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 2 June 1997 CIETAC Arbitration proceeding (Graphite electrodes scraps case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970602c1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19970602 (2 June 1997)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; China

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

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

DATABASE ASSIGNED DOCKET NUMBER: CISG/1997/14

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

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

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany (claimant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Graphite electrodes scraps


Case abstract

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: China International Economic & Trade
Arbitration Commission 2 June 1997 (Graphite electrodes scraps case)

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/85],
CLOUT abstract no. 865

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by Meihua Xu

The buyer, a German company, entered into a contract with the seller, a Chinese import and export company, for the purchase of graphite electrodes scraps. Two inspection certificates confirmed that the goods delivered by the seller were defective. The buyer raised objections as to the quality of the goods, but they were ignored by the seller. The buyer had to sell the goods at a lower price and initiated arbitration proceedings claiming damages and other costs it had incurred.

Pursuant to article 74 CISG, the Arbitration Tribunal held that the price difference claimed by the buyer was reasonable. The Tribunal further observed that according to article 77 CISG, the buyer had the obligation to mitigate the loss, and that the buyer fulfilled this obligation. The buyer also claimed loss of insurance fee, loss of importing custom duties, inspection fee, and value added tax paid in Italy. The

Tribunal refused to recognize these expenses for the reason that, had the contract been performed completely, the buyer would have borne these expenses. The Tribunal held that the expenses were all common costs for business transactions, not a consequence of the seller's breach. Therefore, the buyer's claim for these costs could not be supported.

With regard to the interests on the amount awarded, the Tribunal did not grant the rate requested by the buyer, as the buyer did not provide evidence to support the request. The Tribunal held that an 8 per cent annual rate was reasonable in terms of ordinary business practice.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 74 ; 77 [Also relevant: Article 65 ]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

74A [General rules for measuring damages: loss suffered as consequence of breach];

77A [Obligation to take reasonable measures to mitigate damages]

Descriptors: Damages ; Mitigation of loss ; Waiver

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Go to Case Table of Contents

Citations to other abstracts, case texts and commentaries

CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Chinese): Zhong Guo Guo Ji Jing Mao Yi Zhong Cai Wei Yuan Hui Cai Jue Shu Hui Bian [Compilation of CIETAC Arbitration Awards] (May 2004) 1997 vol., pp. 1983-1990

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Dong WU, CIETAC's Practice on the CISG, at nn.141, 145, 160, 173, 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

Graphite electrodes scraps case (2 June 1997)

Translation [*] by Meihua Xu [**]

Edited by Yan Tianhuai [***]

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

   -    The arbitration clause in Contract No. T96FE83 - 7014 signed by Claimant [Buyer], a German __ Company and Respondent [Seller], China Tianjin __ Import & Export Company, on 8 February 1996; and
 
   -    The written arbitration application submitted by [Buyer] on 8 August 1996.

The [Buyer] appointed Mr. A as its arbitrator, and the [Seller] appointed Mr. D as its arbitrator. Because the two parties did not jointly appoint or ask the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator, following the Arbitration Rules, the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission appointed Mr. P as the Presiding Arbitrator.

On 6 January 1997, the aforesaid three arbitrators formed the Arbitration Tribunal to hear this case. Later, Mr. D resigned his position as an arbitrator due to his illness, and the [Seller] reappointed Mr. W as its arbitrator to continue processing this case.

On 26 February 1997, a court session was held. Both parties sent representatives. They made statements, answered the Arbitration Tribunal's questions, and presented arguments. After the court session, both parties submitted supplementary documents.

This case has been concluded, and after discussion, the Arbitration Tribunal made this award within the time stipulated in the Arbitration Rules.

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

I. FACTS

On 8 February 1996, the [Buyer] and the [Seller] signed Contract T96FE83 - 7014 (hereafter, the "Contract"), pursuant to which the [Buyer] was to purchase from the [Seller] 240 to 480 tons of graphite electrodes scraps at a unit price of US $520/ton CFR Genoa. The following terms were stipulated in the contract

   -    "The goods must be processed either from pure graphite electrodes scraps which have been used to produce steel, or leftover materials which have not been used by graphite manufacturers. No impurity or extra substance allowed to be added in.
 
