The case of Gangel v. de Groot (New York Court of Appeals, 1977) highlights the importance of carefully examining the precise meaning of all terms used in a contract providing for arbitration. These terms will be interpreted not only by the draftsman but also by persons (parties, courts, arbitrators) subsequently making legal decisions based upon the arbitration clause. A comparative inquiry is necessary concerning (1) the numerous national rules limiting the power of certain persons, such as governmental units, to agree to arbitration; (2) arbitration procedure; (3) problems in connection with the recognition of arbitration judgment. In the United States, for instance, arbitrators often do not prepare an opinion in commercial arbitrations. Some foreign countries, on the other hand, consider an opinion an essential feature of proper arbitration procedure, so that an arbitral award lacking an opinion may not be enforceable. Eighteen footnotes are provided.