Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

China 29 September 2000 CIETAC Arbitration proceeding (Cushion case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000929c1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20000929 (29 September 2000)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; China

TRIBUNAL: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission [CIETAC] (PRC)

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

DATABASE ASSIGNED DOCKET NUMBER: CISG/2000/15

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: People's Republic of China (claimant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Hong Kong (respondent)

GOODS INVOLVED: Cushions


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 6 ; 25 ; 60 ; 65 ; 77

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

6B [Choice of law: agreements to apply Convention];

25B [Definition of fundamental breach: substantial deprivation of expectation, etc.];

60A [Buyer's obligation to take delivery: includes acts reasonably expected to aid seller];

65B [Seller's notice supplying missing specifications (buyer fails to perform obligation to supply specification): seller may make specification];

77A [Obligation to take reasonable measures to mitigate damages]

Descriptors: Choice of law ; Fundamental breach ; Specification of goods ; Mitigation of loss

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Go to Case Table of Contents

Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Chinese): Unavailable

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Case text (English translation)

Queen Mary Case Translation Programme

China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission
CIETAC (PRC) Arbitration Award

Cushion case (29 September 2000)

Translation [*] by Zheng Xie [**]

Edited by Meihua Xu [***]

-   Particulars of the proceeding
-   Facts
-   Position of the parties
-   Opinion of the Arbitration Tribunal
-   Award

PARTICULARS OF THE PROCEEDING

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Shanghai Sub-Commission (hereafter, the "Shanghai Sub-Commission") accepted the case according to:

   -    The arbitration clause in the Confirmation No. ___ (hereafter, the "Conformation") signed by Claimant [Seller], Ningbo Ltd, and Respondent [Buyer], Hong Kong Ltd., on 8 December 1999; and
 
   -    The written arbitration application submitted by the [Seller] on 2 June 2000.

Because the disputed amount in this case is less than renminbi [RMB] 500,000, according to the Arbitration Rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereafter, the Arbitration Rules), the summary procedure applies to this case. The parties did not jointly appoint a sole arbitrator within the stipulated period, so the Chairman of the Sub-Commission appointed __ as the sole arbitrator, who formed the Arbitration Tribunal on 6 July 2000.

The Arbitration Tribunal reviewed the [Seller]'s application and the Appendix to it. The [Buyer] did not submit a Response before the court session. On 31 July 2000, the Arbitration Tribunal opened the court session at the Shanghai Sub-Commission. Both parties' arbitration agents were present at the court session. The [Seller]'s agent made statements on the facts and the arbitration claims, and the [Buyer] presented its response. Both parties submitted evidence and arguments.

After the court session, the parties submitted supplementary material to the Arbitration Tribunal. In order to further investigate the disputed facts, the Arbitration Tribunal held a second court session at the Shanghai Sub-Commission on 30 August 2000. Both parties' agents were present at the court session. This case was completed.

Based on the facts and the relevant law, the Arbitration Tribunal handed down the award. The following are the facts, the Arbitration Tribunal's opinion and award.

FACTS

On 8 December 1999, the [Seller] and the [Buyer] signed a Confirmation for the sale of plastic products. Before signing the Confirmation, the parties negotiated the sample of the products which the [Seller] should supply. The Confirmation stipulates that the [Seller] shall supply to the [Buyer]:

   -    800 dozen APN55018 square cushions at the unit price of US $3.72/dozen C&F Felixstowe, total price: US $36,456;
 
   -    5,760 dozen 1-204226 lip-shaped cushion at the unit price of US $4.42/dozen C&F Felixstowe, total price: US $25,459.20; and
 
   -    3,840 dozen 2-203718 heart-shaped cushion at the unit price of US $3.12/dozen C&F Felixstowe, total price: US $11,980.80.

The shipping time is within 30 days after the [Seller] receives the L/C; the payment term is sight L/C.

On 30 December 1999, the [Buyer] issued the L/C, stipulating that the shipping time should be no later than 29 February 2000 and that the goods could be shipped only when the [Buyer] examined the goods before loading and signed a qualification certificate. However, on 3 February 2000, the [Buyer] sent a fax to the [Seller] cancelling the order. The [Seller] did not agree.

