Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

China 21 January 2005 CIETAC Arbitration proceeding (Cellulose case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050121c1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20050121 (21 January 2005)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; China

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

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

DATABASE ASSIGNED DOCKET NUMBER: Unavailable

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: China (claimant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Unavailable (respondent)

GOODS INVOLVED: Cellulose product


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 1

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

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) [first draft]

Queen Mary Case Translation Programme

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

2005 Cellulose case

Translation [*] by Lei Tong [**]

[Translator's Abstract] The Claimant [Seller] and the Respondent [Agent] concluded two sales contracts, in which the Seller agreed to sell the Agent Cellulose. After signing the two contracts, the Seller fulfilled its obligation under the contracts and delivered the goods, but the Agent didn't make the payment. The Seller thus claims the payment and the interest thereof from the Agent. The Agent claimed that, it was working as an agent in the transaction for the Principal [Buyer], and the Seller was aware of the situation. According to Article 402 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China [Contract Law], the contracts shall directly bind the Seller and the Buyer, and the Agent shall not be liable to make the payment to the Seller. The Arbitration Tribunal did not support the Seller's claim to apply Article 402 of the Contract Law since the Agent failed to prove that the Seller knew the real Buyer at the time it signed the contracts. But because of the fact that the Seller has expressly chosen the Buyer as the counterpart to sign a separate Settlement Agreement, according to Article 403 of the Contract Law, the Seller shall claim its rights from the Buyer. Thus, the Arbitration Tribunal overruled all the claims from the Seller.

[Key Word] Application of Article 402 and Article 403 of the Contract Law

Tribunal: China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission [CIETAC] (PRC)

[…]

CASE FACT

On March 4, 2002, The Seller and the Agent signed two contracts, Contract A and Contract B. In Contract A, the Seller agreed to sell the Cellulose for road-building to the Agent with a price of USD503.5/bag, a quantity of 96 and 198bags, total amounts of USD48l,336.00 and USD99l,693.00 respectively, under the condition of CIF Tianjin and the payments due within 60 days after the invoice issuance(handwriting). In Contract B, the Seller agreed to sell Cellulose to the Agent with a price of USD489.25/bag, a quantity of 194.4 bags, total amount of USD95l, 110.20, under the condition of CIF Dalian and the payment due within 60 days after the invoice issuance.

According to the above mentioned two Contracts, the Seller delivered 4 shipments of Cellulose and issued an invoice to the Agent. The Seller fulfilled its obligation under the contracts, however, up to now; the Agent has not made the payment, the Seller therefore applied for arbitration.

The Seller made the following requests:

  1. The Agent pays the Seller USD2, 43l, 148.9 for the goods, and the interest thereof;

  2. The Agent bears the lawyer fees and other reasonable cost paid by the Seller due to this dispute;

  3. The Agent shall bear all the arbitration cost.

The Agent made the following defense:

In this transaction, the Agent was authorized by the Buyer to buy the goods, so the contract shall directly bind the Seller and the Buyer, and the Agent shall not be the one who bears the obligation of payment.

Beijing xx Company [the Buyer] has been the retailer of the Seller's product in China since 1993. But the Buyer does not have foreign trade right, so it always entrusts agents to import products. On March 4, 2002, when the Seller is signing the above mentioned two contracts with the Agent, the Seller knew that the Agent was signing the Contracts as an agent. In addition, the major contract terms such as the goods, price, delivery and payment terms were all decided by the Seller and the Buyer. After the Seller delivered the goods, the Agent finished customs clearance and delivered the good to the Buyer. Afterwards, the Agent also continuingly claimed the payment from the Seller. On July 31, 2003, the Seller, Buyer, Agent and Company D entered into a settlement agreement, in which it was clarified that the Respondent was an Agent in the transaction, the payment shall be borne by the Buyer, and the Agent did not have any payment obligation to the Seller.

In conclusion, according to Article 402 of the Contract Law, the agent entered into a contract with the Seller under the agent's name within the scope of authorization by the Buyer, and the Seller is aware of the proxy relationship between the Agent and the Buyer, the said contract shall directly bind the Buyer and the Seller. So, the Seller shall not claim the payment from the Agent. In addition, the settlement agreement signed by four parties on July 31, 2003 shall be deemed as a confirmation thereof. According to Article 8 of the Contract Law, the settlement agreement is binding to all parties and the Seller shall perform the contractual obligation and not claim the payment from the Agent.

The Seller clarified its requests in the representative's opinion submitted after hearing:

  1. The Agent pays the Seller USD2, 43l, 148.93 for the goods, and the interest thereof (daily interest of 2.1‰, in total USD34l,243.81 up to June 1, 2004) ;

  2. The Agent bears the lawyer fees USD12l,000 and other reasonable cost paid by the Seller due to this dispute(including return flight tickets for four persons to Dalian and their lodging cost);

  3. The Agent shall bear all the arbitration cost, including prepaid Arbitration fee of USD8l, 488 and the cost for the Arbitration Tribunal to go to Dalian for Arbitration, which is RMB12l, 000.

The Seller raised the following representative's opinions against the Agent's defenses:

1. The Agent did not provide enough evidence to support its defense

  1. The Agent argued in the Statement of Defense that: on March 4, 2002, the Seller knew that the Agent was signing the Contracts as an agent. But the Agent did not provide any evidence to support this argument. During the signing of the contracts between the Agent and the Seller, the Agent did not inform the Seller its relationship with the Buyer, neither did the Agent show the Seller the Import Agency Contract, which is used as an evidence (the Import Agency Contract is written in Chinese, even if it was shown to the Seller, the Seller could not understand the content). Thus, the Seller could not be aware of the relationship between the Agent and the Buyer. The Seller does not deny that it knew the goods under the contracts will be sold to the Buyer eventually, because the Buyer is its retailer in China. But, the Seller did not know the proxy relationship between the Buyer and the Agent at the time of signing the Contracts. The Seller believed that: the Seller was selling the goods to the Agent; the Agent would then sell it to the Buyer. All in all, the Seller did not know the proxy relationship between the Buyer and the Agent at the time of signing the Contracts. Therefore, Article 402 of the Contract Law is not applicable.

  2. The Agent argued in the Statement of Defense that: the major contract terms such as the goods, price, delivery and payment terms were all decided by the Seller and the Buyer. But the Agent did not provide any evidence hereof, so the Seller does not accept.

  3. The Agent argued in the Statement of Defense that: the Agent finished customs clearance and delivered the good to the Buyer. But the Agent did not provide any evidence hereof, so the Seller does not accept.

  4. The Agent argued in the Statement of Defense that: the Agent also continuingly claimed the payment from the Seller. Because the Agent's argument is not in consistence with the fact, the Seller therefore does not accept. We can see from Evidence 2-5 that in all the payment notice sent by the Seller, the debtors are all the Agent, even in the payment reminder sent by the Seller dated February 13, 2003, the debtor was still the Agent, and so was the debtor stated in the Evidence 3 the Agent submitted. In Evidence 3, the reason that the Buyer was mentioned was that the Agent claimed after the payment was due that if the Buyer did not make the payment to it; it could not make the payment to the Seller either. In order to solve the issue as soon as possible, the Seller used to contact the Buyer for information. However, the Seller always claims the payment from the Agent since when the Seller's genuine intention was that "who receives the goods, which pays the price" and it was not aware of the proxy relationship between the Buyer and the Agent.

  5. There are serious defects in the Import Agency Contract, which the Agent submitted as evidence. First of all, there is no signing date of the Import Agency Contract, so there is no evidence to prove the relationship between this Contract and the Contracts in dispute. In the second last paragraph of the Import Agency Contract, it is stated that the Contract takes effect upon the signing of the legal representatives or the authorized persons of both parties and the affixing of the stamps of both parties. The Contract will cease to be effective until March 5, 2003. If we assume that agency contracts are normally one year, then maybe the signing date of this contract was March 6, 2002, which is after the signing of the contracts in dispute, and therefore the Import Agency Contract may has nothing to do with the Contracts in dispute. Secondly, the Import Agency Contract is a framework agreement, and it does not indicate any specific foreign exporter or goods. The Agent has no other evidence to prove that the Agent signed the Contracts with the Seller based on this Import Agency Contract. Thus, Seller does not accept the effect of this evidence.

2. According to Article 402 of the Contract Law, where the agent enters into a contract with a third party under the agent's name within the scope of authorization by the principal, and if the third party is aware of the proxy relationship between the agent and the principal, the said contract shall directly bind the principal and the third party, unless truthful evidence proves that the said contract binds only the agent and the third party.

  1. Although it is stipulated in Article 402 of the Contract Law that "the said contract shall directly bind the principal and the third party", it does not free the agent from the contractual obligations, unless otherwise stipulated in the Legislative Interpretation or Judicial Interpretation, there is no legal basis to say that the Agent is not bond by the contract. Since there is no legal basis, the Contracts are still binding to the Agent.

  2. If the result will be unfair if the contracts do not bind the agent, according to the principle of equity and good faith, the agent shall be held liable.

    The Seller is a foreign company, it is not familiar with Chinese law and various complicated conditions, and it is very difficult for the Seller to claim payment directly from the Buyer, which it has no contractual relationship with. The Agent is an import and export company, which has direct contractual relationship with the Buyer, comparing with the Seller; the Agent has better conditions and capabilities to claim payment from the Buyer. If an import and export company as the Agent does not need to take any responsibility for the payment, it will be extremely unfair to a foreign company such as the Seller.

  3. The Agent has fault during the contract performance, so it should be liable. In this case, according to Chinese foreign trade practice, the Agency Contract, and the contracts in dispute, the Buyer could not pay foreign currency directly to the Seller but only pay the Buyer through the Agent by paying the later RMB. However, the Agent did not claim payment from the Buyer, neither did the Agent make payment to the Seller; it is obviously in default and should be liable therefor.

  4. According to the principle of free intention, the contracts shall be binding to the Agent. In this case, the Seller is a foreign company, to its understanding, the party which signs the contract shall be liable to the contract, and this is their genuine intention. If the Agent signed the contract, but shall not be liable to the contract, it will be a violation of the Seller's genuine intention at the time it signed the contract. The Seller believes that it has the right to claim the payment from the Agent after delivering the goods.

  5. According to the arbitration clause in the contracts, Article 402 shall not be applicable. The reasons are as follows:

    The Seller and the Agent agreed in the contracts that all the disputes arising from or in connection with the contracts shall be resolved through arbitration. However, in the Agent Contract between the Buyer and the Agent, making an arbitration clause is not within the authorizations. The fact that the Agent signed a contract with an arbitration clause clearly shows that it was the Agent's genuine intention to perform the contracts by its own, including the arbitration clause, and claim damages from the Buyer afterwards. It is also proved by Article 2.1.4 of the Import Agency Contract.

    According to Article 402 of the Contract Law, the precondition of its application is that the Agent shall decide the terms and conditions of the contract and sign the contract within its authorization from the Buyer's, but the arbitration clause is not within the authorization, so it shall be the Agent's genuine intention to perform the contracts by itself. Therefore, Article 402 of the Contract Law is not applicable and the contracts in dispute shall bind both the Seller and the Agent.

    The Seller believes that the party which signed the arbitration clause shall be the party liable for the rights and obligations under the contracts; otherwise the arbitration clause will be meaningless, since the arbitration award is not binding to the Buyer.

  6. Even if Article 402 of the Contract Law is applicable, the contracts in dispute shall still only bind the Agent and the Seller since it falls under the exception that "unless truthful evidence proves that the said contract binds only the agent and the third party.

    Firstly, the Seller is a foreign company, although the Buyer is its exclusive retailer in china, the Buyer does not have a strong background, if there was no strong agent in between, the Seller would not possibly deliver such a large amount of goods to the Buyer without any prepayment. The Seller signed the contracts based on its trust on the Agent's capability. From this point of view, the Seller's genuine intention was to make the contracts bind the Agent, and the Agent can sell the goods to the Buyer. Otherwise the Seller would have chosen some other safer payment methods.

    Secondly, the terms of the contracts can indicate that the contracts were made to bind both the Agent and the Seller. In the contracts, the receiver, examiner, payer and claimer are all the Agent, the arbitration clause was made by and between the Agent and the Seller. These terms, especially the Arbitration clause, are enough to prove that he Seller's genuine intention was to make the Agent take all the rights and obligations under the contracts.

    Thirdly, the Import Agency Contract is also evidence that the contacts shall bind the Agent and the Seller. In Article 2.1.4 of the Import Agency Contract, it is stipulated that in case of a litigation or arbitration, if the Agent failed in the process, the consequences shall be borne by the Buyer, and the Buyer shall directly fulfill the Agent's obligations to the Agent or the Seller within 10 days after the ruling. From this article, we can see that the genuine intention of the Agent and the Buyer when they signed the contract was that the Agent will take the responsibility first, and then claim the damage from the Buyer. The Agent is clearly avoiding its responsibilities by employing Article 402 of the Contract Law

    In addition, during the contract period, all the payment notice was send by the Seller to the Agent, even in the evidence the Agent submitted. Thus, the fact is not as what the Agent claimed that "the Seller has been always contacting the Buyer for the payment".

3. Settlement Agreement

  1. The Settlement Agreement signed on July 31, 2003 was signed for a quick solution. The Seller made many compromises and gave up many rights, including agreeing the Buyer to pay directly to the Seller so that they can settle the payment at once. But up to today, the Settlement Agreement has not been performed and cannot be performed as well. The purpose for this Settlement Agreement is to solve the problem, but now it is not realistic. So if the Seller shall be bound thereby, the Seller's legitimate rights will not be protected. In order to protect its rights, the Seller issued a termination notice on July 8, 2004 to all other parties of the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the Settlement Agreement shall not be binding any more.

  2. The Settlement Agreement does not have the effectiveness of evidence, and shall not be adopted.

    Firstly, according to Article 50 of the Arbitration Rules, should conciliation fail, any statement, opinion, view or proposal which has been made, raised, put forward, acknowledged, accepted or rejected by either party or by the arbitration tribunal in the process of conciliation shall not be invoked as grounds for any claim, defense and/or counterclaim in the subsequent arbitration proceedings, judicial proceedings or any other proceedings. There is a similar stipulation in Article 67 of the Some Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures, that in the process of litigation, the evidences which they have affirmed through compromise for the sake of reaching a mediation or agreement or reconciliation may not be used by the parties concerned in later litigations as an evidence unfavorable to the other party. The purpose of these rules is to encourage parties to solve the dispute through negotiations. The Seller believes, under the light of these rules, the Seller shall not be bound by the compromises it made in the Settlement Agreement, not to mention that the Settlement Agreement has been terminated.

    Secondly, the Settlement Agreement is a four party agreement, using a four party agreement to prove a two party dispute will not be appropriate because arbitration is an agreement between parties, and only the Seller and the Agent signed up for the arbitration.

For the above mentioned opinions, the Agent submitted the following defenses:

The Settlement is a confirmation to the proxy relationship between the Agent and the Buyer, also a confirmation to the agreement that the Buyer shall directly make the payment to the Seller. The agreement was the genuine intention of all parties and shall not be terminated. Thus, the Seller's claim to terminate the agreement does not have any legal basis and should not be supported by the Arbitration Tribunal. At the same time, since the agreement is a confirmation to the facts, not an establishment of a new debt, even if it is terminated, the facts and legal relationship it confirms shall not be denied. Therefore, the Seller shall claim the payment from the Buyer according to laws and facts, and the Agent shall not be liable for the payment.

OPINIONS OF ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

1. Governing Law

According to Article 11 of the Contracts, the Law of People's Republic of China is applicable to this case, and CISG is not excluded. Thus, the applicable law of this case shall be Chinese Law, and if there are issues not stipulated in the Law of People's Republic of China, CISG shall be applicable.

2. Performance of the Contracts

The Seller claims that it delivered the goods with a value of USD2, 43l, 148.93 to the Agent according to the two contracts, and the Agent has no objection hereto. Thus, the Tribunal confirms the performance.

3. Disputes of this Case

The Tribunal found the main disputes in this case are as follows:

(1). Application of Article 402 of the Contract Law

The dispute is who should make the payment under the contracts, the Agent or the Buyer? For this issue, the Tribunal intends to decide according to the conditions of Article 402 of the Contract Law.

a. Conditions of Article 402

It is stipulated in Article 402 that where the agent enters into a contract with a third party under the agent's name within the scope of authorization by the principal, and if the third party is aware of the proxy relationship between the agent and the principal, the said contract shall directly bind the principal and the third party, unless truthful evidence proves that the said contract binds only the agent and the third party.

According to Article 402, if the case has the following conditions, the contract will directly bind the Seller and the Buyer:

  1. the Agent signed the contract with its own name;
  2. the Agent signed the contract with a third party within the scope of authorization by the principal;
  3. the third party is aware of the proxy relationship between the agent and the principal at the time of signing.

And there is one exception, that is, unless truthful evidence proves that the said contract binds only the agent and the third party, which indicates that even if the case has all the above mentioned three conditions, and may directly bind the principal and the third party, as long as there is evidence to prove that the contract binds only the agent and the third party, Article 402 will not be applicable.

b. Contracts in dispute and the Import Agency Contract

Regarding the question whether the Agent was authorized by the Buyer to sign the contracts in dispute, the Agent submitted an Import Agency Contract (hereinafter referred to as the Agent Contract). There is no signing date in the Agent Contract, but expire date was March 5, 2003.

Both parties confirmed that the signing date of the contracts in dispute was March 4, 2002, and no party could provide any evidence to prove that the Agent Contract was signed later than March 4, 2002, as a result, the Tribunal considers that the Agent Contract was at least signed or existed at the time of signing the contracts in dispute. Because the Seller could not provide any evidence to prove that the Agent Contract was signed on March 6, 2002, the Tribunal will not support its point.

It is stipulated in Article 2.1.1 in the Agent Contract that the Buyer shall be in charge of contacting the foreign company, confirm the technical specifications, authentications, and provide written confirmation to the Agent to sign the Import Contract with the foreign company.

It is stipulated in Article 2.2.1 in the Agent Contract that the Agent shall sign the Import Contract after receiving the order and confirmation about the terms thereof from the Buyer.

In this case, the Agent could not prove it signed the contracts after receiving the confirmation and relevant terms from the buyer, neither could the Agent prove that the Buyer confirmed the two contracts in writing.

Although the Agent signed an Agent Contract with the Buyer, which authorized the Agent to get involved in the international transactions on behalf of the Buyer, the Agent Contract was indeed just a framework agreement without any specifications. Therefore, since the Agent could not provide any evidence to prove that it signed the contracts in dispute with the Seller based on the Agent Contract, the Tribunal cannot reach the conclusion that the contract in dispute was signed by the Agent on behalf of the Buyer.

c. Whether the Seller knew the proxy relationship between the Agent and the Buyer at the time of signing

Although it was confirmed by the Seller, the Agent and the Buyer in the Settlement Agreement on July 31, 2003 that the Agent signed two contracts with the Seller as the Buyer's agent, it does not prove that on March 4, 2002, when parties were signing the two contracts, the Seller knew that the Agent signed two contracts as the Buyer's agent.

This is a question of fact, if the Agent claims that the Seller knew the proxy relationship between the Agent and the Buyer at the time of signing, the Agent has the obligation to prove it. But in this case, the Agent did not prove:

  1. at the time of signing, the Agent showed or informed the Seller its Agent Contract with the Buyer;

  2. The Agent proved that the Buyer has been the exclusive retailer of the Seller's product in China since June 9, 1993. And because the Buyer cannot sign contract directly with a foreign company, it has to entrust agents to sign contracts with foreign companies on its behalf. The Agent therefore claims that no matter which company signed the contracts, the principal shall be always the Buyer.

    The Tribunal agrees that the evidences the Agent provided are enough to prove that the Buyer has been the exclusive retailer of the Seller's product in China, but they cannot prove that at the time of signing, the Agent informed the Seller it was signing the contracts on behalf of the Buyer. Furthermore, the Buyer being the exclusive retailer of the Seller in China does not mean the Agent is as well the exclusive agent of the Buyer. Therefore, if there is no evidence to prove that at the time of signing, the Agent informed the Seller it was signing the contracts on behalf of the Buyer, the Tribunal can not reach the conclusion that the Seller should have known the Respondent was the agent of the Buyer because the Buyer has been the exclusive retailer of the Seller's product in China.

  3. The Agent provided a fax dated January 27, 2003 as an evidence, in which the Seller informed the Agent that it had talked to the Buyer and the Buyer had received payment from the final user. The genuine intention from this fax was that "there is no more excuse for the non-payment, please make the payment immediately according to the invoice before we take any legal measures". The Tribunal agrees that this fax can prove that the Seller knew the Agent signed the contract on behalf of the Buyer at the time of sending the fax, but it is not enough to prove that the Seller knew the proxy relationship between the Agent and the Buyer at the time of signing.

  4. as to the Settlement Agreement, the Tribunal agrees that it can prove that the Seller knew the Agent signed the contract on behalf of the Buyer at the time of signing the Settlement Agreement, but it is not enough to prove that the Seller knew the proxy relationship between the Agent and the Buyer at the time of signing.

In this case, the Agent did not provide enough evidence to prove that it had informed the Seller its proxy relationship with the Buyer, or the Seller knew the proxy relationship between the Agent and the Buyer at the time of signing. And whether the Seller knew the proxy relationship between the Agent and the Buyer at the time of signing is one of the most important conditions of the application of Article 402 of the Contract Law. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot support the agent's claim to apply Article 402 of the Contract Law.

(2). the Settlement Agreement

The Tribunal decides:

Since the settlement agreement was signed by four parties, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide whether it was terminated. But as an evidence of this case, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide whether to adopt.

About the truth of the Settlement Agreement, neither party denied it. Thus, the Tribunal believes that no matter whether the Settlement Agreement was terminated, parties confirm the truth of the content therein.

In the Settlement Agreement, it was stated that the Agent signed two purchase contracts with the Seller as the Buyer's agent and owed the Seller USD2, 43l, 148.93; thus, the Tribunal deems it as a fact.

(3). Application of Article 403 of the Contract Law

According to Article 403 clause 2 of the Contract Law, where the agent fails to perform obligations towards the third party because of the principal, the agent shall disclose the principal to the third party, and the third party may then choose either the agent or the principal as the counterpart to claim its rights. However, the third party may not change the counterpart once chosen.

In this case, the Agent did not provide any evidence to prove that at the time of signing, it had informed the Seller that it is signing the contracts on behalf of the Buyer, so the Tribunal overrules the Agent's request to apply Article 402 of the Contract Law. But it was clearly stated in the Settlement Agreement that (1) the Seller had disclosed the Buyer and the Proxy relationship between the Agent and the Buyer; (2) the Seller had chosen the Buyer as its counterpart to claim its rights; and the Tribunal recognizes this as a fact.

According to the above mentioned facts and Article 403 of the Contract Law, the Agent fails to perform its obligation of payment towards the Seller because of the Buyer, so the Agent disclosed the Buyer to the Seller. Under this circumstance, the Seller chose the Buyer to the counterpart to claim its rights, which is not only legal and effective, but also fixed the Buyer to be the only counterpart the Seller can claim its right to.

Thus, the Seller should claim the payment from the Buyer according to its settlement agreement.

Thus, the Tribunal decides not to support the Seller's request towards the Agent under this case.

Thus, the Tribunal decides to overrule all the requests of the Seller under this application for arbitration.

AWARD

  1. Overrule all the requests of the Seller.

  2. The Seller shall bear the cost for the Arbitration Tribunal to go to Dalian for Arbitration.

  3. The Seller shall bear all the arbitration fees.

The Award is final and takes effect upon issuance.


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text.

** Ms. Lei Tong, LLM, lawyer, JunZeJun Law Offices Shanghai Office; e-mail: <Lei.t.elva@gmail.com>, <tonglei@junzejun.com>.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated December 6, 2011
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography