The Federal Arbitration Act was passed by Congress in 1925, “in response to the perception that the courts were too hostile to conciliation.” Epic Sys., 138 pp. Ct. circa 1621. “[I]n Congress` verdict had more to offer than recognized courts,” and Congress therefore asked the courts to renounce their hostility and treat arbitration agreements as “valid, irrevocable and enforceable.”┬áId. (quote 9 U.S.C No. 2). The FAA covers all contracts “that are the result of a trade-related transaction” or a “maritime transaction.” 9 U.S.C number two. But Section 1 of the FAA creates an exception for “employment contracts for sailors, railway workers or any other category of workers working in foreign or intergovernmental trade.” 9.S.C number one. As noted above, Kauffman argues that (1) he is a “worker in foreign or intergovernmental trade” and (2) that the eMove agreement is an “employment contract” and that, therefore, the FAA is not applicable to the eMove agreement and cannot be relied upon by the defendants to enforce the compromise clause of the agreement. Or, as here, Pennsylvania`s policy in favor of conciliation. Although Renfrew and other cases mentioned in this paragraph have applied federal law to the scope of the contentious arbitration clauses, “there is no significant difference between federal and Pennsylvania law in the revision of the scope of a compromise clause.” See the courage of State Farm. Car.

In the. Co. v. Coviello, 233 F.3d 710, 713 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000). Finally, Kauffman argues that U-Haul and Collegeboxes are unable to enforce the compromise clause because they were not signatories to the eMove agreement. Kauffman argues that the eMove agreement was only concluded between him and eMove and recalls that the agreement contains “no third-party beneficiaries clause” that explicitly states that “a person other than the parties to this agreement has all the rights or rights arising from that agreement.” By applying the “sliding-scale” approach proposed by the Pennsylvania courts, the court finds at least some degree of admissibility to the procedure. In particular, the eMove agreement is a liability contract contract as defined by Pennsylvania law, and Kauffman had significantly less bargaining power than eMove, a large group. However, none of these factors is non-structuring and, as the defendants point out, there is evidence that Kauffman read and understood the agreement. See Great W.

Mortg. Corp. v. Peacock, 110 F.3d 222, 229 (3d Cir. 1997) (the conclusion, under New Jersey law, that an agreement was not technically unacceptable because the plaintiff, although the weaker party, accepted arbitration on three different occasions, was a university graduate with a Bwuschen degree, and did not claim that she did not read the arbitration agreement document or was pushed to sign).