Then on 28 February 2000, the [Seller] shipped the goods in accordance with the Confirmation. A dispute on payment arose. The parties failed to resolve the dispute at the China International Trade and Economic Arbitration Commission Ningbo Mediation Center, so the [Seller] submitted this arbitration application to the Shanghai Sub-Commission, and filed the following claims:

   (1)  The [Buyer] shall compensate the [Seller] for the value of the goods, totaling US $60,000;
   (2)  The [Buyer] shall bear the demurrage and other expenses;
   (3)  The [Buyer] shall bear the arbitration fee, the attorneys' fee and other expenses.

Before the court session, the [Seller] submitted an Application to Amend its Claims, requesting the deletion of the above Item (2). The Arbitration Tribunal accepted this amendment.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[Seller]'s position

The [Seller] made the following statements:

1. The [Buyer] unilaterally cancelled the order, and did not perform the stipulated duty, which constituted a fundamental breach of contract

The goods in this case are special goods; the materials were specially ordered according to the [Buyer]'s requirement and are different from those for general products. The design was specially made according to the sample which the [Buyer] confirmed in order to fit its domestic customers' taste; the design including shape, color, specification, material, etc, is suitable for sales in that domestic market.

On 3 February 2000, the [Buyer] asked to cancel the order and avoid the Contract. The [Seller] expressly disagreed and requested the [Buyer] to reply and confirm. However, the [Buyer] did not make any confirmation in writing whether or not to avoid the Contract, so the [Seller] determined that the [Buyer] impliedly agreed to continue performance of the Contract. Therefore, on 14 February 2000, the [Seller] requested the [Buyer] to confirm the color, and Karanolan, who was the [Buyer]'s employee responsible for confirming the color, replied by stating that the [Buyer] wanted to avoid the Contract, but it was only an individual's opinion. Therefore, the [Seller] had to determine that the [Buyer] would continue performance of the Contract according the [Buyer]'s prior expression. Therefore, on 25 February the [Seller] informed the [Buyer] of its right to examine the goods before shipment according to the Contract, and the [Buyer] disagreed. The evidence shows that the [Buyer]'s expression of avoidance of the Contract on 25 February was a unilateral expression; according to the relevant law, the Contract is still valid, and the [Seller] has the right to choose to continue performance of the Contract.

The reason the [Buyer] wanted to avoid the Contract was that the goods the [Buyer] had ordered were not selling well in the U.K. This cannot be used as a reasonable basis to avoid the Contract at all. Market risks exist in international sales of goods, and the [Buyer] should have foreseen the risk including sale of goods risk, price risk, etc.

2. The [Buyer] neither examined the goods on time before shipping, nor made the payment on time, nor took delivery on time, nor confirmed the color on time, which constituted breaches of contract.

According to the stipulations in the L/C, the [Seller] requested the Buyer] to examine the goods before shipment, but the [Buyer] did not respond, which means that the [Buyer] gave up the right to examine that is stipulated in the L/C.

Because the [Buyer] did not examine the goods, the [Seller] could not get paid under the L/C. The [Buyer]'s non-performance was a barrier for the [Seller] to ship the goods, so the [Buyer] should be liable for the consequences. According to Article 60 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sales of Goods (CISG), the buyer should do all the acts which could reasonably be expected of him to enable the seller to make delivery. The [Buyer] violated the obligation to "examine the goods before shipping" stipulated in the L/C, which caused the [Seller] to be unable to satisfy the conformity with the documents requirement. Accordingly, the [Buyer] should be liable.

The [Seller] shipped and delivered the goods at the destination port in accordance with the Contract and the L/C. According to Article 60 of the CISG, the [Buyer] had the duty to take delivery of the goods. The [Buyer] refused to take the delivery without any reason, so it should be liable for the legal consequence.

The color pad was designed by the [Buyer], and was sent to the [Seller] as design instruction; the [Seller] manufactured the goods according to the color pad. After the samples were delivered, the [Buyer] should have examined the goods on time. The [Buyer] did not raise any objection to the samples delivered by the [Seller], so it should be deemed that the [Buyer] confirmed the samples.

