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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

China 23 October 1996 CIETAC Arbitration proceeding (Channel steel case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961023c1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19961023 (23 October 1996)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; China

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

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

DATABASE ASSIGNED DOCKET NUMBER: CISG/1996/48

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

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

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Thailand (claimant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Channel steel


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 35 ; 36 ; 77 ; 78

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

35B2 [Conformity of goods to contract (requirements implied by law): fitness for particular purpose made known to seller];

36A2 [Time for assessing conformity of goods: seller responsible when lack of conformity becomes apparent later];

77A [Obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages];

78A ; 78B [ Interest on delay in receiving price or any other sum in arrears; Rate of Interest]

Descriptors: Conformity of goods ; Waiver ; Mitigation of loss ; 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. 1989-1998

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Dong WU, CIETAC's Practice on the CISG, at nn.32, 192, Nordic Journal of Commercial Law (2/2005)

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

Joint translation project:
New York University School of Law
and Pace University School of Law


 

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

Channel steel case (23 October 1996)

Translation [*] by Jun Wang [**]

Edited by Meihu Xu [***]

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

   -    The arbitration clause in Contract No. 92YCSF011 signed by Claimant [Buyer], Thailand ___ Corporation and Respondent [Seller], China Jiangsu ___ Import & Export Corporation (previously named as "China ___ Import & Export Corporation Jiangsu Branch") on 22 April 1994; and
 
   -    The written arbitration application submitted by [Buyer] to the Arbitration Commission on 30 September 1995.

According to the Arbitration Rules, the Chairman of the Arbitration Commisssion appointed Ms. P as the presiding arbitrator. Ms. P, together with Arbitrator Mr. A, appointed by the [Buyer], and Arbitrator Mr. D, appointed by the [Seller], formed the Arbitration Tribunal to hear this case.

On 16 April 1996, The Arbitration Tribunal held a court session in Beijing. Both the [Buyer] and the [Seller] attended the court session. They made oral statement, presented arguments, and answered the Arbitration Tribunal's questions.

After the court session, both parties submitted supplementary materials within the specified period. Later, the [Buyer] commented on the [Seller]'s supplementary materials.

The Arbitration Tribunal has concluded the case and rendered its award by consent based on the hearing and the written materials.

The following are the facts, the opinion of the Arbitration Tribunal and the award.

I. FACTS

On 22 April 1992, The [Buyer] and the [Seller] signed Contract No. 92YCSF011, by which the [Seller] was to provide 300 tons of 25mm channel steel to the [Buyer] at the unit price of US $358.5/ton, totaling US $107,550, CIF (FO) Bangkok, Thailand. It was also stipulated in the contract that:

   -    Specifications. The channel steel shall be width: 25mm + 0/-1mm, height: 8mm + 0/-1mm, length: 6000mm + /-50mm;
 
   -    Loading port and loading period. Loading port is Zhang Jiagang Port or Shanghai Port; loading period is before the end of May 1992;
 
   -    Payment terms. [Buyer] shall issue a sight L/C through the bank 30 days prior to shipment.
 
   -    Certification of quality and quantity. The factory shall issue a certificate of quality and quantity, which shall be the basis for payment.
 
   -    Claims. Where there are inconsistencies with contract requirements, except for instances in which responsibility is to be assumed by the insurance company or freight company, the [Buyer] may raise objections on quality, quantity, and weight where within 30 days after the goods arrive at the destination port by providing the inspection certificate issued by the commodities inspection institution agreed to by both parties. The [Seller] shall reply within 30 days of receipt of the claim.

After the contract was signed, the [Seller] shipped the contract goods on time, and the [Buyer] opened the L/C for full payment for the goods. The goods arrived at the Port of Bangkok on 12 June 1996. Upon the receipt of the goods, the [Buyer] applied to Five-Continent [Thailand] Inspection Company for an inspection, and received an inspection report issued on 8 July 1992. It was stated in the report that: the height of 38.64% of the goods was lower than the height stipulated in the contract. The [Buyer] notified the [Seller] of this inspection result. Later, the [Buyer] sent a fax to the [Seller], asking to return the goods, and on 30 October sent another fax, saying that the [Buyer] was going to send the goods back to the [Seller]. The [Seller] replied on 12 November 1992, asserting that it could not accept [Buyer]'s return of the goods; however, the [Buyer] sent a fax on 25 December 1992, insisting on sending back the goods and indicated that the [Seller] should resell the goods.

