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 September 2006 CIETAC Arbitration proceeding (Apparel case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060900c2.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20060900 (September 2006)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; China

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

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

DATABASE ASSIGNED DOCKET NUMBER: CISG/2006/09

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Slovak Republic (claimant)

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

GOODS INVOLVED: Apparel


Classification of issues present

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

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 81(2) [Also cited: Articles 30 ; 33(a) ; 45 ; 74 ]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

81C [Effect of avoidance on obligations: restitution by each party of benefits received]

Descriptors: Restitution

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

EDITOR: Albert H. Kritzer

Governing law. The Tribunal held: "The parties did not stipulate the applicable law in the Contract. The places of business of both parties [Seller: PRC; Buyer: Slovak Republic] are in Contracting States of the ... CISG; the Contract does not exclude the application of the CISG; and the Contract is for the international sale of goods. Therefore, the CISG shall apply. As to the matters which the CISG does not prescribe, Chinese law shall apply ..."

Request for a double refund. Article 81(2) CISG states that, in the event of avoidance: "A party who has performed the contract ... may claim restitution from the other party of whatever the first party has ... paid under the contract.

In this case, the first party (the [Buyer]) had paid a deposit under the contract.

Article 89 of the Guaranty Law of the People's Republic of China is broader than Article 81(2) of the CISG. It states: "The paying party is not entitled to a refund of the deposit if it fails to perform the contract; [however] the other party shall double refund the deposit to the paying party if it fails to perform the contract."

The Tribunal held: "Pursuant to Article 45 of CISG, Article 115 of the Contract Law [of the PRC] and Article 89 of the Guaranty Law, the [Seller] as a deposit receiving party failed to deliver the goods under the Contract, and shall double refund the deposit to the [Buyer]."

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

Apparel case (September 2006)

Translation [*] by Zheng Xie [**]

Edited by William Zheng and Jingyuan Sun [***]

Particulars of the proceeding
Facts
Opinion of the Arbitration Tribunal
Award

PARTICULARS OF THE PROCEEDING

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereafter, the "Arbitration Commission") accepted the case (Case number: G2006___) according to:

   -    The arbitration clause in Contract No. Z0G055-112WP (the "Contract") signed by Claimant ___ Corporation [of the Slovak Republic] (hereinafter referred to as "[Buyer]") and Respondent ___ Import and Export Ltd [of the People's Republic of China] (hereinafter referred to as "[Seller]"); and
 
   -    The written Application for Arbitration submitted by the [Buyer].

The Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Commission [hereinafter, the "Arbitration Rules"] which took effect on 1 May 2005 apply to this case. Since the amount of claims totals no more than RMB 500,000, pursuant to Article 50 of the Arbitration Rules, the summary procedure specified in Chapter IV of the Arbitration Rules applies to this case. For matters not covered in Chapter IV, the relevant provisions in the other Chapters of the Arbitration Rules shall apply.

When filing the Application for Arbitration, the [Buyer] submitted the following statement:

"With respect to the case regarding the disputes arising out of the Contract between the [Buyer] and the [Seller], the [Buyer] submitted Exhibit 1, the Contract. The Contract was drafted by the [Seller] and mistakenly states the [Buyer]'s name as ___ International s.r.o., Bratislava, Slovakia. The [Buyer]'s registered name is ___ Co. Please note the above."

On 1 March 2006, the Secretariat of the Arbitration Commission served the [Seller] and the [Buyer] by express mail the Arbitration Notice, the Arbitration Rules and the List of Arbitrators. It also served the [Seller] the [Buyer]'s Application for Arbitration and its attachments.

The "Beijing EMS Tracking Slip" issued by the post office demonstrates that the aforementioned documents sent to the [Seller]'s business place were accepted by San Huan Co. on 4 March 2006. Since San Huan Co. is not the [Seller], the Secretariat requested the [Buyer] to provide the [Seller]'s correct address in order to serve the [Seller]. On 30 April 2006, the Secretariat sent the documents to the [Seller] at the new address provided by the [Buyer]. The tracking slip indicates that the documents were delivered on 5 May 2005. Thereafter, all documents of this case were duly served on the [Seller] at that address.

