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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

China 18 August 2005 CIETAC Arbitration proceeding (Automatic production line case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050818c1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20050818 (18 August 2005)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; China

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

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

DATABASE ASSIGNED DOCKET NUMBER: CISG/2005/16

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Singapore (claimant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: People's Republic of China (respondent)

GOODS INVOLVED: Automatic production line


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(a)]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 8 ; 53

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

8C [Interpretation of party's statements or other conduct: interpretation in light of surrounding circumstances];

53A [Buyer's obligation to pay price of goods]

Descriptors: Intent ; Price

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

Automatic production line case [18 August 2005]

Translation [*] by Jing Li [**]

Edited by Meihua Xu [***]

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereinafter, "CIETAC"), accepted the case (Case number: M____) according to:

   -    The arbitration clause in Purchase Contract No. 2002FET1003 (hereinafter, the "Purchase Contract") signed by the Claimant [of Singapore], the [Seller], and Respondent [of the People's Republic of China], the [Buyer], on 7 April 2002; and
 
   -    The written Application for Arbitration submitted by the [Seller] on 20 October 2004.

The Arbitration Rules of CIETAC (hereinafter, the "Arbitration Rules"), which took effect on 1 October 2000, apply to this case.

ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

The Secretariat of CIETAC sent the Notice of Arbitration, the Arbitration Rules, and the Panel of Arbitrators to both parties, respectively, by express mail on 25 October 2004. Meanwhile, the Secretariat sent the Application for Arbitration and the evidence submitted by the [Seller] to the [Buyer].

The [Seller] appointed Ms. ___ as Arbitrator and the [Buyer] appointed Mr. ___ as Arbitrator. Since the parties did not jointly appoint or authorize the Chairman of CIETAC to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator, according to Article 24 of the Arbitration Rules, the Chairman of CIETAC appointed Mr. ___ as the Presiding Arbitration of the present case. On 19 November 2004, these three Arbitrators formed the Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter the "Tribunal") to hear this dispute.

On 8 December 2004, the [Buyer] submitted its Statement of Defense and evidence. These materials were then sent to the [Seller] by the Secretariat of CIETAC.

After the Tribunal's careful investigation of the materials submitted by both parties, the arbitration proceedings were commenced in Beijing on 1 February 2005. Both the [Seller] and the [Buyer] appointed attorneys to attend. Those in attendance representing both parties made statements and arguments on the factual and legal matters of the present dispute, explained and cross-examined the evidence, and answered questions raised by the Tribunal. At the end of the hearing, upon the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal decided that if the parties had supplementary evidence, this evidence shall be submitted before 23 February 2005. At the same time, the Tribunal decided that the cross-examination of the supplementary evidence shall be conducted with the host of the Secretariat of CIETAC.

After the hearing, both parties submitted supplementary evidence. On 4 March 2005, the [Buyer] wrote to CIETAC requesting a hearing for cross-examination. The [Seller] indicated in its letter to CIETAC dated 7 March 2005 that the present case could be cross-examined with the host of an appointed Secretary. If the [Buyer] did not agree with this proposal, the cross-examination could be conducted in a hearing. The Secretariat of CIETAC wrote to both parties on 8 March requesting them to make their opinions known on the method of cross-examination. Afterwards, the [Buyer] expressed its agreement to direct cross-examination hosted by CIETAC, instead of cross-examination held by hearing. On 24 March 2005, the Secretariat wrote to both parties, notifying that the examination of the evidence shall be held on 28 March 2005.

On 28 March 2005, both parties appointed attorneys to attend the cross-examination. With the host of the Secretary of the case, the evidence was investigated and the parties gave their opinions, respectively. The [Buyer] orally requested the Tribunal to review the original of relevant evidence from the Customs, and requested the Tribunal to confirm, before handing down an award, that the supplementary contract submitted by the [Buyer] was the original.

After discussion, the Tribunal wrote to both parties on 22 April 2005 notifying that:

  1. If, according to the present situations of the case, the parties require evidence to support their own claims, they shall prepare and submit relevant evidence of their own accord, and the Tribunal does not directly participate in the investigation of relevant evidence;

  2. According to the present situations of the case, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to give any opinion on whether the supplementary contract was the original before handing down an award. If the parties find it necessary to further submit evidence for cross-examination, it can be submitted within ten days.

Later, neither the [Seller] nor the [Buyer] submitted supplementary evidence. However, they submitted written Memoranda. In the course of the proceedings, both parties also submitted written opinions on cross-examination, respectively. The above materials were exchanged by the Secretariat of CIETAC.

This dispute is now settled. The Tribunal issues the award after discussion by the members of the Tribunal.

The followings are the facts, the opinion of the Tribunal, and the award.

FACTS

On 7 April 2002, the [Seller] and the [Buyer] signed a Purchase Contract (No.2002FET1003) in Beijing, agreeing that:

   -    Goods, price and delivery terms. The [Seller] sells to the [Buyer] an ___ automatic production line, for the total contract price of EUR 636,000.00 CIF Xingang (Tianjin, China);
 
   -    Letter of credit. The [Buyer] shall, at the latest, issue an irrevocable L/C (total transmissible) within 20 days before loading of the shipment;
 
   -    Transshipment and sub-packaging. Transshipment is allowed, but sub-packaging is not allowed;
 
   -    Schedule of payment:The first 70%. The first negotiation was effective within 21 days after the loading of the shipment, and the [Seller] could be issued payment of 70% of the amount on the invoice against the presentation of the complete shipment documents in China;

The next 20%. For the second negotiation, the [Seller] could be issued payment of 20% of the amount on the invoice against the presentation of [Buyer]'s letter of quality confirmation in China;

The remaining 10%. The remaining 10% of the amount on the invoice could be issued to the [Seller] within 90 days after the second negotiation against its presentation of the ultimate letter of quality confirmation in China;

   -    Completion of delivery. Delivery shall be completed before 30 April 2002.

During the performance of the Purchase Contract, both parties disputed the payment of the last installment. Therefore, the [Seller] submitted its Application for Arbitration to CIETAC.

POSITIONS AND REQUESTS BY THE PARTIES

[Seller]'s position

The [Seller] in its Application for Arbitration claimed that:

On 7 April 2002, the [Seller] and the [Buyer] signed the Purchase Contract in Beijing, and Huaxia Bank of China issued the L/C. After negotiation, both parties modified the articles on "sub-packaging" and on "date of delivery" in the Purchase Contract. The L/C was modified accordingly. After the conclusion of the Purchase Contract, the [Seller] performed the obligation of delivery in accordance to the Contract. The [Seller] obtained payment of 90% of the contract price on 3 July 2002, 22 July 2002, and 24 February 2003, respectively. According to the Contract, the last installment, i.e., the remaining 10% of the contract price, shall be issued to the [Seller] within 90 days after the presentation of the ultimate letter of quality confirmation (24 February 2003). However, under the condition that the end-user had already signed the ultimate letter of quality confirmation, despite the [Seller]'s repeat requests, the [Buyer] still refused to issue the ultimate letter of quality confirmation, which caused the [Seller]'s failure to obtain the remaining 10% of the contract price, i.e., EUR 63,600.

[Seller]'s claims

The [Seller]'s arbitration claims are to have the [Buyer]:

   1.   Compensate the [Seller] for the arrearage in the amount of EUR 63,600;
   2.   Compensate the [Seller] for the liquidated damages on overdue payment of EUR 7,306;
   3.   Compensate the [Seller] for its attorneys' fee of renminbi [RMB] 60,000;
   4.   Bear the [Seller]'s expenses of traveling that arose from the present case; and
   5.   Bear the arbitration fee that arose from the present case.

[Buyer]'s response

The main response of the [Buyer] is as follows:

1. The [Seller]'s claims do not conform to the facts, nor to the law

In April 2002, the [Buyer], as the import agent of Beijing ___ Science & Technology Development Co. Ltd. (hereinafter, "___ Co. Ltd."), concluded the Purchase Contract of the present case. Since the [Seller] postponed the loading and sub-packaging of the goods, both parties negotiated and signed a supplementary contract (hereinafter, the "Supplementary Contract") on 25 July 2002. This Supplementary Contact modified the original contract price to EUR 589,425.60, and the final contract price applied to the customs was EUR 589,425.60 as well. Hence, the [Seller]'s request of compensation of arrearage and liquidated damages of overdue payment does not conform to the facts.

2. The [Seller] breached the Contract on many occasions, causing the [Buyer] severe loss

It was agreed in the Purchase Contract that transshipment was allowed but sub-packaging was not, and that the time of delivery shall be before 30 April 2002. However, after the conclusion of the Contract, the [Seller] did not perform the Contract as agreed, in breach of the articles on transshipment and on sub-packaging. The [Seller] also postponed the delivery time until 9 June and 30 June 2002. This led to the [Buyer]'s loss as high as RMB 465,043.20 because of the rise of exchange rate of EUR against RMB. Even based on the contract price after the agreed modification, the [Buyer] still suffered loss as high as RMB 430,988.00.

Additionally, according to Terms of Payment C in the Purchase Contract, the remaining 10% of the amount on the invoice could be issued to the [Seller] within 90 days after the second negotiation against its presentation of the ultimate letter of quality confirmation in China. Since the quality of the goods provided by the [Seller] did not confirm to the requirements of ___ Co. Ltd., the ___ Co. Ltd. refused to issue the ultimate letter of quality confirmation within 90 days after the second negotiation. This caused the refusal of payment by the negotiating bank. Therefore, the responsibility for refusal of payment was on the [Seller], instead of the [Buyer].

Further, since the [Seller] severely breached the Contract, ___ Co. Ltd. refused to pay a commission fee to the [Buyer], causing the enlargement of the [Buyer]'s loss.

Supplementary opinion of the [Seller]

After the hearing, the [Seller] submitted a supplementary written opinion. The main content was as follows:

1. The Supplementary Contract was invalid

The [Buyer] claimed that a Supplementary Contract signed on 25 July 2002 reduced the price of the goods. The [Seller], however, argued that this document was not legally effective, and therefore, not legally binding. The legal relationship between the [Seller] and the [Buyer] is subject to the Purchase Contract, not a Supplementary Contract.

The Supplementary Contract in fact did not exist. The [Buyer] could not provide the original of this document, and hence, it was impossible to verify the Supplementary Contract. According to evidence rules in China, evidence that is not supported by the original cannot be used. The [Seller] and ___ Co. Ltd. saw the alleged Supplementary Contract for the first time when the [Buyer] made its argument in the arbitration proceedings.

As for the content of the Supplementary Contract, it was invalid as well. This Supplementary Contract was fabricated on purpose by the [Buyer] in order to escape from the Customs management. It was obvious that the [Buyer] intended to deceive the Customs control with this fabricated contract. Under Article 52(5) of the Chinese Contract Law, this Supplementary Contract was null and void because it violated the compulsory provisions of the laws and administrative regulations. Therefore, this Supplementary Contract was void ab initio. The legal relationship between the [Seller] and the [Buyer] is instead subject to the Purchase Contract.

The [Seller] argued that other evidence provided by the [Buyer] could not prove the authenticity of the Supplementary Contract. On the other hand, it demonstrated from various perspectives that the [Buyer] fabricated various materials for declaration at the Customs in order to escape from the Customs supervision and management.

2. The [Seller] was not in breach

The Purchase Contract provided that the goods shall be loaded for shipment before 30 April 2002, and that the goods were not allowed to be sub-packaged. In fact, the parties had already modified the above articles in light of the change of the physical situation. These modifications were eventually reflected in the modified L/C. The L/C modified by the [Buyer] clearly indicated that the final date for delivery was changed to 30 June 2002, and that sub-packaging was allowed. The [Seller]'s performance of the Contract was in conformity with the above requirements. Also, before the [Seller] requested arbitration, the [Buyer] had not objected to the [Seller]'s performance.

At the same time, according to the normal operating procedure, the [Buyer] could not have suffered any loss from the fluctuation of the exchange rate. Even if the [Buyer] in actuality suffered loss from the exchange rate, it was due to the [Buyer]'s own reason and the fluctuation of the rate market, but not related to the [Seller].

3. The [Buyer] is responsible for the payment of the arrearage

As for the payment of the arrearage, the [Buyer] is responsible whatsoever. According to the clauses in the L/C, the arrearage shall be issued within 90 days after the second negotiation against the [Seller]'s presentation of the ultimate letter of quality confirmation issued by the [Buyer]. However, within those 90 days, the [Buyer] apparently did not fulfill the obligation of issuing the letter of quality confirmation, causing the [Seller]'s failure to obtain the arrearage. The [Buyer] claimed that the non-issuance of the letter of quality confirmation was because ___ Co. Ltd. found that the goods provided by the [Seller] did not conform to the quality requirements. However, the [Buyer] did not provide any evidence thereof. Further, according to the relativity principles of contract, only the [Seller] and the [Buyer] were the proper subjects of the Purchase Contract, and under this Contract, the obligation of issuing a letter of quality confirmation fell upon the [Buyer], not the end=user.

Supplementary opinion of the [Buyer]

The [Buyer], after the hearing, submitted a supplementary written opinion as well. The main content was as follows:

1. Authenticity of the Supplementary Contract

The [Seller] did not provide any evidence proving that the Supplementary Contract was fabricated by the [Buyer]. The time of the conclusion of this Supplementary Contract was not consistent with the time of the facsimile. It was not the fault of the [Buyer], but was caused by the [Seller]'s postponed issuance. This could not prove that the ineffectiveness of this Contract. The most the above evidence could prove was the time of the Supplementary Contract coming into effect.

The Customs Declaration, Invoice on Customs Administrative Charges, and ___ Co. Ltd.'s Application Report on Modifying the Price of the Imported Devices provided by the [Buyer] could all prove the authenticity of the Supplementary Contract.

2. Responsibility for the breach of the overdue payment

The Purchase Contract provided that the arrearage of the 10% of the amount on the invoice shall be issued by the [Buyer] to the [Seller] upon the [Seller]'s presentation of the ultimate letter of quality confirmation within 90 days after the second negotiation.

In the course of performance of the Contract, the devices delivered by the [Seller] did not meet the requirements of ___ Co. Ltd., and therefore, ___ Co. Ltd. refused to sign and stamp on the ultimate letter of quality confirmation issued by the [Seller] within 90 days after the second negotiation on 24 February 2003. This caused the [Seller]'s failure to issue the ultimate letter of quality confirmation before 25 June 2003. Not until 22 August 2003 could the [Seller] issue this letter. This belated issuance led to the refusal of payment by the negotiating bank. It was caused by the fault of the [Seller], and the [Buyer] was not at fault. Therefore, the responsibility for the payment of the arrearage lay on the [Seller], instead of the [Buyer]. Thus, the [Buyer] was also not responsible for the breach of overdue payment.

3. Relevant evidence could prove that the [Buyer] suffered great loss from the fluctuation of the exchange rate as well.

THE OPINION OF THE TRIBUNAL

1. Applicable law

There is no clause on applicable law in the Purchase Contract. The place of business of the [Seller] is in Singapore, and the place of business of the [Buyer] is in China. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980) (hereinafter "CISG") shall be applicable to the present dispute. Issues that the CISG is not concerned with shall be governed by the relevant Chinese laws in accordance with the doctrine of closest and most real connection.

2. Validity of the Purchase Contract

The Tribunal has verified the following facts:

The [Seller] and the [Buyer] signed the Purchase Contract (No. 2002FET1003) on 7 April 2002, agreeing that the [Seller] sells to the [Buyer] an ___ automatic production line, with the delivery time before 20 April 2002, for the contract price of EUR 636,000, and that the [Buyer] will issue irrevocable L/Cs (total transmissible) with three installments.

The [Buyer] issued a L/C via Huaxia Bank of China on 21 March 2002 in the amount of EUR 636,000 with three installments.

The [Buyer] modified the L/C on 29 April 2002, changing the period of validity to 15 November 2002. On 14 May 2002, the [Buyer] again extended the period of validity in the L/C to 15 December 2002. Also, the [Buyer] changed the article prohibiting sub-packaging into allowing partial sub-packaging. Other articles remained not modified.

On 22 August 2003, the devices under the Purchase Contract were confirmed by ___ Co. Ltd., and they were accepted as qualified goods.

The above facts can be proved jointly by evidence provided by both parties.

The [Buyer] claimed that on 25 July 2002, both parties signed a Supplementary Contract to the Purchase Contract, agreeing to adjust the prices of the two machines under the Purchase Contract to EUR 38,035.80 and EUR 70,637.80, respectively. The adjusted contract price was then EUR 589,425.60. In the invoice issued by the [Seller] on 28 June 2002, the prices for these two machines are also EUR 38,035.80 and EUR 70,637.80, respectively. However, the [Seller] objected to the authenticity of Supplementary Contract and the invoices submitted by the [Buyer]. The [Seller] also raised several doubts to the forms of the invoices, and requested the [Buyer] to provide with the original. The [Buyer] claimed that the abovementioned Supplementary Contract and invoices were sent by facsimile and the fax was the original.

Regarding the distinct arguments by both parties on the above two pieces of evidence, the Tribunal required the [Buyer] to provide other evidence assisting to prove the authenticity of these two pieces of evidence. The [Buyer] then submitted ___ Co. Ltd.'s Application Report on Modifying the Price of the Imported Devices (submitted to Beijing Customs on 28 July 2002), the relevant Invoice on Customs Administrative Charge, and the Customs Declaration. From the indication of these documents, the Tribunal finds that although this supplementary evidence is related to the matter of adjustment of the contract price suggested by the [Buyer], these documents were unilaterally prepared by the [Buyer] or ___ Co. Ltd., and that the [Seller] neither participated in their preparation of nor did the [Seller] later verify them. These documents do not effectively prove or provide adequate evidence to establish the existence of the Supplementary Contract and the invoices. Since the [Buyer] could not provide sufficient evidence proving the authenticity of the Supplementary Contract and the invoices, the Tribunal does not support these two pieces of evidence.

3. [Buyer]'s claims

The Buyer argued that the [Seller] repeatedly breached the Contract and postponing the delivery of the goods, which caused the [Buyer] to suffer severe loss, including the loss of more than RMB 400,000 due to the fluctuation of the exchange rate, and the loss of the commission fee due to the end-user's refusal to pay it. Regarding this point, CIETAC wrote to the [Buyer] on 28 December 2004 inquiring whether the [Buyer] wished to file a counterclaim. The [Buyer] did not respond to this letter. Therefore, the Tribunal does not consider any claims by the [Buyer] related to the [Seller]'s performance.

4. Performance of the Purchase Contract and the responsibility for payment by the [Buyer]

The parties did not object to the fact that the [Seller] obtained payment of 90% of the contract price on 3 July 2002, 22 July 2002, and 24 February 2003, respectively. Thus, the Tribunal supports this position.

Based on the verified facts, the Tribunal finds that:

The Purchase Contract provides that the price of the devices is EUR 636,000. The [Buyer] only made payment of EUR 572,400, owing the [Seller] EUR 63,600.

The Chinese version of the terms of Payment C in the Purchase Contract (Article 5) reads:

"Chinese version not reproduced."

The English version reads:

"The 10% balance will be negotiated in China 90 days after the second payment against the buyer's final confirmation letter."

These two texts are not consistent with the expression in the ultimate letter of quality confirmation. The Tribunal notes that in the [Buyer]'s response, the [Buyer] argued that since the quality of the devices provided by the [Seller] did not meet the requirements of the end user ___ Co. Ltd., the ___ Co. Ltd. refused to sign the ultimate letter of quality confirmation. The [Buyer] in its Application for Arbitration claimed that the [Buyer] shall issue the ultimate letter of quality confirmation within 90 days after the second negotiation, i.e., 24 February 2003.

   -    In light of the context of this article in the Purchase Contract, the opinions of both parties, and general trade usage, the Tribunal finds that payment against the presentation of the ultimate letter of quality confirmation signed by the [Buyer] was agreed by both parties.
 
   -    According to Article 5(C), the [Seller] could negotiate the third installment against the [Seller]'s presentation of the ultimate letter of quality confirmation issued by the [Buyer] before 24 May. However, the [Buyer] did not sign the ultimate letter of quality confirmation before 24 May.
 
   -    Although the [Buyer] claimed that it already negotiated with the [Seller] on the matter that ___ Co. Ltd. was not satisfied with the goods, the [Buyer] did not provide evidence supporting this argument.

The Tribunal finds that according to the Purchase Contract, the [Buyer] shall issue an ultimate letter of quality confirmation on 24 May. If the devices did not meet the requirements of the Contract, the [Buyer] shall expressly notify the [Seller] about the reasons and situations of the non-issuance of the ultimate letter of quality confirmation. However, the Tribunal finds that the [Buyer] did not fulfill this obligation and that the [Buyer] did not provide the legal reasons for the non-fulfillment. Since the [Buyer] did not issue the ultimate letter of quality confirmation, the arrearage under the L/C could not be negotiated, and the [Buyer] shall bear the responsibility thereof. The Tribunal further points out that the L/C has expired. However, it does not mean that the [Buyer] was released from its obligation of payment of the arrearage under the Purchase Contract. The [Seller] has delivered the goods under the Contract, and the [Buyer] is obligated to make payment of the arrearage.

5. Other arbitration requests

The [Seller] suggested that since the [Buyer] did not perform the obligation of paying the arrearage, the [Buyer] shall bear the obligation of breach of the Purchase Contract as agreed. According to Chinese laws, the liquidated damages shall be calculated as from 24 May 2003 to the date when the arbitration was filed at the daily interest rate of 0.21, totaling EUR 7,306.

In this connection, the Tribunal finds that the Purchase Contract in the present dispute does not have any provision on liquidated damages. Therefore, it is difficult for the Tribunal to support this argument of the [Seller].

The [Seller] claimed that the [Buyer] shall make payment to the [Seller] of RMB 60,000 to compensate for its payment of the attorneys' fee. According to the situations of the present case, the Tribunal finds it reasonable that the [Buyer] compensates RMB 36,000 for the [Seller]'s attorneys' fee.

The [Seller] also claimed that the [Buyer] shall compensate the [Seller] for its expenses of traveling that arose from the present case. However, the [Seller] did not present a concrete amount. Therefore, the Tribunal does not support this argument.

6. Arbitration fee

In light of the share of responsibility and the support from the Tribunal in favor of the [Seller], the Tribunal finds that the [Seller] shall bear 40% of the arbitration fee, while the [Buyer] shall bear 60% thereof.

AWARD

The Tribunal hands down the following award:

   1.   The [Buyer] shall make payment of the arrearage to the [Seller] of EUR 63,600;
 
   2.   The [Buyer] shall compensate the [Seller] in the amount of RMB 36,000 as part of the [Seller]'s attorneys' fee from the present case;
 
   3.   The Tribunal rejects the other arbitration requests of the [Seller];
 
   4.   The arbitration fee of this dispute is RMB 36,917. The [Seller] bears 40% of the arbitration fee, while the [Buyer] bears 60% thereof, which is RMB 22,150.20. The [Seller] has prepaid the entire amount of the arbitration fee, and therefore, the [Buyer] shall pay the [Seller] RMB 22,150.20.

The above payments from points 1, 2, and 4 shall be made from the [Buyer] to the [Seller] within 30 days after this award is handed down.

This is a final award. It takes effect on the day when it is handed down.


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, Claimant of ___ Asia Pte Ltd. [of Singapore] is referred to as [Seller], and Respondent of Beijing ___ Economy & Trade Imp./Exp. Corporation Ltd. [of People's Republic of China] is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the currency of the People's Republic of China (renminbi) are indicated as [RMB]; amounts in the uniform European currency (Euro) are indicated as [EUR].

** Jing Li, LL.M., University of Texas at Austin, School of Law; Master of Law, Sun Yat-Sen University School of Law, China; LL.B., Sun Yat-Sen University School of Law, China.

*** 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 September 22, 2008
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography