Appellant entered into a contract with the City of Gainesville for site development at its municipal generating station. Appellant then subcontracted to appellee the excavation, filling, grading and paving portions of the contract. The subcontract
This form is ordinarily used with an A.I.A. General Contract form containing arbitration procedures. However, in the instant case, the city prepared its own general contract and general conditions which made no provisions for arbitration.
Appellant sued appellee for failure to complete its subcontract and for overpayment by appellant to appellee for the paving work. The lower court entered a final judgment in favor of appellee-defendant, finding that arbitration was mandatory and the parties' exclusive remedy. The sole question before this court is the correctness of that finding.
Provisions in a contract providing for arbitration must be definite enough so that the parties at least have some idea as to what particular matters are to be submitted to arbitration and set forth some procedures by which arbitration is to be effected. G & N Construction Co. v. Kirpatovsky, 181 So.2d 664 (Fla.App. 1966).
It is also the rule of law in Florida that ambiguous provisions dealing with arbitration will be construed against arbitrating disputes arising out of a contract or its performance. Duval County v. Charleston Engineering & Contracting Co., 101 Fla. 341, 134 So. 509 (1931).
In the instant case, it can hardly be said that the parties to the contract agreed to arbitrate since the only mention of arbitration states that the subcontractor can submit evidence in any arbitration proceeding under conditions set forth in the general contract, and the general contract is silent on the subject of arbitration.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is reversed.
RAWLS, C.J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.