Regarding to the issue on packaging within a reasonable time before the goods were shipped, the [Seller] requested the [Buyer] to confirm the packaging specification, but with no response, so it should be deemed that the stipulation on packaging was not definite. Article 156 of the Contract Law of the PRC stipulates:

"The seller shall deliver the subject matter packed in the prescribed manner. Where a packing method was not prescribed or clearly prescribed the subject matter shall be packed in a customary manner, or, if there is no customary manner, in a manner adequate to protect the subject matter."

Article 65 of the CISG stipulates:

"If under the contract the buyer is to specify the form, measurement or other features of the goods and he fails to make such specification either on the date agreed upon or within a reasonable time after receipt of a request from the seller, the seller may, without prejudice to any other rights he may have, make the specification himself in accordance with the requirements of the buyer that may be known to him."

3. The applicable law

Article 126 of the Contract Law of the PRC stipulates:

"Parties to a foreign related contract may select the applicable law for resolution of a contractual dispute, except otherwise provided by law. Where parties to the foreign related contract failed to select the applicable law, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with the closest connection thereto."

The parties stipulated in the contract that any dispute should be submitted to the Shanghai Sub-Commission for arbitration, so the law of the PRC shall apply to this case. Although the U.K is not a Contracting State of the CISG, some stipulations of CISG can be referred to.

[Buyer]'s response

The [Buyer] provided the following response:

1. The [Buyer] had to avoid the Contract and canceled the order when the [Seller] failed to deliver the goods within the stipulated time, and the situation severely changed in the market. The [Buyer] had no subjective fault, so it should not be liable for the [Seller]'s "loss." Article 5 of the Confirmation signed by the parties on 18 December 1999 stipulates that the goods shall be shipped within 30 days after the [Seller] received the L/C, and the [Seller] shall deliver the goods no later than 30 January 2000. However, the [Seller] failed to deliver the conforming sample goods; the samples were not confirmed until 4, 12 and 19 January 2000, and the packaging and color could not be confirmed. The [Seller] could not deliver the goods within the stipulated period, because it could not deliver the conforming sample.

When the parties signed the Contract at the Fall Trading Fair in October 1999, the [Seller]'s products were selling well at good prices; based on this fact, the [Buyer] signed the Contract with the [Seller]. In February 2000, the market totally changed; the price dropped dramatically, and the goods could not be sold at all, so the [Buyer] could not make any profits; there was no need for the [Buyer] to continue performance of the Contract, so it officially informed the [Seller] to avoid the Contract and cancelled the order on 3 February 2000.

The causal relationship existed between the change of situation and the fact that the [Seller] could neither delivered the conforming sample nor delivered the goods within the stipulated time, and the [Buyer] had no subjective fault, so it should not be liable for the [Seller]'s so-called loss.

2. On 3 February 2000, the [Buyer] avoided the contract and cancelled the order, and the [Seller] did not incur any loss, so it had no right to claim for damages.

On 3 February 2000, the materials were not transported to the [Seller]'s factory, and the products were not manufactured. The [Buyer] confirmed the goods three times on 4, 12 and 19 January, respectively, and then the [Seller] could purchase materials; it took some time to manufacture and ship the products after the materials were purchased. Because the [Seller] did not suffer production before the [Buyer] cancelled the order, no cost of the material was incurred; therefore, the [Seller] did not suffer any loss when the [Buyer] cancelled the order. The [Seller] is an enterprise specializing in export of plastics products, and uses a large quantity of PVC materials, so it could use the PVC materials which the [Seller] purchased for this order and were not used, for other products, and it also could resell the materials.

The [Seller]'s allegation that the materials could not be used for products other than the goods under this order should not be sustained.

      First, the materials were used for the [Seller]'s samples exhibited in the Fall Trading Fair; the [Buyer] needed only to confirm whether the samples which the [Seller] delivered were in compliance with those exhibited in the Fall Trading Fair, and whether the color, packaging and color pads were acceptable; the [Buyer] had no special requirements on the materials.

      Second, the PVC materials are widely used to manufacture a large variety of products, so the [Seller] could use the materials well. Even if the [Seller] incurred some loss of materials, the loss was caused by the price difference due to the price volatility in the market, but the [Seller] did not submit any evidence to prove the price difference.