   -    "Objections to the quality of the goods must be raised within 30 days after the goods arrive at the destination port; quantity objections must be raised within 15 days after the goods arrive at the destination port. In both case, an inspection certificate issued by an agency agreed by the [Seller] should be provided. If it is the [Seller]'s responsibility, the [Seller] must reply and give opinions on settlement within 20 days after receiving objection."

After signing the Contract, the [Seller] made two deliveries of a total of 250 tons of goods. Later, the parties had a dispute on the quality of the goods, and the [Buyer] filed this arbitration application after the failure of negotiation.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[Buyer]'s position

The [Buyer] alleges that:

On 16 May 1996, the first delivery of 120 tons of goods arrived at the destination port, Genoa, Italy, and on 29 May 1996, the [Buyer] raised a quality objection via fax to the [Seller] after finding severe quality problems with the goods. On 15 June 1996, the second delivery of 130 tons of goods arrived at the destination port, and on 25 June 1996, the [Buyer] again raised a quality objection after discovering problems with the goods.

Both objections were raised within the time limit stipulated in the Contract, however, the [Seller] sought to avoid liability by not providing a substantive response to the issue of having the goods inspected by an agency.

Later, the [Buyer] had the goods inspected by SGS, and before inspection, the [Buyer] had given notice to the [Seller], asserting that if the [Seller] did not make response or appoint a third party to inspect the goods within the time limit specified in the notice, it would be deemed to have accepted SGS as an agency to conduct the inspection. The [Seller] provided no direct response to this notice.

The two inspection certificates issued by SGS showed that the goods delivered by the [Seller] were materially defective. The raw materials of the goods were not pure and were totally different from that required by the Contract. The goods could not be used for the business purpose determined by the [Buyer] at the time the Contract was signed.

The [Buyer] argues that under the Contract, the [Buyer] has the right to raises objections after the goods arrive at the destination port, the right to propose an inspection agency, and the right to unilaterally appoint an inspection agency if no reply is received from the [Seller] in a reasonable time as well as in an additional time. In fact the [Buyer] had given notice to the [Seller] and waited for [Seller]’s reply for a reasonable time as well as an additional time. Under such circumstances the [Seller] should be deemed to have waived its right to refuse the inspection agency proposed by the [Buyer] and to have accepted the [Buyer]’s proposal by making no reply.

In order to mitigate the losses, the [Buyer] had given the [Seller] suggestions on how to dispose of the goods, which were rejected by the [Seller]. Under such circumstances, the [Buyer] had no choice but to sell the goods to his client at a lower price.

The [Buyer] asks the Arbitration Tribunal to rule that:

  1. [Seller] shall pay the direct economic loss to the [Buyer] resulting from the [Seller]'s delivering non-conforming goods, which is US $98,379.62;

  2. [Seller] shall pay the loss of interest to the [Buyer] of US $868.16;

  3. [Seller] shall pay the [Buyer]'s costs for filing the arbitration claim of US $9,837.96;

  4. [Seller] shall bear the [Buyer]'s arbitration fee and attorneys' fee.

The [Buyer] explained its claims as follows:

1. Direct loss

     (1) Loss of price difference

The goods were to be sold to the [Buyer]'s customer at US $565/ton, however, after the inspection by SGS, the goods were found to be defective and almost equal to petroleum coke. The price for petroleum coke was US $263/ton, therefore, the loss of price difference was US $565/ton - US $263/ton = US $302/ton 250 tons = US $75,500.

     (2) Loss of insurance fee

The [Buyer] has paid 0.4% insurance fee based on the original price of US $565/ton. However, the goods delivered were worth only US $263/ton, which means the [Buyer] has paid an extra insurance fee that is US $332.74.

     (3) Loss of import customs duty

The customer in Italy has paid 3.6% of import customs duty for the goods based on the original price of US $565/ton, incurring an extra payment of US $5,167.88.

     (4) Costs for inspection

The costs for two inspections conducted by SGS totaled US $784.

     (5) Cost for crumbling

The goods delivered were in big block shapes, and in order to make them into the same texture as petroleum coke, an additional procedure of crumbling was needed, which cost a labor fee of US $9/ton, totaling US $2,250.

     (6) 19% value added tax

The value added tax in Italy is 19%. The loss of value added tax is therefore US $14,345.

2. Loss of interest

A 10% annual interest rate is common in international trade, and the interest is calculated from the day the [Buyer] asked for compensation to the day the [Buyer] filed the arbitration application, which was 7 August 1996. When the award is made, it should be modified to until the day the award is made.

   -    The interest on the first delivery of 120 tons of goods should be calculated from 25 June 1996 to 7 August 1996, which is US $40,384 10% 365 days 44 days = US $486.82.
 
   -    The interest on the second delivery of 130 tons of goods should be calculated from 15 July 1996 to 7 August 1996, which is US $57,995. 62 10% 365 days 24 days = US $381.34.

3. Cost for filing claims

The [Buyer] stated that the cost for filing claims was calculated according to Article 59 of the Arbitration Rules, which stipulates that the party who wins the arbitration is entitled to the cost for filing claims, no more than 10% of the awarded sum.

[Seller]'s position

The [Seller] argues in its defense that:

1. In the two inspection certificates issued by SGS, there is a major suspicion as to whether the goods inspected were the goods delivered by the [Seller].

Based on the inspection certificate issued by Tianjin Import and Export Commodity Inspection Bureau on 21 March 1996 and the Bill of Lading issued by BICKMERS - LINIE HAMBURG on 10 April 1996, the goods for the first delivery were packed into 120 packages with shipping mark and numbers of "SYNTHETIC GRAPHITE ELECTRODES SCRAPS T96FE83 - 7014 GENOA", which means the aforesaid shipping mark and numbers were printed on each of the 120 packages.

However, the inspection certificate issued by SGS on 29 May 1996 indicated that there were no marks on the packages.

Based on the inspection certificate issued by Tianjin Import and Export Commodity Inspection Bureau on 8 May 1996 and the Bill of Lading issued by BICKMERS - LINIE HAMBURG on 10 May 1996, the goods for the second delivery were packed into 130 packages, and the shipping mark and numbers were "T96FE83 - 7014 96/01/000092GENOA/1 - 130", which means the aforesaid shipping mark and numbers were printed on each of the 130 packages.

However, the inspection certificate issued by SGS on 8 July 1996 indicated that the shipping mark and numbers on the packages was "T216A".

Based on the above facts, the [Seller] had reason to doubt whether the goods inspected were the goods the [Seller] had delivered, therefore, the two inspection certificates issue by SGS should not be used by the [Buyer] as the basis for the [Buyer]'s claim.

2. As an internationally well-known inspection agency, the inspection certificates issued by SGS should be accurate and scientific, however, there were many problems and mistakes in the certificates.

     First, neither certificate mentions the sampling ratio; therefore, it is difficult to decide whether the sample selected could represent the entire goods.

     Second, the inspection certificate for the first delivery showed the total percentage of the contents was 106.93%, which was beyond the reasonable errors permitted.

3. Without affecting the aforesaid defenses, the [Seller] argues further that the [Buyer]'s claims are not reasonable.

     First, it is doubtful whether the price cutting made by the [Buyer] is reasonable.

     Second, the price term was CNF, which means the [Buyer] shall take the responsibility for the tax to be paid at the destination port. Supposing there were problems with the goods, when the [Seller] compensates the price difference to the [Buyer], the [Buyer] would be put in the same position as if the contract had been performed. In order to be in that position, paying tax is an unavoidable cost, therefore, after compensating the price difference, the [Seller] has no obligation to pay the loss of tax.

     Third, the [Buyer] would entrust SGS to do the inspection whether the quality of the goods was satisfactory or not; therefore, the cost incurred was a common business cost; there is no reason to ask the [Seller] to pay it.

     Fourth, the [Seller] cannot understand when the cost for crumbling incurs. If it is the cost for the [Buyer]'s customer to manufacture goods, the lowered price already reflects the value of the goods supposing there were problems on the goods, and the [Buyer] has already received compensation for the non-conforming goods, therefore, there is no reason to ask the [Seller] to bear the manufacturing cost incurred by the [Buyer]'s customer.

     Finally, the [Buyer] did not provide evidence to show that it has paid US $9,837.96 to file this claim.

[Buyer]'s response

Regarding the [Seller]'s defense, the [Buyer] counters that:

1. The [Seller] did not raise objection within a reasonable time, which meant that the [Seller] had waived its right to raise objection. Therefore, its argument that the goods inspected by SGS were not the same as the goods delivered by the [Seller] in unacceptable.

2. The goods delivered by the [Seller] and the goods inspected by SGS are the same goods. If they were different, it could only happen at the departure port.

          (1) On 20 May 1996, the goods of the first delivery arrived at the destination port. The [Buyer] sent a fax to the [Seller] informing that the [Buyer] could not find the shiping mark as written in the B/L on 29 May 1996, which happened after the [Buyer]'s customer raised quality objection and asked for compensation but before the [Buyer] asked compensation from the [Seller]. This fact indicated that the there was no shipping mark on the goods when they arrived.

          (2) After the goods of the second delivery arrived at the [Buyer]'s customer's factory, the [Buyer] checked the goods and cut off a shipping mark from one package, which was the same as the shipping mark in the B/L -- but the shipping mark was printed on a ribbon tied to each package rather than on each of the packages. "T216A" was printed on each package, which was consistent with the inspection certificate issued by SGS.

          (3) The [Buyer] asserts that the shipping mark on all the documents provided by the [Seller] was filled out by the [Seller] in accordance with the L/C in order to make sure that all the documents were in conformity with the L/C and do not reflect the actual shipping mark of the goods.

3. Whether there were mistakes in the two inspection certificates issued by SGS:

          (1) Not mentioning the sampling ratio in the inspection certificates does not affect the reliability of the inspection certificates.

                (i) Not mentioning the sampling ratio in the inspection certificates does not mean that the samples were chosen at an unreasonable ratio.

                (ii) It was mentioned in the two inspection certificates, from where and from which delivery the samples were chosen, and that the samples were divided into four packages. Both inspection certificates indicated that the goods were natural graphite, which meant that the goods were not processed as determined in the Contract, and whatever sampling ratio was used did not change this conclusion.

          (2) The result of the inspection for the first delivery is reasonable.

Any subject can be described from different aspects, and the inspection certificated issued by SGS described the goods from a different aspect; therefore, the weight of the goods cannot be calculated by simply adding each examining result.

4. Reasonableness of the [Buyer]'s claim:

          (1) According to international trade practices, the breaching party shall compensate direct and indirect losses of the non-breaching party, including loss of profit, which has nothing to do with the price terms adopted in the Contract.

          (2) The [Buyer] had made efforts to resell the goods at a higher price to mitigate the loss to the [Seller], and gave priority to the [Seller] to find a third party purchaser within a reasonable time. The price quotation for petroleum coke in the Europe market sent by the [Buyer] to the [Seller] showed that the price for petroleum coke then was only US $200/ton, and that the [Buyer] could offer a price of US $300/ton CFR port in China. So, the reduction of US $302/ton was reasonable and was made with best efforts to mitigate the loss.

II. OPINION OF THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

1. The applicable law

The parties did not stipulate the applicable law in the Contract, however, the business places of the [Buyer] and the [Seller], Germany and China, are Contracting States of the CISG, therefore, the CISG shall apply.

2. The effectiveness of the SGS inspection certificates

The [Buyer] raised objections to the goods and filed the arbitration application based on the inspection certificates issued by SGS in Genoa.

The [Seller] argues that SGS was the agency chosen by the [Buyer] without the agreement by the [Seller], therefore, the inspection certificates issued by it could not be used by the [Buyer] as a basis for claim. In addition, the [Seller] emphasized that the quality of the goods should be based on the inspection certificate issued by Tianjin Import and Export Commodity Inspection Bureau.

The Arbitration Tribunal holds that according to the inspection clause in the contract, the inspection certificate issued by Tianjin Import and Export Commodity Inspection Bureau is only evidence of [Seller]'s delivery of the goods, not the basis for determining the quality of the goods.

The objection clause in the Contract stipulated that "objections to the quality of the goods must be raised within 30 days after the goods arrive at the destination port; quantity objections must be raised within 15 days after the goods arrive at the destination port. In both cases, an inspection certificate issued by an agency agreed by the [Seller] should be provided. If it is the [Seller]'s responsibility, the [Seller] must reply and give opinions on settlement within 20 days after receiving objection."

According to this clause, the [Buyer] is entitled to have goods inspected after they arrive at the destination port with a condition that the inspection agency should be agreed by the [Seller].

After the goods arrived at the destination port, the [Buyer] discovered that there were problems with the goods and negotiated the inspection issue with the [Seller] within the time stipulated in the contract, asking whether the [Seller] agreed to entrust SGS to do the inspection, or whether the [Seller] wanted to choose another inspection agency. However, the [Seller] never made response to these questions, but emphasized that it trusted the inspection result of Tianjin Import and Export Commodity Inspection Bureau, and that the [Buyer] had the right to reinspect the goods at the destination port.

Following the Contract, the [Buyer] has asked the [Seller] to choose the inspection agency, but the [Seller] never replied, which should be deemed that the [Seller] waived its right to choose an inspection agency as granted in the objection clause of the Contract.

The [Seller]'s waiver of its right to choose an inspection agency does not affect the buyer's right of inspection, therefore, the [Buyer] had the right to choose on an inspection agency by itself, which also means that the inspection certificates issued by SGS can be used as the basis for the [Buyer]'s quality objections.

3. The identity of the goods

The [Seller] defends that it doubts whether the goods inspected by SGS were the same goods it delivered, however, it used the word "doubt" or "suspect" without providing any evidence. In addition, before filing the arbitration application, the [Seller] never raised the objection on the identity of the goods during its negotiation with the [Buyer] on the quality issue.

The [Buyer] had asked the [Seller] to send a representative to inspect the goods, however, the [Seller] never made response. On the contrary, the inspection certificates issued on 29 May 1996 and 8 June 1996, show that the ship's name, the quantity of the goods, and the date of arrival are all inconsistent with the [Seller]'s actual deliveries.

Above all, the Arbitration Tribunal does not accept the [Seller]'s suspicion on the identity of the goods.

Based on the aforesaid reasons (2) and (3), the Arbitration Tribunal agrees to adopt the quality inspection result issued by SGS.

4. The [Buyer]'s compensation claim

It is proved by SGS inspection certificates that the goods are not in conformity with the Contract, so the [Seller] is liable for the damages incurred by the [Buyer] thereof. As to the [Buyer]'s claims, the Tribunal holds as follows:

          (1) Direct loss

                      (i) Loss of price difference

The [Buyer] asserts that the original price for the goods to be sold to the customer in Italy was US $565/ton, and the [Buyer] sold the goods at US $263/ton because of the quality problems, therefore, the loss for lowering price is (US $565 - US $263) 250 tons = US $75,500.00

The [Seller] argues that the resale price was too low, and the [Buyer] did not perform its obligation to mitigate the loss, therefore, the [Seller] should not bear the increased loss caused by the [Buyer]'s mistake.

The Arbitration Tribunal notes that the [Buyer] discussed with the [Seller] the issue of disposing of the goods, including offering to have the [Seller] dispose of the goods itself. The [Buyer] also informed the [Seller] of the lowered price acceptable by the customer in Italy, and asked the [Seller] to dispose of the goods if it could find a better buyer, however, the [Seller] made no response. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the [Buyer] did not fulfill its obligation to mitigate the loss.

According to Article 74 of the CISG, "damages for breach of contract by one party consist of a sum equal to the loss, including loss of profit, suffered by the other party as a consequence of the breach". Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal holds that the price loss claimed by the [Buyer] based on the difference between the original price and the price sold is reasonable. The [Buyer] also provided the contract with its Italian customer and other evidence to prove the completion of the sale. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal accepts the [Buyer]'s claim on price difference loss.

                      (ii) [Buyer]'s claim for loss of insurance fee, loss of importing customs duties, SGS inspection fee, and value added tax paid in Italy

The Arbitration Tribunal holds that after the [Buyer]'s recovery of the price difference from the [Seller], the [Buyer] is put in the same position as if the Contract had been performed completely. If the Contract had been performed completely, the [Buyer] would have paid insurance fee, importing customs duty, inspection fees, and value added tax, which were common costs for business transactions, but not the extra costs resulting from the [Seller]'s violation of the contract, therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal does not accept the [Buyer]'s claim for such losses.

                      (iii) [Buyer]'s claim for cost of crumbling the goods

The Arbitration Tribunal holds that after the [Buyer]'s customer accepted the goods at US $262/ton, and the quality dispute was settled by lowering the price. Cost for crumbling the goods is one of the costs necessary for processing the goods by the [Buyer]'s customer, which shall not be borne by the [Seller], therefore, this claim is not acceptable.

          (2) Loss of interest

The [Buyer] asks the [Seller] to pay the interest at a 10% annual interest rate, which for the first delivery of 120 tons of goods should be calculated from the day the [Buyer] asked for compensation, which is 25 June 1996, and for the second delivery of 130 tons of goods should be calculated from 15 July 1996.

Because the [Buyer] did not provide the evidence to support its adoption of a 10% annual rate, the Arbitration Tribunal does not accept this rate, and holds that an 8% annual rate is reasonable in term of ordinary business practice. Therefore:

     For the first delivery, the principal amount is (US $565 - US $263) 120 tons = US $36,240; the interest period is eleven months calculated from 25 June 1996, the day the [Buyer] made its first claim for compensation to the day this award is made, therefore is 36,240 8% 12 11 = US $2,657.60.

     For the second delivery, the principle amount is (US $565 - US $263) 130 tons = US $39,260; the interest amount is ten months calculated from 15 July 1996, the day the [Buyer] made its first claim for compensation, to the day this award is made, the loss of interest therefore is 39,260 8% 12 10 = US $2,617.33.

The above totals US $5,274.93.

          (3) Cost for filing the claim

The [Buyer] asks the [Seller] to pay the cost for filing the claim, asserting that it is entitled under Article 59 of the Arbitration Rule, which stipulates that the winning party may be compensated a reasonable cost for filing claims that is less than 10% of the award.

The Arbitration Tribunal points out that 10% of the award provided in Article 59 of the Arbitration Rules is the highest amount that the winning party could receive as compensation for reasonable cost, including attorneys' fee, and traveling fee, not the amount that the winning party must receive no matter what circumstances.

In this case, the [Buyer] did not provide any evidence for its costs for this case, therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal does not accept the [Buyer]'s claim for such cost.

The [Buyer] also claims for its attorneys' fee, but has failed to submit the actual amount of attorneys' fee, as well as the receipt for it; therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal does not accept this claim.

III. THE AWARD

The Arbitration Tribunal rules that:

(1) [Seller] shall pay the actual loss of the [Buyer] of US $75,500 and the interest on it, which is US $5,274.93;

(2) [Seller] shall bear the entire arbitration fee. The [Buyer] has paid the entire arbitration fee in advance, therefore, the [Seller] shall pay back US $__ to the [Buyer];

(3) [Buyer]'s other claims are dismissed.

The above (1) and (2) totals US $86,342.93. The [Seller] shall pay the aforesaid sum within 45 days after this award takes effect. Otherwise, 9% 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 Germany is referred to as [Buyer] and 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 $].

** 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.

*** Tianhuai Yan, LL.M., Golden Gate University Law School; LL.M. Nanjing University Law School; BEcon, Nanjing University Business School. Attorney at Law, admitted in P.R. China and California, USA. Partner, G & D Law Firm, Nanjing, China

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated July 22, 2009
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography