substantive rules of law.” In re Arbitration between Silverman & Benmor Coats, Inc., 61 N.Y.2d 299, 473 N.Y.S.2d 774, 461 N.E.2d 1261,1266 (1984) (cited by the plurality, ante at 494, 610 A.2d at 371). Simply put, unless the parties expressly state otherwise in their arbitration agreement, mistakes of law do not serve as a valid basis for judicial review, regardless of the arbitrator’s intent or any error produced by a failure of that intent. Lentine, supra, 328 N.Y.S.2d at 420, 278 N.E.2d at 635. In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.3d 428, 277 Cal.Rptr. 694, 712 (Ct.App.), review granted, 281 Cal.Rptr. 765, 810 P.2d 997 (1991), the court set forth the general rule that errors of law, even those appearing on the face of an arbitr A.2d 189,191-92 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Bailey & Williams v. Westfall, 727 S.W.2d 86,
recognizing general rule that arbitrators mistakes of law not grounds for vacating award absent showing of denial of a hearing fraud misconduct corruption or similar irregularity leading to an unjust inequitable or unconscionable award holding that an arbitrators award should have been vacated holding the district court has the discretion to review the arbitrators award or to stay enforcement of the award pending the boards decision on the unfair labor practice claims holding that an award of arbitration cannot be set aside for mere errors of judgment either as to the law or the facts if the award is within the scope of the submission and the arbitrators are not guilty  of the acts of misconduct set forth in the statute the award operates as a final and conclusive judgment and  however disappointing it may be  the parties must abide by it holding that errors of law without accompanying fraud or misconduct not enough to set aside arbitration award