3. The [Seller] caused and enlarged its so-called "loss," so it should be totally liable.

When the [Buyer] informed the [Seller] of its cancellation of the order, the materials had not been transported to the factory, so the [Seller] should have stopped the production immediately in order to avoid incurring and enlarging the loss, which was easy and feasible for the [Seller]; however, the [Seller] did not take such reasonable measures, but manufactured the products; thus, the materials were used to manufacture products which could not be sold in the U.K. market, and the [Buyer] could not make any profits from them. In addition, the [Seller] transported the goods to the port in the U.K. when the [Buyer] did not confirm and examine all of the samples. The [Seller] did not do what it should have done, but did what it should not have done. The [Seller] was objectively at fault in causing and enlarging the so-called loss, so it should bear all liability.

4. The [Seller] claimed for damages, but did not request continued performance of the contract. Because it is unnecessary for the parties to continue performance of the Contract, the Arbitration Tribunal should only determine the issue of damages, and should not rule on whether the parties shall continue performance of the contract as this is not the [Seller]'s claim.

In addition, on 28 April 2000 when negotiating the resolution, the [Seller] sent a fax to the [Buyer] proposing to reduce the price by 30%, i.e., more than US $40,000, to resolve the dispute. This amount can be used as a reference to determine the [Seller]'s alleged "loss", which means that, in no event, could the [Seller]'s "loss" be US $60,000, and the loss could only be less than US $40,000.

[Seller]'s objections to [Buyer]'s response

The [Seller] objected to [Buyer]'s response. The [Seller] alleged that:

1. The [Seller] did take reasonable measures to mitigate the loss. When the [Buyer] finally confirmed its desire to avoid the Contract, the [Seller] had already purchased the materials and completed the production. In addition, even if the [Buyer] confirmed its desire to avoid the Contract on February 3, according to the relevant law, when one party breaches the contract, the other party can request to continue performance of the contract.

2. The [Seller]'s arbitration claim requests to have the [Buyer] compensate for loss of the contract price. The [Buyer] returned the documents and refused to make payment, so the [Seller] neither received the payment, nor got the benefit of the 15% export tax return policy, nor obtained interest on the contract price from the date when the [Seller] delivered the documents, but suffered direct loss of the workers' salary and other expenses, etc, and other loss of transportation charges, mediation fee, arbitration fee, etc. which were caused by the [Buyer]'s breach. The [Seller] only requests the [Buyer] to compensate for the loss of contract price, and the [Seller] itself bears a large amount of loss; if the [Seller] requests the [Buyer] to continue performance of the contract, the [Buyer] should compensate the [Seller] for all of the loss; if the [Buyer] agrees, the [Seller] does not object. To compensate for the loss of the contract price is only part of the [Buyer]'s performance, and could not be separated.

Considering the special character of the summary arbitration procedure, the [Seller] only requests the [Buyer] to compensate for the loss of contract price, i.e., requesting the [Buyer] to perform part of its contractual duty, and the [Seller] reserves the right to claim for other losses, which is permitted by law. Therefore, the compensation of loss in this case is part of performance of the Contract, and could not be separated. In addition, according to the Contract Law of the PRC, the non-breaching party can request the other party to continue performance of the contract or compensate for the damages; if the non-breaching party requests to continue performance, and also incurred loss, the breaching party shall be liable.

3. The mediation proposal made at the __ Mediation Center cannot be used as the basis to determine the loss in this arbitration.

The [Seller]'s mediation proposal was a big compromise, because the [Seller] wanted to resolve the disputes as soon as possible; the amount which the [Seller] claimed for in the mediation proposal was far less than its actual loss. According to the Mediation Rules, no expression of the parties in mediation can be used as a basis for the following litigation and arbitration. Therefore, it lacks legal and factual basis for the [Buyer]'s agent to allege that the [Seller]'s actual loss was less than US $40,000. The [Seller]'s actual loss should be calculated based on the facts of breach and the stipulations of the Contract. The actual loss should include the [Seller]'s loss of contract price, interest, tax return, and meditation fee, etc.

THE OPINION OF THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

1. The Confirmation signed by the parties on 8 December 1999 was legally established, and legally binding on both parties.

