appellant fai
l
s to provide an explanation or argument that would demonstrate how the facts in themselves support the conclusion that the award was unjustified. Instead, appellant makes naked assertions of error based on its own rendition of facts. Finally, issues of su
bstantive law were addressed at the arbitration hearings supporting the appellee's right to retain and settle the claims in the manner that occurred under the given facts. The record before us thus supports the arbitrator's decision.
\par 
\par [13]\tab 
The appellant next claims that the arbitrator exceeded the power delegated to him by the parties. Appellant claims that the arbitrator created a contract between the parties as to the Pia Marine project where none existed before. This argument is also wit
hout merit.
\par 
\par [14]\tab Guam's statute permits vacation of arbitration awards when the arbitrator exceeds his power. 7 GCA }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 42108(d). When the demand for arbitration uses broad language, however, arbitrators are given the necessary power to resolve the dispute. }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Valentine Sugars, Inc., v. Donau Corp.}{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 981 F.2d 210, 213 (5}{\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 th}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  Cir. 1993); }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 See also}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  }{
\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Peoples Security Life Insurance Company v. Monumental Life Insurance Company}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 991 F.2d 141 (4}{\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 th}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 Cir. 1993). Consequently, any doubt as to the arbitrator's jurisdiction is resolved in favor of arbitration. }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
, 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983).
\par 
\par [15]\tab Although we recognize this exception for vacating an arbitra
tion award, we reject appellant's claim of error under it and find that the arbitrator did not exceed his power. When appellant initiated arbitration proceedings, a Demand for Arbitration was filed and signed by appellant's counsel. The Demand described t
he nature of the dispute as }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
[w]ithholding/retention of monies due claimant under both contracts.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 As relief, appellant claimed damages of $125,000, attorneys' fees, int
erest, and costs. These are the terms agreed upon by the parties and then placed before the arbitrator. Clearly, the terms submitted by appellant were specific to both the Leo Palace and Pia Marine projects. In addition, the amount of damages claimed matc
hed the payment retained by appellee from both liens. Not only did the arbitrator not exceed his powers, but he decided the issues put before him by the parties.
\par 
\par [16]\tab Appellant next argues that the amount of the award suggests fraud or partiality on the part of the arbitrator. Although a great disparity may indicate the arbitrator's corruption or partisan bias, }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
Tinaway v. Merrill Lynch & Co.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 658 F.Supp 576, 579 (S.D.N.Y.1987); an award, generally, will not be overturned for mere inadequacy in amount and every reasonable presumption will be indulged to sustain the award.}{
\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  Firemen\rquote s Fund Insurance Co. v. Flint Hosiery Mills}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 74 F.2d 533, 536 (4}{\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 th}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 Cir. 1935). If the grounds for the decision can be inferred from the facts of the case, the award should be confirmed. }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Tinaway}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
, 658 F.Supp at 579. The award, however, should not be confirmed if it has no support whatsoever from the record.}{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  NF&M Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
, 524 F.2d 756, 760 (3}{\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 rd}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  Cir. 1975). If the award is ambiguous, indefinite, or irrational, a court should vacate it.}{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 Sargent v. Paine Webber, Jackson & Curtiss, Inc.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 687 F.Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988).
\par 
\par [17]\tab The record before us does not support vacating the arbitration award on this ground. The basis of the award can be easily ascertained. Sp
ecifically, the award is based on the retention of attorneys' fees. Appellee's counsel openly admitted and explained that closing out attorneys' fees estimated at an earlier time were in excess of the actual amount of fees charged. This accounted for the 
d
ifference of $833.77 due to appellant. The award is neither ambiguous, indefinite, or irrational. It is apparent that the arbitrator rejected outright appellant's claims and awarded an amount objectively based on the difference between estimated and actua
l attorneys' fees.
\par 
\par [18]\tab Finally, appellant asserts that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by ignoring the following Guam provisions:}{\f0\insrsid13311813 
\par }{\f0\insrsid2829319\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-709\li1418\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1418\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 1.\tab Maxims of Jurisprudence: No one should suffer by the act of another. 20 GCA}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 15112;
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-709\li1418\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1418\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 2.\tab Maxims of Jurisprudence: He who takes the benefit must bear the burden. 20 GCA }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 15113;
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-709\li1418\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1418\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 3.\tab Restoration of things wrongfully acquired: One who obtains a thing without the consent of its own
er, or by a consent afterwards rescinded, or by an unlawful exaction which the owner could not at the time prudently refuse, must restore it to the person from whom it was thus obtained, unless he has acquired a title thereto superior to that of such othe
r person, or unless the transaction was corrupt and unlawful on both sides. 18 GCA }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  90105; and

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-709\li1418\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1418\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 4.\tab Involuntary trust from fraud, mistake, etc.: One who gains a thing by fraud, accident, mistake, undue influence, 
the violation of a trust, or other wrongful act is, unless he has some other and better right thereto, an involuntary trustee of the thing gained, for the benefit of the person who would otherwise have had it. 18 GCA }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 65110.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par [19]\tab Arbitration awards have been vacated based on a }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 manifest disregard of the law.}{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line Ltd.}{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 943 F.2d 1056 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 th}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
 Cir. 1991). This exception is not statutory but rather a judicially recognized federal exception introduced by the United States Supreme Court in }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Wilko v. Swan}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
, 346 U.S. 427, 436-37 (1953), }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 overruled on other grounds by Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
, 490 U.S. 477 (1989). The Second Circuit has described the exception in the following manner:
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Although the bounds of this ground have never been defined, it clearly means more than error or misunderstanding with respect to the law. (ci
tations omitted).The error must have been obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived by the average person qualified to serve as an arbitrator. Moreover, the term }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 disregard}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  implies that the arbitrator appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle but decides to ignore or pay no attention to it. ... Judicial inquiry under the }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 manifest disregard}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  standard is therefore extremely limited. The governing law alleged to have been ignored by the arbitrators must be well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }{\i\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Carte Blanche v Carte Blanche}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 , 888 F.2d 260, 265 (2}{\f0\super\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 nd}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  Cir. 1989)(citations omitted).
\par 
\par [20]\tab Appellant's contention of error under this exception is rejected for two reasons. First, appellant does not provide a basis of any kind as to why this Court should embrace this judicial exceptio
n. While authority exists, both recent and that in existence at the time when our statutes became effective, that would enable us to adopt such an exception, at this time we are not presented with the proper justification necessitating our adoption and us
e
 of the manifest disregard exception. Second, appellant has utterly failed to explain how the Guam statutes it cites should apply to the facts of this case and how they were disregarded by the arbitrator. Moreover, appellant does not address the appellee'
s substantive legal arguments giving it authority to take action as it did and upon which the arbitrator apparently decided the case. Instead, appellant, in its brief, again makes the unsupported assertion that }{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 [t]he factual situation of this case established that the arbitrator understood the law but completely disregarded it.}{
\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319  Nothing in the record before us would trigger use of this exception if we were to adopt it. W
e readily reject this argument.
\par 
\par \tab III. CONCLUSION
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi180\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 Based on the foregoing, the Judgment of the Superior Court confirming the arbitration award is AFFIRMED.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid2829319\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 PETER C. SIGUENZA
\par Chief Justice
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2829319 {\f0\insrsid13311813\charrsid2829319 JANET HEALY WEEKS
\par Associate Justice
\par ___________
\par }}