Since the [Seller] and the [Buyer] neither jointly appointed nor authorized the Chairman of the Arbitration Tribunal to appoint a sole arbitrator within the time limit, the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission appointed Mr. ___ as the sole arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitration Rules. On 16 June 2006, he formed the Arbitration Tribunal to hear this case.

After reviewing the [Buyer]'s Application for Arbitration and the evidence, the Tribunal held a hearing on 13 July 2006 in Beijing. The [Buyer]'s representative was present, but the [Seller] did not appear at the hearing without valid excuse. Pursuant to Article 34(2) of the Arbitration Rules, the Arbitration Tribunal heard this case by default. The [Buyer] stated facts and its legal opinions, answered the Arbitration Tribunal's questions, and presented evidence in the hearing. The Arbitration Tribunal scheduled the next proceedings at the end of the hearing. On the same day, the Secretariat notified the [Seller] in writing of the hearing and the schedule.

After receiving the attorney's opinions and supplemental evidence from the [Buyer] on 19 July 2006, the Secretariat forwarded the above mentioned documents to the [Seller]. The Secretariat also informed the [Seller] that if the [Seller] deems another hearing desirable, an application must be submitted before 28 July 2006. Otherwise the Arbitration Tribunal would cross-examine new evidence on the basis of documents only. The [Seller] was also notified that it could submit three copies of written opinion on the new evidence to the Commission before 28 July, 2006.

The [Seller] neither submitted any document within the aforementioned time limit, nor filed any document during the entire proceeding.

Based on the facts verified in the hearing and written material submitted by the [Buyer], the Arbitration Tribunal made this award by default. The facts, the Arbitration Tribunal's opinion, and the award are as follows:

FACTS

The [Buyer] states in the Application for Arbitration that:

The [Seller] and the [Buyer] signed Contract No. Z05G055-112WP ("Contract") in May 2005, stipulating that:

The [Buyer] will purchase nine lines of apparel from the [Seller] at the total price of US $144,972.

The [Buyer] shall prepay 20% of the total contract price, i.e., US $29,000, as deposit. The [Seller] shall ship the goods from Shanghai Port on 15 July 2005. The port of destination is Hamburg, Germany.

After signing the Contract, the [Buyer] paid US $29,000 to the [Seller] through its bank on 23 May 2005 in accordance with the Contract. However, the [Seller] failed to deliver the goods after receiving the deposit. Subsequently, the [Seller] and the [Buyer] reached a Supplemental Agreement on 7 November 2005. The Supplemental Agreement stipulates that the [Buyer] shall refund US $15,000 of the deposit to the [Seller] before 7 November 2005, and the remaining US $14,000 will be remain in the [Seller]'s account for the [Buyer]'s future prepayment. The [Seller] failed to perform the Supplemental Agreement and has not refunded the stipulated amount to the [Buyer].

The [Buyer] demanded the refund several times via telephone and facsimile, but the [Seller] refused to do so for various excuses. Thereafter, the [Buyer] sent its staff from the Slovak Republic to Zhejiang, China demanding the refund, but the [Seller] still refused to pay. In order to protect its interest, the [Buyer] filed the arbitration application.

The [Buyer] requests the following relief in the Application for Arbitration:

   1.   The [Seller] should pay double the deposit to the [Buyer], i.e., US $58,000;
   2.   The [Seller] should compensate the [Buyer] for the attorneys' fees;
   3.   The [Seller] should compensate the [Buyer] for the traveling expenses of RMB 13,000 incurred for this case;
   4.   The [Seller] should bear the arbitration fee.

