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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

China 22 May 1996 CIETAC Arbitration proceeding (Broadcasting equipment case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960522c1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19960522 (22 May 1996)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; China

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

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

DATABASE ASSIGNED DOCKET NUMBER: CISG/1996/25

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Canada (respondent)

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

GOODS INVOLVED: Broadcasting equipment


Classification of issues present

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

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 7(2) ; 25 ; 35 ; 39 ; 48 ; 49 ; 84(1)

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

7C2 [Recourse to general principles on which Convention is based: waiver];

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

35A [Conformity of goods to contract: quality, quantity and description required by contract];

39A [Requirement to notify seller of lack of conformity: buyer must notify seller within reasonable time];

48A [Cure by seller after date for delivery: seller's right to remedy any failure to perform];

49A1 [Buyer's right to avoid contract (grounds for avoidance): fundamental breach of contract];

84A [Restitution of benefits received: seller bund to refund price must pay interest]

Descriptors: General principles ; Waiver ; Lack of conformity notice, timeliness ; Fundamental breach ; Avoidance ; Conformity of goods ; Restitution ; Interest

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): Zhong Guo Guo Ji Jing Ji Mao Yi Zhong Cai Wei Yuan Hui Cai Jue Shu Hui Bian [Compilation of CIETAC Arbitration Awards] (May 2004) 1996 vol., pp. 1260-1266

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Dong WU, CIETAC's Practice on the CISG, at nn.63, 91, 104, Nordic Journal of Commercial Law (2/2005)

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

Broadcast equipment case (22 May 1996)

Translation [*] by Meihua Xu [**]

Edited by John Zhu [***]

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

   -    The arbitration clause in Sales Contract No. 92NLE7810 signed by Claimant [Buyer], China Nanjing __ Import & Export Company, and Respondent [Seller], Canada __ Company on 30 December 1992; and
 
   -    The written arbitration application submitted by [Buyer] on 28 June 1995.

According to the Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Commission (which became effective on 1 June 1994) and the Arbitration Law (which became effective on 1 September 1995), Ms. A, the arbitrator appointed by the [Buyer], Mr. D, the arbitrator appointed by the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission as entrusted by the [Seller], and Mr. P, the Presiding Arbitrator appointed by the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission as jointly entrusted by the two parties, formed the Arbitration Tribunal to hear this case.

The Arbitration Tribunal examined the [Buyer]'s arbitration application and the [Seller]'s written defense and held a court session in Beijing on 28 November 1995. Both the [Buyer] and the [Seller] sent representatives to the court session. They made statements on the facts of this case, presented arguments, and answered the Arbitration Tribunal's questions. After the court session, the Arbitration Tribunal received and forwarded the supplementary documents submitted by the two parties.

This case has been concluded. After deliberation, the Arbitration Tribunal handed down this award by consent based on the existing materials, evidence, and the court session.

The following are the facts, the Tribunal's opinion and award.

I. FACTS

On 30 December 1992, the [Buyer] and the [Seller] signed Contract No. 92NLE7810 with the following terms.

   -    Products and pricing: One RDS encoder, one set of RDS central equipment, 500 of Axcess 3000 Chinese receivers, and RDS system operation and management software; totaling US $225,800.20;
 
   -    Payment term: 40% of the price shall be paid by T/T in advance and 60% shall be paid by D/P.

On 30 December 1992, the [Buyer], the [Seller], and __ People's Broadcasting Station (hereafter, "PBS"), which entrusted the [Buyer] to import the aforesaid goods, signed a contract attachment (hereafter, the "contract attachment").

   -    Article 1 of the contract attachment stipulated that the equipment provided by the [Seller] shall be capable of providing paging service to 1,000 customers and have expansion interface to expand business.
 
   -    Article 2 of the contract attachment stipulated that the equipment provided by the [Seller] must reach the technical standard, which should satisfy the international standard for FM stereophonic broadcasting with supplementary RDS channel and guarantee the operation of the Chinese paging system of FM stereophonic broadcasting with supplementary RDS channel and quanantee that the paging system has been attached with operation and management software. If the RDS Chinese paging system cannot be operated due to the equipment, the [Seller] shall compensate the price for the goods to PBS.
 
   -    Article 5 of the contract attachment stipulated that after PBS paid the deposit, the [Seller] shall provide the technical documents for the entire equipment, and deliver the goods within 70 days.

After the conclusion of the contract, the [Buyer] paid 40% of the contract price, i.e., US $90,320.08, to the seller on 7 January 1993. Later, the [Buyer] and the [Seller] had a dispute during the performance of the contract. After failing to reach an agreement by negotiation, the [Buyer] filed this arbitration application with the Arbitration Commission on 28 June 1995.

[POSITION OF THE PARTIES]

[Buyer]'s position

According to the [Buyer]'s application and the content of the supplementary document it submitted after the court session, the main allegations of the [Buyer] are as follows:

(1) Pursuant to Article 5 of the contract attachment, the [Seller] should have delivered the goods before 24 March. However, within the delivery period, the [Seller] only delivered to the [Buyer] RDS Central equipment worth US $39,800 on 28 February 1993, without delivering the other equipment. The [Seller] not only violated the delivery period stipulated in the contract, but also the quantity provison. The equipment delivered by the [Seller] was one set of RDS control equipment, three RDS Chinese receivers, two English receivers (only for testing) and RDS system basic operation software. The ownership of these items has not been transferred, and PBS is keeping them temporarily. According to the contract, the equipment which has not been delivered by the [Seller] consists of 500 Chinese receivers and RDS system Chinese management software;

(2) The [Seller] also violated the quality provision in the contract. Based on the technical documents for Axcess 3000 receiver provided by the [Seller], a test conducted on 17 and 18 March 1994 on part of the technical specifications of Axcess 3000 receivers indicated that the Chinese receivers provided by the [Seller] did not reach the technical standard stipulated in the contract. The following are the test result, which showed that the equipments provided by the [Seller] violated the quality stipulation in the contract.

Testing item Axcess parameter provided by __ Company Actual performance
Receiving Sensitivity 12UV/M (24db) 54UV/M (35db)
Method of display Sound, vibration, no response Sound, vibration, no response
Length of message 40 messages, 40 characters/message 40 messages, 40 characters/message
Operating time by Rechargeable battery 120 hours 50 hours
200 business cards function Yes No
20 permanent message Yes Unknown due to lack of infrared programmer
2000 codes (1,000 Chinese characters) Yes Unknown due to lack of infrared programmer
Auto frequency sweep receiver Yes Yes
Chinese characters' display on receiver National Standard Database of Secondary Characters National Standard Database of Secondary Characters

(3) PBS entrusted the [Buyer] to import the goods under the contract in order to start a RDS Chinese paging service to earn profit. According to Articles 1 and 2 of the contract attachment, launching the Chinese paging service was the main purpose of this contract, and if it was unable to start this service, the [Seller] should return the price for the equipment.

The following three test results indicated that the Chinese paging system could not be launched.

   -    The first test was conducted from 1 March to 6 March 1993. This test only installed and tested the English paging system and its receiver, with the result that the English paging system was launched, but no test was conducted on a Chinese paging system.
 
   -    The second test was conducted on 16 June 1993. The main purpose of this test was to see whether RDS Chinese operation software could be used in the system. The result was negative.
 
   -    From 17 to 18 March 1994, the third test was conducted with the main purpose of testing whether the Chinese paging system could be launched. The testing result indicated that Chinese input method of RDS Chinese software was not the "Five Stroke Input Method" which was commonly used by Chinese paging stations, and this Chinese software of the RDS system did not work on a single display instrument; therefore, the paging software could not provide service to customers. The Chinese paging software could not pass Switch (RDS Central system), and it had no user number or management software, which could be used as applicable software.
 
   -    Therefore, the entire testing results showed that an RDS Chinese paging system could not be launched.