The Confirmation does not stipulate the applicable law, but in the arbitration documents which the parties submitted and the court session, the parties expressly stated that the law of the PRC should apply to this arbitration, and that the CISG should be referred to. Therefore, the law of the PRC and CISG apply to this case.

2. The parties' disputes were focused on the issue whether the [Seller]'s producing and transporting the goods under the Confirmation caused the [Seller]'s loss. The Arbitration Tribunal analyzed the parties' disputes as follows:

      First, the [Buyer]'s reason to cancel the order was not established, and the [Buyer] shall be liable for its breach.

In October 1999, when the [Buyer] agreed to sign the contract at the Fall Trading Fair, the [Buyer] thought the [Seller]'s products were selling well in the U.K.'s market at a good price. However, in February 2000, the market for this product dramatically changed: the price dropped severely, and the products could not be sold, so the [Buyer] could not make any profits, and canceled the order and avoided the contract. The [Buyer] alleged that the change of situation was closely related to the fact that the [Seller] could neither supply the conforming samples nor ship the goods within the stipulated time. The Arbitration Tribunal holds that no evidence shows that the two parties signed the contract in the Fall Trading Fair in October 1999, or that the parties confirmed samples of the goods at that time. The fact is, before signing the Confirmation, the parties did not formally confirm or seal samples; and after signing the Confirmation, the parties still exchanged opinions on confirmation of samples. The time to confirm samples was not definite, so the change in the U.K. market should not be related to the fact that the [Seller] could not deliver the conforming samples.

Regarding the issue of shipping the goods, the Confirmation stipulates that the shipping time is within 30 days after the [Seller] received the L/C, i.e., before 28 January 2000, but the L/C, which the [Buyer] issued on 3 February 2000, stipulates that the shipping time shall not be later than 29 February 2000, to which the [Seller] did not object to when receiving the L/C. The above fact shows that the parties amended the shipping time after signing the Confirmation. The [Seller] did not breach the contract, if it shipped the goods before 29 February 2000.

The change of market is a business risk, which should have been foreseen when the [Buyer], as a businessman, signed the Confirmation, and should be prepared to bear the risk, so it was not a change of situation for which neither party had subjective fault, and for which neither parties should be liable. In sum, the [Buyer] cancelled the order and avoided the contract in order to avoid market risk, which constituted a fundamental breach, so the [Buyer] should be liable for the [Seller]'s loss.

      Second, however, the [Seller] continued to arrange the production and to ship the goods, which was an unreasonable measure and enlarged the loss caused by the [Buyer]'s breach.

After the [Buyer] notified the [Seller] that it was cancelling the order, the [Seller] continued to arrange the production and to ship the goods under the Confirmation; the reasons for this as the [Seller] stated were that:

   -    The products only fit the U.K. market, and the materials were used specially for the products under the Confirmation;
 
   -    After the [Seller] did not agree to cancel the order, the [Buyer] did not expressly confirm its cancellation of the order and avoidance of the contract, so the [Seller] deemed that the [Buyer] impliedly agreed to continue to perform the Confirmation.
 
   -    When the [Buyer] informed of its desire to cancel the order, the [Seller] had already invested a large amount of labor, capital and resources to perform the contract, but the [Buyer] neither promised to compensate the [Seller] for the loss, nor promised to compensate for loss of profits of the resources used and products manufactured.

The Arbitration Tribunal notes that

      (1) The materials for the goods under the Confirmation were not special goods. In the Response to the Supreme Court Economic Divisions Inquiry on Explanation of Sales Contracts Cases, the State Council Judicial Bureau stated that special products mean those are manufactured, in terms of design, production process and methods, for a special use according to an industrial technical requirement. The PVC materials are not specially manufactured for the goods under the Confirmation, but are generally used for the same kind of products. The [Buyer] only specified the color, but the materials can still be widely used for various products, such as cushions, mattresses, sofas, etc. The [Seller]'s allegation that the materials were specially manufactured for the goods under the Confirmation lacks factual basis.

      (2) After the [Seller] expressed its disagreement with [Buyer]'s cancellation of the order, the [Buyer] did not accept the [Seller]'s request to continue performance of the Confirmation. In the court session, the [Seller]'s agent confirmed that after the [Seller] disagreed with [Buyer]'s cancellation of the order on 4 February 2000, the parties still kept telephone contact, and the [Buyer] did not give up the request to cancel the order.