The [Buyer] then shipped the goods back. Under these circumstances, the [Seller] adhered to the [Buyer]'s suggestion and accepted the goods. On 22 February 1993, the [Buyer] faxed to the [Seller], stating explicitly that:

   -    The ownership of goods still remained with the [Buyer];
   -    The goods were to be kept by the [Seller] for resale on behalf of the [Buyer];
   -    The price of the resale was to be pre-approved by the [Buyer];
   -    The payment for the goods shall be made by the [Seller] to the [Buyer]'s account; and
   -    The cost for returning goods shall be borne by the [Buyer].

In fact, after receiving the goods, the [Seller] sent letters to the [Buyer] on 5 February, 6 February and 7 February 1993 to negotiate the resale price. In the end, through its subsidiary:

   -    On 13 February 1993, [Seller] resold 113.36 tons of channel steel at the price of renminbi [RMB] 2,250 per ton for a payment of RMB 255,060 on 13 February 1993;
   -    On 7 April 1993, an additional 2 tons of goods were resold at the same price for RMB 4,500;
   -    On 13 April 1993, 20 tons were resold at the same price for RMB 45,000;
   -    On 16 June 1993, 19.41 tons of goods were resold at the price of RMB 3,250 per ton for RMB 63,082.50.

In addition, the [Seller] also resold 123.978 tons of goods at RMB 3,600 per ton to Shanxi ___ Machinery Factory Supply Department with a payment of RMB 446,321.87.

In order to resell the above goods, the [Seller] paid relevant fees in advance based on the promise made by the [Buyer] and on 24 April1993, 20 November 1993 and 22 January 1994, respectively, sent to the [Buyer] resale payments totaling RMB 282,600. The [Buyer] faxed the [Seller] several times after receiving the aforesaid payments, requiring the [Seller] to pay the remaining part, however, the [Seller] has not made any further payment; [Buyer] then applied for arbitration.

[POSITION OF THE PARTIES]

[Buyer]'s position

The [Buyer] asserted in the arbitration application that in accordance with Article 18 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Economic Contract Involving Foreign Interest, "where the conduct of one party does not fulfill the obligations under the contract, the other party is entitled to claim compensation for losses."

The [Buyer] submits its arbitration claim that:

1. [Seller] shall make the payment in arrears plus interest calculated to the date of the award, totaling US $74,253 (the original amount of US $107,500 from which is deducted RMB 282,600, i.e., US $33,247, which has been paid by the [Seller]. The interest rate is calculated according to the annual interest rate of 15% in Thailand).

2. [Seller] shall compensate [Buyer] the tariff, demurrage charge, costs of loading and unloading, storage charges, and fees for returning the goods, totaling US $29,209 plus interest calculated to the date of the award.

3. [Seller] shall compensate [Buyer]'s traveling fee to Nanjing to urge the [Seller] to make payment, which is US $1,800.

4. [Seller] shall bear the arbitration fee and all the relevant fees paid by the [Buyer] for dealing with this case.

[Seller]'s defense

The [Seller] alleged:

1. The contract has been fulfilled, and the ownership of the goods has been transferred. There was no issue as to the quality of the goods.

After the contract was signed, the [Seller] delivered the goods according to the contract. The mandatory inspection of the goods was conducted by the China Import-Export Commodities Inspection Bureau. The goods were found to conform to the contract without the quality problem asserted by the [Buyer].

2. The [Buyer] did not request the right to return the goods, but only shipped the goods to the [Seller]'s place for resale by the [Seller]. The goods still belong to the [Buyer]; the ownership has never been transferred by [Buyer] to the [Seller].

It was presented in the fax that [Buyer]'s Chief Operating Officer sent to the [Seller] on 22 February 1993 that the [Seller] had fulfilled his obligations under the contract. After the goods were sent back to the [Seller], the [Seller] temporarily kept the goods and helped the [Buyer] resell the goods at the [Buyer]'s request, which does not mean that the [Seller] has the obligation to send the payment for the resale to the [Buyer].

[Buyer]'s response

In its supplementary materials submitted after the hearing, [Buyer] alleged that:

1. The goods delivered by the [Seller] were inconsistent with the contract requirements, and the [Seller] shall be liable for fundamental breach of the contract.

     (1) Pursuant to Article 35 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereafter the "CISG"), the goods must be "fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller ..." The contract in this case expressly required goods of a certain lateral height, indicating the particular purpose of the goods under the contract, of which [Seller] was aware. However, after the goods arrived at the destination port, Five-Continent Inspection Company inspected the goods, and the inspection result indicated that the goods provided by the [Seller] seriously violated the lateral height requirement, i.e., 8mm + 0/- 1. The [Seller] raised no objection to this inspection result.

     (2) The shift of ownership of goods (from [Seller] to [Buyer]) does not mean the completion of the contract. The [Seller] did not provide conforming goods, which caused the [Buyer] to be unable to receive anticipated profit; therefore, the [Seller] should take the responsibility for fundamental breach of the contract.

2. The goods were returned to the [Seller] for resale, with the [Seller] to pay the resale price to the [Buyer]

     (1) Because the non-conforming goods could not be resold in the Thailand market, and the storage charge in Thailand is high, in order to reduce losses, the [Buyer] decided to send back the goods to the [Seller] according to Article 22 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Economic Contract Involving Foreign Interest.

     (2) The goods were sent back to China by straight B/L; the receiving party was the [Seller]. Legally, the ownership of goods had been transferred back to the [Seller], who should bear the obligation to return the payment for the resale of the goods. However, the [Seller] refused to return the payment after accepting the goods through the return process. The [Buyer] had suggested reselling the goods to mitigate the loss. The [Seller] accepted this suggestion and endowed its subsidiary to resell the goods. However, except for RMB 282, 600 returned by the [Seller], most of the resale payment has not been made. The [Seller] also concealed the resale price from the [Buyer]. The [Seller] breached the contract, with the result that the [Buyer] had to return the goods for resale, therefore, the [Seller] shall take the responsibility to compensate the loss of the [Buyer].

     (3) With regard to the problems of shortage and bad rust asserted by the [Seller] upon receipt back of the goods, the [Buyer] alleges that [Seller] shall be responsible.

The [Buyer] made the following additions to its arbitration claim:

          1. The normal short-term loan interest rate of Bank of Thailand is 13.75%, and the annual loan interest rate for over three months is 18%; the monthly loan interest rate of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is 12.06%. Any of these methods for calculating interest is acceptable.

          2. The exchanging rate between RMB payment returned to the [Buyer] and the US dollar is 8.5:1; the exchanging rate between Thailand Bath and the US dollar is 25:1.

          3. The agent fee for this case is RMB 35,000.

          4. The [Seller]'s traveling fee to Nanjing on three occasions is US $1,800. Indirect loss is US $72,500. The [Buyer] can make a compromise for these two losses.

[Seller]'s further statement

The [Seller] made a further statement on the goods being sold on behalf of the [Buyer] in the supplementary materials submitted after the hearing as follows:

1. After the goods arrived at Shanghai, the [Seller] moved the goods to Jiangyin warehouse without reinspection. Later, it was found that the weight of the goods was only 279 tons and that the goods had severe rust. The [Seller] entrusted its subsidiary to arrange and resell the goods.

2. During the reselling period, the subsidiary of the [Seller] signed a contract for sale of 134 tons of small channel steel (supplementary materials) with Shanxi ___ Machinery Factory Supply Department, and the [Seller] actually delivered 123.978 tons to this customer,

   -    The subsidiary of [Seller] issued a receipt amounting to RMB 3346.79 123.978 (tons) = RMB 414,928.33 plus the advanced-payment made by the [Seller], i.e., RMB 31,393.54, totaling RMB 446,321.80.
 
   -    However, the Shanxi ___ Machinery Factory only paid RMB 200,000. In order to receive the remaining payment, the subsidiary of the [Seller] filed a lawsuit in court. Later, through mediation, the two parties reached an agreement by which Shanxi ____ Machinery Factory should pay RMB 100,000, which was never fulfilled by that company.
 
   -    Finally, the [Seller] received RMB 275, 480 in total from this transaction.

In addition, the total price from resales by the [Seller] to other companies was RMB 367,642.50. Therefore, the total amount received from resales is RMB 645,122.5.

3. The [Seller] has already paid RMB 282,600 to the [Buyer].

4. The following are the fees paid by the [Seller] on behalf of the [Buyer]:

(1) Freight cost from Shanghai to Jiangyin: RMB   32,400.00
(2) Repackaging fee and loading fee: RMB   12,240.00
(3) Short time demurrage: RMB        490.00
(4) Shipping fee to Xi'an: RMB   18,881.54
(5) Traveling fee to Xi'an (for urging payment): RMB   22,408.35
(6) Litigation fee: RMB   13,800.00
Total:   RMB 100,219.89

Thus, the [Seller] should pay to [Buyer] RMB 260,302.69, of which RMB 100,000 has not been received by the [Seller]. [Seller] should pay this entire amount to [Buyer] upon receipt of that payment. Furthermore, because no payment term was specified in the resale agreement, and the [Seller] did not receive interest during the resale performance, therefore, the claim of compensation for interest made by the [Buyer] does not have factual and legal basis.

[Buyer]'s response

With regard to the [Seller]'s supplementary statement, the [Buyer] asserts that Shanxi ____ Machine Factory has paid RMB 70,000 of the unpaid RMB 100,000 to the [Seller].

II. OPINION OF THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

1. Applicable law

The contract did not specify the applicable law. In accordance with the principle that the rules of private international law of the place of the arbitration apply, which leads to the proximate connection principle stipulated in Article 145 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, in this case, the contract place, the place of contract performance (place of delivery, place of receiving the returned goods, place of reselling the goods), place of dispute resolution are all in China, therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal holds that Chinese law should be applied here; if there is any contradiction between Chinese law and any international treaty adopted by China, the latter takes precedence. The contract in this case is a contract for the international sale of goods, therefore, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980) (hereafter, the "CISG") shall be applied.

2. Quality of the goods

According to the inspection report issued by the Five-Continent Inspection Company, 38.64% of goods under the contract did not conform to the height requirement in the contract. The [Seller] did not object to the inspection report but, in its defense, asserted that the goods were consistent with the contract, citing two reasons: First, the contract had been fulfilled and the ownership of the goods had shifted to the [Buyer]; Second, the goods delivered by the [Seller] (which were mandatory inspected goods) were inspected and considered as conforming goods by the China Import-Export Commodities Inspection Bureau (CCIB), therefore, no quality problem exists.

The Arbitration Tribunal did not accept the above assertions, reasoning that the passage of ownership of the goods does not deprive the [Buyer] of its right to object to the quality of the goods; furthermore, the [Seller] did not submit the inspection certificate issued by the CCIB before or after the hearing; even though the inspection certificate issued by CCIB confirmed the quality of the goods; based on the contract, the [Buyer] still had the right to have the goods re-inspected. It is stipulated in Article 15 of the contract: "[Buyer] has the right to raise objection and claim for compensation on the defective goods within 30 days after the goods arrive at the destination port."

As stated by the [Buyer], the goods arrived at Bangkok Port on 12 June 1992, and the [Buyer]'s inspection report was issued on 8 July 1992 by the Five-Continent Inspection Company, which indicated that the inspection was conducted within the 30 day limitation. In addition, the [Seller] did not assert any objection to the date; therefore, it should be deemed that the [Seller] agreed that the [Buyer]'s objection and claim were raised within the stipulated time.

There were strict specifications on the width and height of the goods in the contract, and there were also special requirements of the permitted error on width and height, i.e., only minus error was permitted, plus error was unacceptable, which indicated that the goods were for a particular use. The [Seller] should have been aware that [Buyer]'s purchase of the goods was for a particular use, and that goods inconsistent with the specified requirement would be considered non-conforming goods.

The Arbitration Tribunal notes that, the [Buyer] asserted at the hearing that the [Seller] failed to notify its manufacturer of the specific requirement of the goods, which led to the manufacturer producing goods that did not conform to the contract requirement. The [Seller] did not make objection to this assertion of [Buyer]. The Arbitration Tribunal deems that the [Seller] should take full responsibility for the non-conforming goods, and compensate the losses suffered by the [Buyer].

3. The disposal of the goods under the contract

Because the non-conforming goods could not satisfy the particular use of the [Buyer], the [Buyer] asserts that it has right to return the goods, get refund of the payment, and claim for damages. However, from the corresponding letters sent between the parties during the negotiation on the disposal of goods, the representative of the [Buyer], Mr. Zhang Baoxiang, expressly presented the intent and opinion of the [Buyer]as follows:

     1. "The property right has been held by us until now."

     2. "We have the right to return the goods, but we don't want to do that."

     3. "However, it would cost too much to dispose of the goods in Thailand; sending the goods back to China will cost less ...if the loss is not too big, we can handle it ourselves."

     4. "We leave the goods at your place; you can resell the goods at a proper price, however, the price must be agreed by us; the payment for the goods shall be made to the account of our Nanjing Office; please assist the representative of our Nanjing Office, Mr. Yin, dealing with the resale matter and transfer the payment to our Nanjing Office."

     5. "Please pay the domestic freight cost in advance, and we will pay back immediately upon the receipt of the payment."

     6. "In principle, we can accept RMB payment."

The [Seller] accepted the above proposal of the [Buyer]. In addition, the [Seller] asserted that there was a shortage of the goods returned. However, the [Buyer] alleged that no shortage existed when the goods were being sent back, and if there was a shortage after they were returned to China, [Seller] should be liable. The Arbitration Tribunal holds that because both parties failed to provide sufficient evident to support their assertions, there is no way to determine this issue.

The Arbitration Tribunal grants the [Seller]'s assertion that the goods were resold on behalf of the [Buyer] and that the goods still belonged to the [Buyer], and notes that no matter in whose name, the goods were sold, therefore, the [Seller] should return the payment at the price and for the weight the goods actually sold, deducting the advanced payment as promised by the [Buyer].

The following is the list for the price and quantity of goods sold provided by the [Seller]:

Quantity
Unit Price (RMB)
Total Price (RMB)
113.36 tons
2,250
255,060
2.00 tons
2,250
    4,500
20.00 tons
2,250
  45,000
123.978 tons
3,600
446,321.87
19.41 tons    
3,250 
  63,082.50
278.748 tons 813,964.37

The fourth transaction, 123.978 tons, which was sold to the Shanxi ___ Machinery Factory Supply Department (hereafter Shanxi___ Machinery Factory), was the original 134 tons agreed by the two parties with a unit price of RMB 3,600, and later it was confirmed by the two parties that the actual delivered goods was 123.978 tons. The unit price of RMB 3,600 per ton included the freight cost. Therefore, the [Seller] shall receive a payment of RMB 446,321.87.

The fifth payment, which is RMB 63, 082.50 on the original receipt, was wrongly stated by the [Seller] as RMB 63,012.5. Based on the above list, the Arbitration Tribunal deems that the [Seller] resold 278.748 tons of the channel steel for a total amount of RMB 813,964.37.

The [Seller] asserts that it has paid six expense items, totaling RMB 100, 219.89.