In addition to these three tests, on 21 April 1994, the [Buyer] had the goods inspected by the China Import & Export Commodity Inspection Bureau of Jiangsu Province (hereafter, "CCIB Jiangsu"), which reported that the problem was caused by the original goods.

Based on the above, the [Buyer] alleges that the equipment delivered by the [Seller] could not be used to launch the Chinese paging service as stipulated in the contract and that this constituted a fundamental breach of the contract. The [Seller] was trying to change the English paging system into a Chinese paging system, with no satisfactory result. The contract violation of the [Seller] caused the [Buyer] to be unable to take advantage of the business opportunity to launch a Chinese paging service. The [Buyer] has thereby suffered economic losses.

It is [Buyer]'s position that:

      1. Contract No. 92NLE7810 should be terminated;

      2. [Buyer] should return the goods received under Contract No. 92NLE7810 and the [Seller] should refund to the [Buyer] the contract price of US $90,320.08 paid by the [Buyer];

      3. [Seller] should pay the [Buyer]'s losses of interest on the price, i.e., US $11,380.32, the agency fee of US $903.30, and the inspection fee of renminbi [RMB] 3,210;

      4. [Seller] should pay a penalty of US $4,516 to the [Buyer] as stipulated in Article 5 of the contract;

      5. [Seller] should bear the entire arbitration fee.

[Seller]'s position

In response to [Buyer]'s assertions in its arbitration application and supplementary document, the [Seller] provided the following opinions in its defense in a supplementary document submitted after the court session.

      1. Parties to the transaction

      On 6 March 1993, the [Buyer], the [Seller], and the manufacturer of RDS equipment, Axcess Company, signed a three-party agreement (hereafter, "three-party agreement"). This agreement has the same legal effect as Contract No. 92NLE7810 in this case, which has final effect. This three-party agreement clearly stipulated that the [Buyer] accepted Axcess Company's promises on equipment installation and launching adjustment, which constituted direct entrustment and liabilities from the legal perspective. The [Buyer] only acted as a middleman or an agent;

      2. Timeliness of notification of claims

      The [Buyer] failed to raise quality objection and claim damages based on the inspection certificate issued by CCIB within 90 days after signing and accepting the RDS system. Except for the 500 receivers, the entire goods were delivered to the [Buyer] on 28 February 1993; however, the inspection certificate provided by the [Buyer] to the Arbitration Tribunal was issued on 21 April 1994, which was beyond the 90 days limitation. Therefore, the [Seller] should not be liable. Moreover, the [Buyer] sent employees to visit Axcess Company from 24 April to 15 May 1993, who discussed matters for three days and conducted on site inspections. The [Buyer] did not raise any economic or technical objections on the contract goods after this visit to Axcess Company;

      3. Delivery of the goods

      The [Buyer]'s assertion that the [Seller] did not deliver Chinese software and receivers does not conform to the facts. On 15 March 1993, the [Seller] brought "Five Stroke Input Method" Chinese software made by Axcess Company and three "seven thousand Chinese characters" receivers for the test; the remaining forty-seven receivers are temporarily kept at Shanghai Customs to be released after applying to Customs and paying the tax;

      4. The quality of the goods

      The RDS English and Chinese systems delivered by the [Seller] can be operated to send and receive messages. The entire equipment provided by the [Seller] was functioning well after the first testing conducted in March 1993, and the indexes of the equipment exceeded the stipulations in the contract. The two parties were satisfied with the result and signed a three-party agreement to confirm the system. On 15 March 1994, the [Seller] and three technicians from Axcess Company went to the [Buyer]'s place to install the Chinese system, proving that the system could send and receive Chinese messages properly, however, the system software was not "Five Stroke Input Method", which should be improved later.

In order to resolve the problem on management software, the [Seller] contacted RDS professionals in China and was to adopt "Guoxun paging software", which was commonly used in China. This software was recognized as the top paging management software in China. This software is worth RMB 50,000. The plan was to have the cost of this software borne by the [Seller]. However, this plan was rejected by the [Buyer].

The [Seller] alleges that Article 2 of the contract attachment stipulated that "paging system should have operation and management software" without specifying that they should be made in the U.K. or should use the "Five Stroke Input Method". Therefore, the [Seller] alleges that even though there were problems to be resolved on the software, it conformed to the contract and the [Buyer] shall be liable for its refusal of seller's plan to improve the software.

As to the function of the receivers, the [Seller] alleges that in order to make improvement on the receivers and enlarge the number of Chinese characters to 7,000, the functions of 200 pieces of business cards, 20 permanent messages, and 2,000 characters of special messages had to be removed. The [Seller] also alleges that the manufacturer has the right to make changes on functions as required by design provided it guarantees that the goods reach international RDS standard and conform to the specifications provided by the manufacturer.

      5. [Buyer]'s right to return goods and receive compensation from [Seller]

      The [Buyer] failed to duly raise any specific problem on quality and inspection specifications. Therefore, the [Buyer]'s right to return the goods and receive compensation from the [Seller] cannot be established.

Above all, the [Seller] asserts that, from both a factual and legal perspective, it should not be liable for the contract goods purchased by the [Buyer]. The damages suffered by the [Buyer] shall be borne by Axcess Company pursuant to the three-party agreement.

In its supplementary requests, the [Seller] refused the [Buyer]'s claim to return the goods. The [Buyer] should accept the goods and pay for them based on the invoice issued on 5 March 1993 in accordance with the three-party agreement. It is the [Seller]'s position that the [Buyer] is obligated to pay US $92,042.77.*

* This includes US $41,800.20 which was paid by the [Buyer]; US $28,820 for the additional equipment ordered by the [Buyer] according to the three-party agreement, which has been delivered to China; US $16,560 for the forty-five receivers accepted by the [Buyer]; and US $4,862.57 which [Seller] paid for the [Buyer] for visiting the U.S.

The [Buyer] has paid US $90,320.08 to the [Seller]. After completing the receiving procedure for the forty-five receivers, the [Buyer] still needs to pay US $1,722.69.

II. OPINION OF THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

(1) Applicable law

The parties did not stipulate the applicable law in their contract. Because the places of business of the [Buyer] and the [Seller], China and Canada, are in Contracting States of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (hereafter, "the CISG"), the CISG shall be the applicable law.

(2) Binding effect of contract and contract attachment

The contract in this case was signed by the two parties, which has legal effect, and the two parties shall perform accordingly. As to the contract attachment, it was a supplementary agreement signed by three parties in order to perform the contract in this case, which has legal effect as well and has binding effect on the three parties.

(3) Parties to the contract

Based on the evidence, the actual manufacturer and supplier of the contract goods was Axcess Company, however, the [Seller] concluded the contract not as an agent of Axcess Company but as a seller, therefore, the [Seller] has the entire rights under the contract and should perform the obligations under the contract as a seller. [Seller]'s assertion that Axcess Company shall be liable for contract violation lacks reason and evidence, and cannot be established.

(4) Timeliness of the delivery

The contract did not stipulate the loading period. Article 5 of the contract attachment stated that "after PBS pays the down payment, the [Seller] shall provide the entire technical documents and deliver the goods within 70 days". The [Buyer] paid 40% of the price, i.e., US $90,320.08, on 7 January 1993 and the [Seller] should have delivered the entire goods before 24 March 1993. In fact, the [Seller] delivered RDS Central equipment on 28 February 1993 and later delivered RDS Chinese receiver, English receiver, and RDS system basic operating software, however, the [Seller] failed to deliver the entire goods even when the arbitration application was filed.

According to the fax sent by the [Seller] to PBS on 11 October 1993, it was obvious that Axcess Company was unable to guarantee the delivery of the entire goods, which was the main reason for the [Seller] to be unable to deliver the entire goods; therefore, the [Seller] shall be liable for this.

(5) Quality of the goods

After examining the evidence and documents, the Arbitration Tribunal notes that the contract does not have stipulations on function, quality, and technical requirements on the goods, and that the attachment 1 thereto, the specifications of the Axcess 3000 pager, only made specifications on the decoder. However, the contract attachment signed by the [Buyer], the [Seller], and PBS stipulated the following express requirements for the quality of the equipment under the contract:

"The equipment under the contract was recommended by the [Seller]; PBS's purchase of the goods was to launch a Chinese paging service."

Moreover, because the [Seller] has not provided technical documents, the following specific terms were set forth in the contract attachment:

"Article 1. The equipment provided by the [Seller] shall be capable of providing paging service to 1,000 customers' and have expansion interface to expand operation.

"Article 2. The equipment provided by the [Seller] must reach the technical standard, which should satisfy the international standard for FM stereophonic broadcasting with supplementary RDS channel and guarantee the operation of Chinese paging system of FM stereophonic broadcasting with supplementary RDS channel and guarantee that the paging system has been attached with operation and management software. If the RDS Chinese paging system cannot be operated due to the equipment, the [Seller] shall compensate the price for the goods to PBS ..."

The Arbitration Tribunal notes that the [Seller] has provided detailed technical documents to the [Buyer] during delivery and testing of the equipment. The contract attachment and the technical documents provided by the [Seller] are the basis for judging the quality of the goods and the adjustments conducted by the two parties.

Based on the evidence, the contract goods in this case were tested three times. The first test was conducted from 1 to 6 March 1993, which included installation, adjustment on RDS Central system and training; the second test was conducted on 16 June 1993; the third test was conducted from 17 to 18 March 1994. Except for the second test, the [Buyer] and the [Seller] made records and reached agreements on all testing results. The Arbitration Tribunal deems that these records and agreements shall be the basis to determine the quality of the equipment.

According to the agreement on the first installation and adjustment conducted from 1 to 6 March 1993, the [Seller] had completed installation, adjustment, receipt, and test on the RDS Central system under English paging conditions; the client agreed to accept the central system and order one coder and one language multiplexer ... Axcess Company promised that the Chinese RDS system could be launched successfully.

For the third test conducted from 17 to 18 March 1994, the testing report and result indicated that Chinese receiver did not reach the requirement in the contract, that the system lacked of certain functions, and that the entire Chinese paging system could not be launched.

In addition, the [Seller] sent faxes to the [Buyer] on 11 October, 13 December, and 22 December 1993, indicating that Axcess Company was unable to complete the adjustment on the RDS Chinese pager, and that Spanton Company was to take over the job. However, Spanton Company did not complete the adjustment either.

Based on the above facts, the Arbitration Tribunal concludes that:

      The [Seller] conducted three adjustments to the Chinese paging system for more than one year from the delivery date to 19 March 1994, but failed to launch the system, which indicated that the goods delivered by the [Seller] did not conform to the contract attachment or the requirements in the technical documents provided by the [Seller]. The [Seller] has fundamentally breached the contract and shall be liable for breach of contract.

(6) [Seller]'s liability for breach of contract

      1. Timeliness of [Buyer]'s claims

      Article 4 of the delivery term in the contract stipulates that: "if the quantity or quality of the goods does not conform to the contract, the goods can be re-inspected by the CCIB within 90 days after the goods arrive at the destination port, and the [Buyer] may refuse to take delivery of the goods or claim damages from the [Seller] by providing the inspection certificate."

The Arbitration Tribunal notes that the [Buyer] failed to claim damages or ask the CCIB to re-inspect the goods within 90 days; however, this delay was caused by the [Seller].

   -    First, the [Seller] did not deliver the entire goods under the contract;
   -    Second, after three adjustments conducted by the [Seller], which lasted for more than one year, the equipment was still unable to satisfy the technical requirements in the contract.

The [Seller]confirmed these facts in its adjustment record, testing report, meeting abstract, and faxes. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal deems that the [Seller]'s assertion that the [Buyer] has lost its right to claim damages since its quality objection was not raised within 90 days cannot be established.

      2. Quantity and quality of the goods

      The Arbitration Tribunal notes that according to the facts and evidence confirmed during the case procedure, the [Seller] failed to deliver the entire goods under the contract, which has constituted a contract violation. Moreover, the goods delivered by the [Seller] could not satisfy the requirements in the contract attachment after three adjustments. Therefore, the [Seller] shall be liable for the contract violation on the non-conformity of the goods. Because of the [Seller]'s contract violation, the [Buyer] could not realize the purpose of the contract and suffered economic damages.

(7) [Buyer]'s arbitration claims

      1. The Arbitration Tribunal holds that due to the [Seller]'s violation of the contract, the Chinese paging system purchased by the [Buyer] could not be launched, and the [Buyer] was unable to realize its purpose for signing the contract. According to Article 2 of the three-party agreement signed by the [Buyer], the [Seller], and PBS, "if the RDS Chinese paging system cannot be launched due to equipment reasons, the [Seller] shall compensate PBS the price for the goods"; the Arbitration Tribunal accepts the [Buyer]'s claim to terminate the contract and return the goods delivered based on the facts and law. The contract in this case should be terminated. The [Buyer] shall return the goods to the [Seller], and the [Seller] shall return the contract price, i.e., US $90,320.08, and the interest on it for two years, i.e., US $11,380.32 (based on a 6.3% annual interest rate requested by the [Buyer]). The [Seller] shall bear the risk and cost for taking back the goods it delivered;

      2. After receiving part of the goods, the [Buyer] agreed to have the [Seller] continued to deliver the remaining goods, and over a long period time, the [Buyer] failed to ask for a penalty on [Seller]'s delay in delivery pursuant to Article 5 of the contract; therefore, the [Buyer] had renounced its right to claim the penalty on delay in delivery, and the Arbitration Tribunal doses not support its claim for 5% of penalty, i.e., US $4,516;

      3. [Buyer] shall bear the agency fee and inspection fee on its own;

      4. [Seller] shall bear the arbitration fee of RMB 45,564.

(8) [Seller]'s claims

      1. The [Seller] has asserted that Axcess Company should be liable for the [Buyer]'s economic losses. However, since the relationship between the [Seller] and Axcess company is beyond the jurisdiction of this case, the Arbitration Tribunal will not make decision on this.

      2. The [Seller] had suggested using paging software that was commonly used in China. This was rejected by the [Buyer]. The Arbitration Tribunal notes that it was stipulated in the contract that the [Seller] shall provide management software. If domestic paging software was to be used, the [Buyer] need not purchase it from the [Seller]. In addition, using domestic paging software was not in conformity with the contract, and the [Buyer] had the right to reject [Seller]'s offer.

      3. The [Seller] claims in its supplementary defense (the Secretariat of the Arbitration Commission accepted this via fax on 12 December 1995) that the [Buyer] should pay the [Seller] US $1,722.69. Since this claim was raised beyond the time limitation for filing a counterclaim, it is not accepted.

III. THE AWARD

The Arbitration Tribunal rules that:

(1) The contract is terminated. The goods which have been delivered shall be returned to the [Seller]. The [Seller] shall return to the [Buyer] the price for the goods of US $90,320.08, plus the interest on it for two years, i.e., US $11,380.32, at a 6.3% annual interest rate. The [Seller] shall pay the aforesaid sum, totaling US $101,700.40, within 45 days of this award, otherwise, 8% annual interest shall be added.

(2) [Buyer]'s other arbitration claims are dismissed;

(3) The [Seller] shall bear the entire arbitration fee, which has been paid by the [Buyer] in advance Therefore, the [Seller] shall pay back RMB__ to the [Buyer] within 45 days of this award, otherwise, 10% annual interest shall be added;

This is the final award


FOOTNOTES

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

** 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 a 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.

*** John Zhu, LL.M. China University of Political Science and Law (National Graduate Scholarship); Bachelor of Law, Southwest University of Political Science and Law; Double Degree, English Literature, Sichuan International Studies University, Chongqing, China. Focus: International Economic Law.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated April 23, 2007
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography