and to allow the chosen dispute resolvers to award the same varieties and forms of damages or relief as a court would be empowered to award”). 8 . Cf. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006) (upholding arbitrator’s jurisdiction to arbitrate a claim that an entire contract, including the arbitration clause, was void for illegality). 9 . See Jacada (Europe), Ltd. v. Int’l Mktg. Strategies, Inc., 401 F.3d 701, 712-13 (6th Cir.) (upholding award in excess of a damage limitation under the "essence” test where the arbitrator had plausibly determined it was unenforceable), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 735, 163 L.Ed.2d 570 (2005). 10 . Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v. New York, 58 N.Y.2d 377, 461 N.Y.S.2d 746, 448 N.E.2d 413, 416-18 (1983) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See id. at 416; Corinno Civetta Constr.
holding that if the town acted in bad faith in negotiations and litigation which prevented construction then the plaintiffs on remand cannot be deemed to have lost any rights to vest that they would have been able to exercise in the absence of bad faith holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims holding that a no damagefordelay clause would be unenforceable where a party had acted with bad faith and with deliberate intent holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith holding that a bad faith claim is a tort