If parties have multiple agreements governing their relationship(s), and those agreements all contain arbitration provisions, then it would behoove the drafters to make sure the various arbitration provisions are consistent. In a Tenth Circuit case, the parties’ failure to do so led to a court refusing to compel arbitration, on grounds that the conflicting arbitration provisions — all of which applied to the dispute in question, according to the district court — meant that the parties had not reached a meeting of the minds about arbitration. See Ragab v. Howard, No. 15-1444 (10th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016) (affirming district court, with one dissenting vote; citing cases).
Hat tip: arbitration maven Liz Kramer, who summarized the case in Fuzzy Math? 6 Differing Arbitration Agreements = 0 Arbitration Agreement (ArbitrationNation 2016). Kramer notes that “[the] arbitration agreements did not provide for the same set of rules to govern the arbitration, or the same method of choosing an arbitrator, or the same notice period before arbitration, or the same opportunity to recover attorneys’ fees.”