      (3) The [Seller] stored the materials in the warehouse on 3, 19, 29 January and 13 February 2000, respectively. The time recorded in the list of the materials supplier, Zhejiang __ Ltd., is 4, 7 and 11 February 2000, respectively. The [Seller] did not submit the original record to establish that it had already cut the materials and started production when the [Buyer] cancelled the order, but only provided a printed Materials Processing document, which is not sufficient to prove that the materials had been cut and that part of the goods had been produced.

      (4) The [Seller] had not definitely claimed for loss of profits of the materials which had already been used and the products which had already been manufactured.

Article 107 of the Contract Law of the PRC stipulates:

"If a party fails to perform its obligations under a contract, or rendered non-conforming performance, it shall bear the liabilities for breach of contract by specific performance, cure of non-conforming performance or payment of damages, etc."

Article 108 stipulates:

"Where one party expressly states or indicates by its conduct that it will not perform its obligations under a contract, the other party may hold it liable for breach of contract before the time of performance."

Article 119 Clause 1 stipulates:

"Where a party breached the contract, the other party shall take the appropriate measures to prevent further loss; where the other party sustained further loss due to its failure to take the appropriate measures, it may not claim damages for such further loss."

The Arbitration Tribunal holds that according to above provisions, the [Seller] has the right to request the [Buyer] to compensate for loss of profits due to the [Seller]'s non-realization of purpose, which was caused by the [Buyer]'s non-performance of the Confirmation and cancellation of the order, but the [Seller] should bear the duty to avoid enlarging the loss when claiming for damages. When the [Buyer] cancelled the order, the [Seller] should not have continued the production, because the materials for the products under the Confirmation were not special goods, and had useful value other than for the products which had already been manufactured. The [Seller] would have incurred only loss of disposing of the materials and loss of profits if it did not continue the production; however, the [Seller] might incur further loss because the value of the products could not be realized, if it continued production. The [Seller] alleged that when cancelling the order, the [Buyer] did not promise to compensate the [Seller] for loss of materials and profits, so the [Seller] had to continue performance of the Confirmation, and delivered the goods in accordance with the Contract in order to protect and realize its interest. The fact is that the [Seller] neither claimed for damages with the [Buyer] nor specified its requests; even if the [Buyer] refused the [Seller]'s legitimate requests, the [Seller] should have protected its legitimate interest by legal resort; the [Seller] should not have continued the production when the [Buyer] cancelled the order. The [Seller]'s measures were unreasonable, especially when the L/C stipulates the [Buyer] should examine the goods and issue an inspection certificate before shipping. However, when the [Buyer] did not examine the goods, the [Seller] printed a proof of the [Buyer]'s seal in order to negotiate the price. The [Seller]'s conduct was inconsistent with the law.

In sum, when the [Seller] knew the [Buyer] cancelled the order, it is unreasonable for the [Seller] to continue performance and ship the goods, which enlarged the loss caused by the [Buyer]'s breach. Because the [Seller] could not prove that it had already manufactured part of the goods, the Arbitration Tribunal does not sustain the [Seller]'s claim for loss of the goods, US $60,000.

3. The [Seller] shall bear the entire arbitration fee and its own attorneys' fee.

AWARD

1. All of the [Seller]'s claims are dismissed;

2. The arbitration fee is RMB __, which the [Seller] shall pay. The [Seller] has prepaid RMB __, which is offset.

This award is final, and takes effect when handed down.


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, Claimant of the People's Republic of China is referred to as [Seller]; Respondent of Hong Kong is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the currency of the United States (dollars) are indicated as [US $]; amounts in the currency of the People's Republic of China (renminbi) are indicated as [RMB].

** Zheng Xie, LL.M. Washington University in St. Louis, LL.M., BA in Economics, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing.

*** Meihua Xu, LL.M. University of Pittsburgh School of Law on an Alcoa Scholarship. She received her Bachelor of Law degree, with the receipt of Scholarship granted by the Ministry of Education, Japan, from Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. Her focus is on International Business Law and International Business related case study.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated February 26, 2008
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography