In 1972 whеn the parties entered into the construction contract, arbitration was governed by Chapter 1, Article 45 of the General Statutes. This article provided that a controversy had to exist betweеn the parties in order for them to make a binding contract for arbitration.
Skinner v. Gaither Corporation,
The movant contends that the parties entered into an agreement for arbitration by correspondence between them in 1975. We hold that the letter from movant dated 22 August 1975 with the respondents’ reply of 19 September 1975 created a contract
*355
between the parties for arbitration. As we read the letter of 22 August 1975 it was a demand by movant for arbitration for the damages caused to it by delay in the performance of the contract. The reply of respondents was an unconditional acсeptance. The language in this letter which suggested a possible alternative method of arbitrаtion did not make the respondents’ acceptance of the offer conditional.
Carver v. Britt,
(a) Two or more parties may agree in writing to submit to arbitration any controversy existing between them at the time of the agreement, or they may include in a written сontract a provision for the settlement by arbitration of any controversy thereafter arising bеtween them relating to such contract or the failure or refusal to perform the whole or аny part thereof. Such agreement or provision shall be valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except with the consent of all the parties, without regard to the justiciable charаcter of the controversy.
Under this section the agreement to arbitrate made between thе parties in 1975 would not bind them to arbitrate controversies not existing at the time of the agreement. It wаs not a provision of a contract for settling controversies in regard to the contract or controversies in regard to failure to perform under the contract. It was a contract to arbitrate controversies existing at the time of the agreement and binding to that extent under G.S. l-567.2(a).
Although wе hold that the agreement to arbitrate made between the parties in 1975 is binding on them as to contrоversies existing at that time we also hold the court properly denied the motion for arbitration. In its mоtion for arbitration the movant asked for arbitration of matters not in controversy at the time the аgreement was made. The movant asked for arbitration as to a change order which movant alleged was made on 20 February 1976. The motion made no distinction between delays caused by respоndents before 22 August 1975 and those caused after that date. It made no distinction in the penalty assessed by the architect for delays attributable to the respondent before and after 22 August 1975. Since the mоvant made a demand for arbitration *356 for controversies which were not in existence at the time the parties agreed to arbitrate, we hold the court properly denied the motion to compel arbitration.
The appellant also contends that the parties are bound by the Fеderal Arbitration Act.
9 U.S.C. § 2 provides:
A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a trаnsaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out оf such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contraсt, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon suсh grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
9 U.S.C. § 1 says:
“[Commerce”, as herein defined, means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations ....
The movant cоntends that 9 U.S.C. § 2 should be given a broad interpretation so that it requires arbitration since some of the mаterials used by movant to perform the contract were shipped in interstate commercе. We note that if this is the proper interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act there would be little need for the State to have adopted an arbitration act. Most contracts would be governed by the Federal Act. 9 U.S.C. § 2 provides that in order for it to govern there must be a contract “evidencing a transaction involving commerce . . . .” As we interpret this section the transaction which is the subjеct of the contract must be a transaction in interstate commerce. The construction of the Durham County General Hospital was not an act in interstate commerce and we hold the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply.
See Varley v. Tarry town Associates, Inc.,
Affirmed.