The Arbitration Tribunal notes that the fifth and sixth items (the traveling fee to Xi'an for urging payment and the litigation fee for the lawsuit with Shanxi ___ Machinery Factory) were the expenses dealing with legal issue with Shanxi ___Machinery Factory, which was neither directly related to the [Buyer], nor the advanced payment requested by the [Buyer], thus, they are not acceptable. The other four items, totaling RMB 64,011.54, are accepted.

4. The arbitration claims of the [Buyer]

     (1) The [Buyer] asks the [Seller] to return the payment of goods at the contract price with interest on this payment.

As stated in section 2 and 3, even though the goods delivered by [Seller] had quality problems, and the [Buyer] had the right to return the goods, [Buyer] waived its right and instead sent the goods back to the [Seller] for resale.

[Seller] alleges that it has received only part of the payment from Shanxi ____ Machinery Factory, which it can pay to the [Buyer], however, it cannot pay the part the [Seller] has relinquished based on the agreement with Shanxi ____ Machinery Factory, which Shanxi ____ Machinery Factory ought to pay but was unable to pay. The Arbitration Tribunal holds that the [Seller] failed to provide not only the evidence showing the court has ordered that the [Buyer] is exempted from making the payment in arrear, but also the evidence showing the [Buyer] has accepted the compromise the [Seller] has made in the agreement with Shanxi ____ Machinery Factory, therefore, the [Seller] cannot be discharged of the obligation to pay simply because of Shanxi ____ Machinery Factory's non-payment.

The Arbitration Tribunal therefore deems that the [Buyer] loses its right for refund of the contract price, but has the right to receive the entire payment for resale based on the [Buyer]'s promise and the agreement reached between [Buyer] and [Seller] afterwards. The amount [Buyer] is entitled to receive is RMB 813,964.37 - RMB 64,011.54 = RMB 749,952.83.

The [Seller] has paid RMB 282,600 to the [Buyer] with RMB 467,352.83 in arrear.

The Arbitration Tribunal holds that according to Article 78 of CISG, the [Buyer] is entitled to interest on the aforesaid payment, which should be calculated at the 8 monthly interest rate of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China

The [Seller] sold 278.748 tons of goods in total. In accordance with the receipt provided by the [Seller], the [Seller] sold out 278.748 tons of goods on 23 September 1993; therefore, the interest shall be calculated from the next day, i.e., 24 September 1993, to the day the arbitration award is made.

Thus, the [Seller] shall pay the [Buyer] interest of RMB 467,352.83 37 months 8 = RMB 138,336.44.

     (2) For the [Buyer]'s claims of tariff, demurrage, cost of loading and unloading, and storage fee, since Mr. Zhang Baoxiang of [Buyer] promised to bear these costs, the Arbitration Tribunal does not accept the [Buyer]'s claim against [Seller] for these costs.

     (3) As to the claim for traveling fee for urging payment and the indirect losses, because the [Buyer] did not provide sufficient evidence, the Arbitration Tribunal dismisses this claim.

     (4) The entire arbitration fee shall be borne by the [Seller], and the cost for this case including the attorney's fee shall be undertaken by the two parities on their own.

III. AWARD

1. [Seller] shall pay to the [Buyer] the price of goods of RMB 467, 352.83.

2. [Seller] shall pay to the [Buyer] the interest on the price of RMB 138,336.44 to the [Buyer].

3. The Arbitration fee shall be borne by the [Seller] entirely. [Buyer] has paid the entire arbitration fee in advance, therefore, [Seller] shall pay back US $__ to [Buyer].

4. The other claims of [Buyer] are dismissed.

The payment for the above section 1, 2 and 3 shall be made to the [Buyer] within 45 days after this award takes effect. For any delayed payment, an 8% annual interest on US $ and a 10% annual interest on RMB payments will 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 Thailand 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].

** Jun Wang, LL.M. in Corporate Law, Law School of New York University; LL.B. Law School of Peking University; B.A. in Economics, CCER (China Center for Economic Research) of Peking University.

*** 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 May 3, 2006
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography