Just before trial, the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute about unpaid invoices for sign repair services. The arbitration agreement specified that the arbitrator was to provided a written decision with findings of fact, and apply California law as if he were a judge. Also, it provided for full judicial review of the arbitration award the same as if it had been a decision by a court. Held, the parties sufficiently specified that they wanted enhanced judicial review, so they were entitled to receive review by normal appellate standards, not the restricted review normally given arbitration awards. So reviewed, the arbitrator’s decision was vacated because it (a) exceeded the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement by awarding lost profits on a supposed contract to resign many of the defendant’s stores, whereas the parties had agreed to arbitrate only the dispute about payment of specific invoices for past work, and (b) there was no substantial evidence of an agreement to resign the stores and no written memorandum sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, which applied because the resigning was to take longer than one year.