An arbitration clause that refers to an external legal system or set of rules for the regulation of arbitration must be interpreted as an incorporating reference capable of supplementing the arbitration agreement with regard to the competent body and the procedural rules, preserving its binding force and operative effect in application of the principle of preservation of the useful effects of the contract pursuant to Article 1367 of the Civil Code.
A settlement agreement that expressly refers to the submission of disputes to an arbitral tribunal confirms the pre-existing arbitration arrangement, serving as an authentic interpretation of the common intention of the parties and reinforcing the binding nature of the clause already contained in the original contract, unless there is an objective novation incompatible with the arbitration agreement.
The use of the verb "may" in an arbitration clause does not confer upon it a merely optional character where, according to the overall textual and systematic context, the clause refers to a standardised and exclusive arbitration system; applying the principle of effective interpretation, the clause must be read as conferring upon arbitration jurisdiction over disputes arising from the relationship.
An arbitration agreement, by reason of its autonomy from the principal contract, tends to survive the withdrawal from or termination of the substantive relationship in order to regulate disputes relating to the performance or extinction thereof, unless there is a specific provision to the contrary or supervening novation incompatible therewith.
A plea of lack of jurisdiction based on arbitration timely raised in opposition to an injunction order precludes the ordinary court from adjudicating on the merits of the claim in the summary proceedings, requiring a declaration of lack of jurisdiction and referral of the dispute to the arbitral body.