After the hearing, the [Buyer] submitted its supplemental opinion alleging that:

(1) The [Seller] failed to perform its contractual duties and should be liable for its breach

After the Contract was concluded via facsimile, the [Seller] informed the [Buyer] of its bank account information, and the [Buyer] transferred US $29,000 as deposit to the [Seller]'s account. The parties' aforementioned conduct sufficiently proves that the Contract was established and that it was performed by the [Buyer]. The Contract reflects the parties' true intent and is thus valid. The parties should perform their duties under the Contract. However, the [Seller] failed to deliver the goods or to refund the deposit to the [Buyer]. The [Seller] neither performed the Contract nor had intent to perform it, which constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. Therefore, the [Seller] should be held liable.

(2) The penalty rule of deposit shall apply when the [Seller] fundamentally breaches the Contract

      1. The [Buyer]'s prepayment of US $29,000 meets all elements of deposit. First, the Contract reached by the [Seller] and the [Buyer] defines the prepayment of US $29,000 as deposit; second, the prepayment of US $29,000 equals 20% of the contract price, which is in conformity with the maximum amount of deposit prescribed by Article 91 of the Guaranty Law, i.e., "The sum of deposit shall be decided by the parties and shall not exceed 20 percent of the sum of subject matter of the principal contract.". Accordingly, the amount of deposit is expressively stipulated by the parties in the Contract.

      2. The requirements for applying the penalty rule of deposit are satisfied. Pursuant to the general principle of jurisprudence, the Guaranty Law and the People's Supreme Court's judicial interpretation, only when the following conditions are met, shall the penalty rule of deposit apply: (1) the deposit must have been paid; (2) the contract is valid; (3) one party fails to perform the contract; (4) the party fails to perform the contract without valid excuse. In this case, all four requirements are satisfied. The evidence submitted by the [Buyer] at the hearing proves that the [Seller] failed to perform the Contract without any valid excuse.

(3) Does the penalty rule of depost no longer apply because of the Supplemental Agreement?

First, the main purpose of a deposit is to secure the performance of the contract and to provide a penalty for default. If one party pays a deposit, and the other party fails to perform the contract, even if the party who pays it agrees to terminate the contract, it does not change the purpose of deposit. Therefore, the termination of the contract does not release the breaching party's liability to pay double amount of the deposit.

Article 117 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues Regarding the Application of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China states:

"After the payment of a deposit, the party who pays it may terminate the principal contract by losing the deposit according to the agreement in the contract, while the party who receives the deposit may terminate the principal contract by refunding twice the amount of the deposit. The Contract Law shall be applied to the liability of terminating a contract."

In this case, even if the [Buyer] agrees to terminate the Contract, the [Seller], who received the deposit and breached the contract, can only terminate the Contract by refunding twice the amount of the deposit to the [Buyer].

Second, the Supplemental Agreement reached on 7 November 2005 only stipulates the refund of part of the US $29,000 deposit. The [Buyer] did not thereby waive its right under the penalty rule of deposit. Therefore, it is not appropriate to assume that the [Buyer] is not entitled to the double deposit because of the Supplemental Agreement. Furthermore, the Supplemental Agreement states, "because of the [Seller]'s delivery and air freight problems, the Contract cannot be performed at this time." Apparently, it is the [Seller] who is responsible for the non-performance of the Contract.

In view of the above, the Contract is valid, and the [Buyer] has already paid the deposit. Since the [Seller] unilaterally breached the Contract, it shall refund double the deposit to the [Buyer] pursuant to Article 89 of the Guaranty Law, which states:

"The parties can agree to the arrangements that one party provide the other party deposits as the creditor's guarantee. After the debtor repaid the debts, the deposits shall become the purchase fund or be returned. If the party that provides the deposit fails to pay off the contracted debts, the deposit shall not be returned; if the party that receives the deposit fails to pay off the contracted debts, double the sum of the deposits shall be returned."

The [Seller] did not file any response to the [Buyer]'s claims.

THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL'S OPINION

(1) Applicable law

The parties did not stipulate the applicable law in the Contract. Since the places of business of both parties to this contract for the international sales of goods are in Contracting States of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ("CISG"), and the Contract does not exclude the application of the CISG, the CISG shall apply to this case. According to the principle of closest connection, for matters not covered by the CISG, the law of China shall apply because the place of arbitration is China.

(2) The [Buyer]'s request that the [Seller] refund double the deposit

The [Buyer] alleges that the [Seller] failed to perform the Contract and should be held liable for its breach, and that the penalty rule of deposit should apply in this case. The [Buyer] has submitted the Contract, the transfer confirmation from the bank and the Supplemental Agreement to the Arbitration Tribunal as evidence. The [Buyer] alleges that the Supplemental Agreement demonstrates that the [Seller] is responsible for the non-performance of the Contract, and that the [Buyer] did not waive its right for penalty deposit. The [Buyer] has paid the deposit of US $29,000 to the [Seller]. Therefore, the [Buyer] requests the Arbitration Tribunal to rule that the [Seller] shall refund double the deposit. i.e., US $58,000, to the [Buyer].

The [Seller] did not appear at the hearing, submit any documents to the Arbitration Tribunal, file any response, or raise any objection to the evidence submitted by the [Buyer].

The Arbitration Tribunal verified the following facts:

On 20 May 2005, the [Seller] and the [Buyer] signed Contract No. Z05G055-112WP ("Contract"). It stipulates that:

   -    The [Buyer] purchases nine lines of apparel from the [Seller] for the total price of US $144,972.
 
   -    The [Buyer] shall prepay 20% of the total contract price, i.e., US $29,000 {it should be US $28,994.00, but the Contract stipulates US $29,000 - note by the Arbitration Tribunal]; and
 
   -    The [Seller] shall ship the goods from Shanghai Port on 15 July 2005. The port of destination is Hamburg, Germany.

After signing the Contract, the [Buyer] transferred US $29,000 through the bank to the [Seller] on 23 May 2005 according to the Contract. However, the [Seller] failed to deliver the goods after receiving the deposit. Subsequently, the [Seller] and the [Buyer] entered into a Supplemental Agreement on 7 November 2005. The Supplemental Agreement confirms that "because of the [Seller]'s delivery and air freight problems, the Contract cannot be performed at this time." It also stipulates that:

   1.   As to the deposit of US $29,000 which the [Buyer] has already paid, the [Seller] shall refund US $15,000 to the [Buyer]. As per the [Buyer]'s instruction, the [Seller] shall transfer US $15,000 to the [Buyer]'s designated bank account.
 
   2.   The remaining US $14,000 shall remain in the [Seller]'s account for the [Buyer]'s future prepayment.

After signing the Supplemental Agreement, the [Seller] failed to refund the stipulated amount to the [Buyer]. The [Buyer] could not get the refund after demanding for many times. Therefore, the [Buyer] applied for arbitration.

The [Buyer] submitted photocopies of Contract No. Z05G055-112WP reached on 20 May 2005, the foreign payment order issued to Tatra Banka transferring US $29.000 to the [Seller], and the Supplemental Agreement concluded on 7 November 2005. The [Buyer] presented the original copies of the aforementioned documents at the hearing. All documents have been sent to the [Seller] for its cross-examination. The [Seller] did not raise any objection to or cross-examine the evidence. After investigating the evidence, the Arbitration Tribunal does not find any discrepancy between the photocopies and the original documents. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal holds that the [Buyer]'s evidence is admitted. This evidence is sufficient to prove the facts alleged by the [Buyer].

Based on the above facts and evidence, the Arbitration Tribunal holds that Contract No. Z05G055-112WP reached on 20 May 2005 reflects the parties' intent, Since there is no existing factor to make the Contract void as prescribed in Article 52 of the Contract Law, the Contract became effective upon establishment according to Article 44 of the Contract Law.

The deposit provision in the Contract stipulates that the amount of deposit is "20% of the contract price (i.e., US $29,000)". On 23 May 2005, the [Buyer] paid US $29,000 as deposit to the [Seller].

According to Article 90 of the Guaranty Law, which prescribes, "the deposit shall be arranged in a written contract. The parties shall set a deadline for the delivery of the deposit in the deposit contract. The contract goes into effect as of the date of the actual delivery of the deposit", the deposit provision stipulated by the parties took effect when the [Buyer] paid the deposit.

Article 91 of the Guaranty Law states that "The sum of deposit shall be decided by the parties and shall not exceed 20 percent of the sum of subject matter of the principal contract.". In this case, the sum of the subject amount is US $144,972, and therefore, the deposit should not exceed US $28,994.40. The [Buyer] has paid US $29,000 which is US $5.60 more than US $28,994.40.

Pursuant to Article 91 of the Guaranty Law and Article 56 of the Contact Law, and with reference to Article 121 of Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues Regarding the Application of Guaranty Law of the People's Republic of China ("Where the agreed deposit amount exceeds twenty percent of the value of the subject matter for the principal contract, the court shall not support the exceeding portion."), the Arbitration Tribunal holds that the US $28,994.40 out of US $29,000 which the [Buyer] paid to the [Seller] is a valid deposit, but not the US $5.60 exceeding 20% of the contract price.

Since the [Seller] failed to perform the Contract in a timely manner, the parties reached the Supplemental Agreement on 7 November 2005. The Supplemental Agreement confirms that the [Buyer] has already paid US $29,000 to the [Seller] as deposit. Although Article 2 of the Supplemental Agreement stipulates that "US $14,000 shall remain in the [Seller]'s account, and will be used as the [Buyer]'s future prepayment", it does not define the "future prepayment", nor does it specify whether the US $14,000 is an advance payment or a deposit. In addition, the Supplemental Agreement was not performed at all. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal holds that the Supplemental Agreement does not deny the fact that the US $29,000 paid is a deposit. Furthermore, the [Seller] did not object to the [Buyer]'s requests or allegations, nor did it submit any evidence to prove any other agreement between the parties contrary to the Contract or the Supplemental Agreement. The [Buyer] contends that it has already paid the deposit, and the [Seller] does not object to this fact. In sum, the Arbitration Tribunal confirms that US $28,994.40 out of the US $29,000 which the [Buyer] has paid is a deposit.

In conclusion, the Arbitration Tribunal holds that since the [Seller] failed to perform the Contract and the Supplemental Agreement, the [Seller] shall be liable for its breach of contract according to Articles 30 and 33(a) of the CISG, and Article 138 of the Contract Law. Pursuant to Article 45 of CISG, Article 115 of the Contract Law and Article 89 of the Guaranty Law, the [Seller], who received the deposit, has failed to deliver the goods under the Contract, and shall refund double the deposit to the [Buyer].

The [Buyer], who paid the deposit, requests refund of double the deposit from the [Seller]. The Arbitration Tribunal sustains that request. Since the US $28,994.40 out of US $29,000 is confirmed as a deposit, the Arbitration Tribunal holds that the [Seller] shall refund US $57,988.80 to the [Buyer].

(3) The [Buyer]'s request that the [Seller] compensate it for the attorneys' fees and traveling expenses incurred for this case

The [Buyer] alleges that it has demanded many times that the [Seller] refund the deposit, but the [Seller] refused to pay for various excuses. Thereafter, the [Buyer] sent its staff from the Slovak Republic to Zhejiang, China, to demand a refund from the [Seller], but the [Seller] still refused to pay. The [Buyer] alleged that it incurred traveling expenses of RMB 13,000 for that purpose. In addition, the [Buyer] hired the Beijing Shang An Law Firm to collect the debt. Accordingly, the [Buyer] requests that the [Seller] shall compensate it for the traveling expenses of RMB 13,000 and the attorneys' fees of US $2,000. After the hearing, the [Buyer] submitted three flight tickets and an invoice for the attorneys' fees to support its request.

The aforementioned evidence has been sent to the [Seller] by the Secretariat. The [Seller] neither submitted any documents within the time limit, nor objected to or cross-examined the [Buyer]'s evidence, nor did the [Seller] provide any contrary evidence.

The Arbitration Tribunal verifies that among the three flight tickets, two are tickets for Mr. Wang Ping's round trip from Vienna to Beijing and one-way trip from Beijing to Hangzhou, from 22 December 2005 to 11 January 2006. The third one is for Ms. Chen Lanmei 's round trip from Vienna to Beijing from December 2005 to 21 May 2006. The documents provided by the [Buyer] demonstrate that those two persons are the [Buyer]'s employees.

The travel expenses were incurred after the deadline for the refund of US $15,000 (i.e., the end of November 2005) stipulated in the Supplemental Agreement. The [Seller] does not object to the alleged expenses. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal admits the evidence to prove the travel expenses.

The invoice for attorneys' fees is a Beijing Uniform Invoice for Service, Entertainment and Culture Industries, and is stamped with both the Beijing Shang An Law Firm's seal and the tax bureau's seal. It indicates that the [Buyer] has paid the attorneys' fees.

The attorneys' fees were incurred during the arbitration proceeding, and the [Seller] has not objected to that evidence. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal admits the invoice as evidence to prove the attorneys' fees.

The Arbitration Tribunal holds that since the [Seller] failed to perform both the Contract and the Supplemental Agreement, pursuant to Article 30 and 33(a) of CISG and Article 138 of the Contract Law, the [Seller] breached the Contract and shall be held liable for its breach. Pursuant to Article 74 of CISG and Article 107 of the Contract Law, the [Seller] shall compensate the [Buyer] for its loss.

The Arbitration Tribunal holds that the travel expenses incurred for collecting the debts from the [Seller] is the [Buyer]'s loss, and the request for RMB 13,000 is reasonable and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal sustains the [Buyer]'s request for the travel expenses.

The attorneys' fees were incurred for collecting the debts from the [Seller], and are also the [Buyer]'s loss. Therefore, the [Seller] shall compensate the [Buyer] for the attorneys' fees. The [Buyer] requests attorneys' fees in the amount of US $2,000, but the amount on the invoice for the attorneys' fees is RMB 16,000. The Arbitration Tribunal holds that the RMB 16,000 corresponds to a request for US $2,000, which is simply a claim in RMB instead of US dollars. The Arbitration Tribunal holds that the attorneys' fees of RMB 16,000 are reasonable and sustained by the evidence. Therefore, the [Buyer]'s request for the attorneys fees of RMB 16,000 is sustained.

(4) The arbitration fee

Considering that the arbitration was commenced because of [Seller]'s failure to perform its contractual obligations, and that the [Buyer]'s requests for double refund, attorneys' fees and traveling expenses are sustained, the Arbitration Tribunal holds that the [Seller] shall bear the arbitration fee.

AWARD

   1.   The [Seller] shall refund US $57,988.80 to the [Buyer].
   2.   The [Seller] shall compensate the [Buyer] for the attorneys' fees of RMB 16,000.
   3.   The [Seller] shall compensate the [Buyer] for the traveling expenses of RMB 13,000.
   4.   The [Seller] shall pay the arbitration fee of RMB 27,465, which is offset by the [Buyer]'s advanced payment. Therefore, the [Seller] shall pay the [Buyer] RMB 27,465.

The [Seller] shall pay the above amounts within 15 days after this award takes effect. This is the final award. It takes effect when entered.


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, Claimant of the Slovak Republic is referred to as [Buyer]; Respondent of the People's Republic of China is referred to as [Seller]. 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.

*** William Zheng is a graduate of the Pace University School of Law. He is Special Counsel with the Shanghai office of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP and Editor of the Sheppard Mullin China Law Update. Jingyuan Sun is an Associate with the New York office of this firm.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated October 20, 2009
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography