It could have been argued that the choice clause of the law applied only to the underlying contract, since that agreement could be separated from the arbitration agreement. This could have been disputed, given that the parties probably wished to extend the choice clause of the act to all provisions of the contract, including its arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court rejected the cassation and applied the rules of interpretation of the Civil Code (without making it a case). It found that the compromise clause was clear and that the contractual clauses as interpreted in such a way as to favour meanings under which they could have a useful effect (in accordance with Article 1562 of the German Civil Code). The choice between these options is particularly important in international arbitration proceedings, where the parties involved are from different countries with different legal rules of interpretation and attitude towards arbitration. Therefore, the decision in this area should be particularly justified. While the Supreme Court`s decision may have been correct in this case (since it allowed Medtronic to sue for payment of its outstanding credit), it therefore missed the opportunity to make a stricter and more nuanced decision on the applicable legal provisions interpreting arbitration agreements, which is essential for the uniform application of international commercial arbitration agreements. The 24th court of the borough of Santiago rejected the court`s objection, saying that the arbitration agreement was in favour of the American side and that it could be considered as such because the applicant had paid for moving to another country to bring legal action. Moreover, it would be extremely difficult, if not illusory, to compel the complainant to bring legal action in the United States, if not illusory, without obvious benefits to the defendant, other than the delay in the execution of the debt. In d.J.C., the Supreme Court stated that the arbitration agreement and the choice clause of the law had been established in Medtronic`s favour and were therefore waivable. Accordingly, by applying the last part of the clause, Medtronic could sue in Chilean courts and, under Chilean law, to obtain Med Implant`s debt in Chile.