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 25 December 1998 CIETAC Arbitration proceeding (Basic pig iron case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981225c2.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19981225 (25 December 1998)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; China

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

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

DATABASE ASSIGNED DOCKET NUMBER: CISG/1998/10

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

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

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Switzerland (claimant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Basic pig iron


UNCITRAL case abstract

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: China International Economic & Trade
Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) 25 December 1998 (Basic pig iron case)

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/98],
CLOUT abstract no. 981

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by Jean Ho

This case concerned the non-performance of a sales contract by the seller and the amount of damages the buyer was entitled to claim because of the seller's breach.

The Chinese seller and Swiss buyer entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of 10,000 metric tons of pig iron. Prior to the delivery date agreed upon, the buyer opened the necessary L/C, then agreed to extension of the delivery date on the seller's request. Prior to the new delivery date, the seller notified the buyer that its supplier refused to deliver the goods at the price originally agreed upon and sold them to another customer. Then the seller informed the buyer that delivery would not take place and that the seller will compensate the buyer for non-performance of the contract. The buyer submitted the dispute for arbitration.

The buyer alleged that the seller's breach of the contract forced the buyer to obtain the goods from other sources, and at higher prices, in order to [fulfill] its contractual obligations towards third parties. The buyer entered into two contracts with other suppliers. The buyer claimed lost profit. Since one of the contracts for substitute purchase pre-dated the seller's breach of contract, the buyer took the position that the price of the goods for calculation of damages should be the price prevailing on the Chinese market in the month following the seller's breach (article 76 CISG). In addition, the buyer claimed expenses incurred in opening the L/C, a default penalty, and interest.

The seller did not dispute liability but disputed the method of calculating damages. The seller further argued that the prevailing price in the international market was a more appropriate reference point in the circumstances. The seller also argued that the Bill of Lading provided by the buyer did not indicate the supplier regarding one of the substitute transactions, and was therefore insufficient proof of the price at which the buyer had acquired substitute goods.

The arbitral tribunal rejected the seller's latter contention holding that under article 74 CISG, the loss of profit regarding the disputed substitute transaction must be calculated as the difference between the original contract price and the actual purchase price in that transaction. With regard to the second substitute transaction, the arbitral tribunal agreed with the seller that the "current price" as defined in article 76 CISG should be the international market price.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

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

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 74 ; 75 ; 76 ; 78

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

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

75A2 [Damages established by substitute transaction after avoidance: repurchase by aggrieved buyer];

76B1 ; 76C [Avoidance without purchase or resale under article 75: damages recoverable based on current price at time of avoidance; Reference-point as to place];

78B [Rate of interest]

Descriptors: Damages ; Foreseeability of damages ; Cover transactions ; Interest

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 Ji Mao Yi Zhong Cai Wei Yuan Hui Cai Jue Shu Hui Bian [Compilation of CIETAC Arbitration Awards] (May 2004) 1998 vol., pp. 3034-3040

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Dong WU, CIETAC's Practice on the CISG, at nn.149, 161, 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

Basic pig iron case (25 December 1998)

Translation [*] by Zhan Changzheng [**]

Translation edited by Meihua Xu [***]

INTRODUCTION

China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) accepted the written application for arbitration on 24 December 1997 which had been submitted by Claimant [Buyer], Swiss ___ international company, in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in Contract 021-96-23806.001P SF0610 (Contract) dated 12 December 1996 that [Buyer] entered into with Respondent [Seller], Xi Shan ___ Company. The case shall be governed by the Arbitration Rules of CIETAC effective as of 1 October 1995.

The [Buyer] appointed Ms. A, and the [Seller] appointed Ms. D as members of Arbitral Tribunal. Because the parties failed to jointly appoint or to authorize the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator, the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission appointed Mr. P as the Presiding Arbitrator according to Article 24 of the Arbitration Rules. The Arbitral Tribunal consisting of Mr. P, Ms. A, and Ms. D commenced to hear the case on 26 March 1998.

At the hearing held in Beijing on 7 May 1998, the representatives of the parties made oral statements, presented arguments, and answered the Arbitration Tribunal's questions. They submitted supplementary materials after the hearing. Based on Article 38 of the Arbitration Rules, the Tribunal itself acquired evidences from a Chinese import and export company for the purpose of establishing the international market quotation of the disputed goods, and shared the relevant evidence with the parties.

The Arbitration Tribunal has concluded the case and decided as follows based on the facts and the written materials clarified by the Tribunal.

1. THE FACTS

The [Buyer] and the [Seller] entered into Contract 021-96-23806.001P SF0610 on 12 December 1996 in which the parties agreed that "the [Seller] shall sell to the [Buyer] 10,000 metric tons of Basic Pig Iron produced in Shan Xi province in China with 5% more or less in total quantity. The unit price shall be US $ 136/metric ton FOBST Xin Gang. The shipping date shall be at the end of January in 1997. The [Buyer] shall establish an irrevocable sight Letter of Credit (L/C) in favor of the [Seller] with a first class international bank, and the notifying bank shall pay by US dollars at sight upon receiving the documents. The amount of the L/C shall be 105% of the Contract price." Additional clauses have also been agreed by the parties such as on quality, specification, insurance, inspection, force majeure, and arbitration.

The [Buyer] opened the L/C on 17 December 1996 after the contract was signed. On 15 January 1997, the [Seller] notified the [Buyer] that, "because we have trouble with railway transport, we are proposing your company to defer the delivery date to March ..." The [Buyer] replied to the [Seller] on 30 January 1997 and agreed to defer the shipment to 31 March 1997. On 20 March 1997, the [Seller] notified the [Buyer] that, "regarding the transaction of 100,000MT BPI, we expect your company to deal with us with a view to long-term cooperation, and we also expect to make compensation to your company in future business."

The [Seller] failed to deliver the goods under the Contract. The [Buyer] claimed damages against the [Seller], but the [Seller] did not give any response. [Buyer], therefore, filed the arbitration application.

2. POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[Buyer]'s claims

The [Buyer] requested the Arbitral Tribunal to rule that:

1) The [Seller]'s failure to execute the Contract is a breach of contract.

2) The [Seller] shall pay to the [Buyer] damages of US $182,296.00 directly incurred to the [Buyer] and interest of US $6,843.64 on this sum until the date of acceptance of the case.

3) The [Seller] shall reimburse the [Buyer]'s attorneys' fee and other expenses of renminbi [RMB] 150,000.

4) The [Seller] shall bear the arbitration fee prepaid by the [Buyer].

[Buyer]'s arguments

The [Buyer] and the [Seller] signed the Contract on 12 December 1996 which provides that the [Buyer] shall purchase from the [Seller] 10,000 metric tons of Basic Pig Iron at a unit price of US $136 per metric ton. The delivery date shall be within the last ten days of January 1997. On 13 December 1996, the [Buyer] opened a L/C in favor of the [Seller]. On 7 January 1997, the [Buyer] confirmed to the [Seller] the shipping date of 10,000 metric tons of Basic Pig Iron. However, the [Seller] requested to defer the shipping date again for the reason of trouble with railway transport. As requested by the [Seller], on 23 January 1997, the [Buyer] agreed to revise the shipping date to 31 March 1997. At the time when the [Buyer] was expecting without any doubt the performance of the Contract by the [Seller], the [Seller] told the [Buyer] by phone on 7 March 1997 that the manufacturer had sold to another party the 5,000 metric tons of Basic Pig Iron originally ordered by the [Seller]. On the same day, the [Buyer] was told via fax by the [Seller] that the [Seller] could not confirm the shipping date to the [Buyer] due to the manufacturer. On 18 March 1997, the [Seller] notified the [Buyer] again that the manufacture had sold to the other party the 4,300 metric tons of Basic Pig Iron which had been stored in Xin Gang Port in Tianjin. On 20 March 1997, the [Seller] expressed by letter to the [Buyer] its expectation that the [Buyer] could deal with the matter of failure to deliver the goods with a view to long-term prospective cooperation and that compensation would be made to the [Buyer] in future business. On 8 May 1997, the [Buyer] sent a letter to the [Seller] to negotiate about damages, but the [Seller] did not give any response. On 11 November 1997, the [Buyer] faxed an attorney letter claiming damages, and requested the [Seller] to pay damages to the account designated by the [Buyer] within ten days of receipt of the attorney letter, but the [Seller] did not make any reimbursement, nor has the [Seller] given any response.

The [Buyer] deemed that, according to Chinese law, if a contract is signed by two legally competent parties, it shall constitute a legally binding agreement on both parties. Any party who breaches the contract shall be liable for its breach under Chinese law. As aforementioned, the Claimant as the buyer under the Contract opened an irrevocable L/C in favor of the [Seller] on 13 December 1996, which means that the [Buyer] has properly performed the obligations under the Contract. Thereafter, the [Buyer] agreed to defer the shipping date, considering that the [Seller] had trouble with railway transport. Under the amended contract, the [Seller] was obligated to deliver the goods by 31 March 1997 at the latest. However, though the [Buyer] had pressed the [Seller] to fulfill the contract several times, the [Seller] still refused to deliver the goods. Undoubtedly, the [Seller] has substantially breached the Contract, and shall be liable for damage incurred by the [Buyer]. Due to the [Seller]'s breach of Contract, [Buyer] has lost not only the fee of opening the L/C, but has also incurred substantial economic damage because the [Buyer] had to procure goods in replacement from the local market at a much higher price in order to perform a contract upon which the [Buyer] has agreed with a third party.

Article 19 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Economic Contracts involving Foreign Interest (Economic Contract Law) provides that the liability of a party to pay compensation for the breach of a contract shall be equal to damage incurred by the other party. Article 74 of CISG stipulates that 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. Under the above laws, the [Buyer] requests the Tribunal to sustain the abovementioned submissions. [Buyer] hereby proposes a basis of calculating damages as follows:

1) The [Buyer] incurred damage because [Buyer] had to procure goods in replacement from the local market at a much higher price due to the [Seller]'s failure to execute the Contract, and the damage incurred by the [Buyer] is US $109,161. The loss of profits under Contract No. 70017 is 5,032 x (149.5 - 136) = US $67,932, and the loss of profits under the other contract is 4,581 x (145 - 136) = US $41,229.

2) The default penalty that the [Buyer] is entitled to under the Contract shall be calculated based on the ratio of default penalty paid by the [Buyer] caused by the [Buyer]'s failure to perform another contract on 30 August 1996. The ratio is 5.26% of the prices of undelivered goods. The [Buyer] shall be entitled to claim against the [Seller] for the default penalty of 1,360,000 x 5.26% = US $71,530 under the Contract.

3) The expense of opening the L/C is US $1,599.

4) The interest on the said amount. The interest period shall be calculated from 15 July 1997 (the deadline for the [Seller]'s payment of damages) through 24 December 1997 the date of filing the arbitration. The interest rate shall be New York Benchmark interest rate of 8.5%, and thus, the loss of interest shall be (67,932 + 41,229 + 71,536 + 1,599) x [1 + 8.5% x 1/12 x (5 + 9/30)] = US $6,843.64.

5) The actual expense paid by the [Buyer] for the arbitration is RMB 150,000.

To sum up, the [Seller] shall pay to the [Buyer] damages of US $189,139.64 and RMB 150,000.

[Seller]'s arguments

1) The [Seller] has been in the process of procuring goods in order to execute the Contract since the parties signed the Contract on 12 December 1996. However, China had been experiencing a peak travel period during the Spring Festival, which caused a large trouble in delivering the goods by railway. After the Spring Festival, the original supplier refused to supply the goods at the same price, and instead, it sold the goods to others, which caused the [Seller] to be unable to delivery the goods on time. The [Seller] gave timely notification to the [Buyer] of these circumstances, and the [Buyer] therefore must use its best efforts to mitigate any loss upon such notification.

2) The [Seller] requests the Arbitral Tribunal to take into consideration the following issues regarding damages and evidence.

      (1) The two contracts submitted by the [Buyer] for the purpose of claiming damages are not sufficient to establish the actual loss of the [Buyer].

      (2) The contract between the [Buyer] and Tjanjin Yilung Enterprise Co. Ltd was signed on 17 March 1997, but the delivery date under the disputed Contract in this case had been deferred until 31 March 1997; therefore, the [Seller] was not obligated to fulfill the Contract on 17 March 1997. As a result, the contract of 17 March 1997 cannot establish a basis of damages in this case.

      (3) The price difference between the two contracts is only US $115,000, not US $182,296.00.

[Buyer]'s response (supplementary statements submitted after the hearing)

1) Applicable law

In this case, [Seller]'s domicile, the place of delivery, and the origin of goods are all in China. According to the principle of closest connection, the applicable law of the Contract shall be Chinese law, and more concretely, the Economic Contract Law. Simultaneously, the CISG also applies to the Contract because the disputed Contract itself does not expressly exclude the Convention. The [Buyer] insists that both the CISG and the Economic Contract Law shall be applicable and supplementary with each other in the case. The CISG shall prevail only where the contradiction of provision arises between the Economic Contract Law and the CISG, and it shall be inappropriate to exclude the Chinese laws only because the CISG is applied.

2) Damages arising out of price difference

The Arbitral Tribunal requested the [Buyer] to provide an international market quotation of Basic Pig Iron during March, April, and May of 1997. The [Buyer] indicated to the Arbitral Tribunal that, given that the [Seller] had failed to execute the disputed Contract in the case, the [Buyer] entered into a second alternate contract dated 2 April 1997 in order to fulfill the Supply Contract by and between the [Buyer] and Mitsui & Co., Ltd which was already due (the succeeding contract). The [Buyer] shall be entitled to purchase goods in replacement within a reasonable period without prior notice to the [Seller] on condition that the [Seller] had failed to deliver the goods on time according to Article 75 of the CISG and Article 18 of the Economic Contract Law. Therefore, it is reasonable for the [Buyer] to sign and execute the second alternate contract, and the damages can be justified based on the second alternate contract. As to the first alternate contract, i.e., the contract dated 17 March 1997 between the [Buyer] and Tianjin Yilung Enterprise Co., Ltd, the [Buyer] agrees with the Tribunal to recheck the price under the contract.

The [Buyer] insists that the key point for determining the proper price of the first alternate contracts is how to fix a reference price of Basic Pig Iron. The [Buyer] thus requests that the Arbitral Tribunal consider both geography and time when determining the prices.

Based on an aspect of time, the delivery date under the disputed Contract had been at last deferred until 31 March 1997, and under the succeeding contract the [Buyer] is obligated to deliver goods at the end of March 1997, so the quotation during the beginning of April 1997 should be referred to in order to fix the price of the first alternate contract. Furthermore, based on an aspect of geography, the contracted goods under the succeeding contract should originate from China. Therefore, in order to fix the price of the first alternate contract, the quotation of Chinese Basic Pig Iron market during the beginning of April 1997 shall be taken as the reference price. For this purpose, the [Buyer] submitted to the Tribunal two contracts which the [Buyer] entered into with another two import companies, respectively, on 31 March 1997 and 4 April 1997. The two contracts indicated that the quotation of Chinese Basic Pig Iron market was increasing from March 1997 through June 1997, which is the essential reason why the [Seller] refused to deliver the goods at the agreed price.

In conclusion, the [Buyer] deemed that it was logical and reasonable to fix the price of the first alternate contract based on the quotation of Chinese Basic Pig Iron market during the beginning of April 1997, and that the [Seller] should indemnify the damages arising out of the price difference between the Contract and the alternate contract.

[Seller]'s response (supplementary response submitted after the hearing)

The [Seller] alleged that there was not sufficient evidence to establish the [Buyer]'s requests.

1) The [Buyer] insists that the second alternate contract was signed by and between the [Buyer] and Japanese company Kanematsu Corporation on 2 April 1997 because the [Seller] had failed to execute the disputed Contract in this case. However, the direct connection between the Bill of Lading submitted by the [Buyer] and the second alternate contract cannot be read in the Bill of Lading. The sender indicated in the Bill of Lading is "Beijing Foreign Economy & Trade Imp. & Exp. Corporation Ltd.", but the Notify Party is the Japanese company. The [Buyer] has not provided any documents of payment regarding the second alternate contract, and cannot establish the damages directly.

2) The prices under the two contracts into which the [Buyer] entered with another two import companies respectively on 31 March 1997 and 4 April 1997 cannot be taken as the reference quotation. In this case, it does not make any sense to refer to local price of the Chinese market because the dispute in the case arises out of an international sales contract and the Chinese market quotation is also determined by the international market quotation. The reference price therefore should not be determined in accordance with the contracts signed by the [Buyer], but with authoritative documents accepted in the industry.

The [Seller] requests the Arbitral Tribunal to reject the [Buyer]'s claims because there is not sufficient evidence to establish the [Buyer]'s position.

3. THE OPINION OF THE TRIBUNAL

1) The applicable law

The CISG shall apply to the dispute because the parties to the Contract failed to agree upon the applicable law and their places of business are located in the Contracting States of the CISG.

2) The breach of contract

According to the original provisions of the Contract, the [Seller] shall deliver goods at the end of January 1997, and the [Buyer] shall open the L/C after the Contract is signed. Upon request of the [Seller], the [Buyer] agreed to postpone the delivery date until 31 March 1997. The [Seller] however failed to execute the obligation of delivery at the expiry of the amended delivery date, and which constitutes a breach of the Contract.

3) Damages

      (1) The price difference

Article 74 of the CISG provides that 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. Article 76 of the CISG stipulates that if the contract is avoided and there is a current price for the goods, the party claiming damages may, if he has not made a purchase or resale, recover the difference between the price fixed by the contract and the current price at the time of avoidance.

In this case, the [Buyer] deemed that it should be entitled to damages arising out of the price difference between the disputed Contract and the alternate contract because the two alternate contracts on 17 March 1997 and on 2 April had been entered into due to the [Seller]'s failure to deliver the goods. After the [Seller] made its statements, the [Buyer] itself also accepted that the contract dated 17 March 1997 could not be taken as an alternated contract because it was signed before 31 March 1997.

The [Buyer] insisted to regard the contract dated 2 April 1997 as an alternate contract, and also submitted the related bills, but the [Seller] denied that it was an alternate contract because the Bill of Lading shows no direct connection with the contract of Kanematsu Corporation. The Arbitral Tribunal finds that the direct relationship between the Bill of Lading and the contract of Kanematsu Corporation cannot be denied merely because the sender indicated in the Bill of Lading is not the seller of the contract of Kanematsu Corporation, and that it is usual that the sender indicated in the Bill of Lading is not the seller in international trade. Furthermore, based on the other related documents (invoices and payment documents), the contract between the [Buyer] and Kanematsu Corporation that was signed on 2 April 1997 shall be regarded as an alternate contract when the Contract could not be executed. The [Buyer] shall be entitled to damages equal to the price difference between the disputed Contract and the alternate contract which shall be calculated as follows: 5,000 x (149.5 - 136) = US $67,500

As to the damages arising out of the additional undelivered 5,000 metric tons of goods, because the [Buyer] did signed any alternate contract, the [Buyer] shall be entitled to the price difference between the disputed Contract and the current price for the goods. According to the CISG, the price difference shall be based on the market price when the contract is avoided. The Arbitral Tribunal decides that April 1997 when the Contract expired shall be regarded as the time of avoidance because the [Seller] explicitly intended not to fulfill the Contract on 20 March 1997 though the [Buyer] had deferred the shipping date until 31 March 1997.

At the commencement of the proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal requested the [Buyer] to provide the international market quotation during the period of March to May 1997. The [Buyer] insisted on regarding the Chinese market price as the current price of the time, and submitted two contracts of Chinese Basic Pig Iron it has signed with other two companies as reference. The Arbitral Tribunal decides that the two contracts signed and submitted by the [Buyer] cannot account for the general Chinese market quotation of Basic Pig Iron even though the price differences were calculated based on the Chinese market quotation.

The Arbitral Tribunal decides that for the 5,000 metric tons of goods, the [Buyer] shall be entitled to the damages equal to the difference between the Contract price and the international market price. The Arbitral Tribunal finds that the international market price of Basic Pig Iron (FOB) in April 1997 is US $143.55 per metric ton according to the data provided by the Information Center of National Metals & Minerals Imp & Exp. The damages arising out of the undelivered 5,000 metric tons of goods shall be 5,000 x (143.55 - 136) = US $37,750.

To sum up, the [Buyer] shall be entitled to the damages of US $105,250.

      (2) The default penalty

The [Buyer] claimed against the [Seller] for the default penalty of US $1,360,000 x 5.26% = US $71,536 in accordance with the default penalty (5.26% of the prices of the undelivered goods) paid by the [Buyer] due to its own failure to execute the contract of 30 August 1996. Because the disputing parties did not agree upon a default penalty in their Contract, the Arbitral Tribunal decided not to sustain the [Buyer]'s claims for the default penalty.

      (3) The expense on opening the L/C

The [Buyer] claimed against the [Seller] for the expense of US $1,599 on opening the L/C. This claim is rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal because the [Buyer] did not submit any evidence to support its position; moreover, the fee on opening a L/C is normally expended in international trade.

      (4) Interest

According to Article 78 of the CISG, the [Buyer] shall be entitled to the interest from April 1997 to the date of actual payment arising from the abovementioned damages of US $105,250. The Arbitral Tribunal decides that the interest rate of 8.5% demanded by the [Buyer] is too high, and the [Seller] shall pay to the [Buyer] the interest at the annual rate of 6% from 15 July 1997 to 24 December 1997, i.e., US $2,802.82.

4) Other claims

The Arbitral Tribunal does not sustain the [Buyer]'s request that the [Seller] reimburse the attorneys' fee and travel expenses, because the [Buyer] is not the complete winner in the arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal decides that the parties shall proportionately bear the expenses incurred in the case on their own (except for the arbitration fee).

30% of the arbitration fee shall be borne by the [Buyer], and 70% shall be borne by the [Seller].

4. THE AWARD

1) The [Seller]'s failure to execute the obligation of delivery under the Contract constitutes a breach of contract.

2) The [Seller] shall pay to the [Buyer] US $105,250 to reimburse the damages arising out of the price difference incurred by the [Buyer].

3) The [Seller] shall pay to the [Buyer] interest on the US $105,250 at the annual rate of 6% incurred from 15 July 1997 to 24 December 1997, i.e., US $2,802.82.

4) All other claims shall be rejected.

5) 30% of the arbitration fee shall be borne by the [Buyer], and 70% shall be borne by the [Seller]. The [Seller] shall pay to the [Buyer] RMB ___ because the arbitration fee has been prepaid by the [Buyer].

6) All the above amounts shall be paid within 45 days upon the award, and interest at the annual rate of 6% shall be paid on any overdue payment.

The award shall be final and binding.


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, Claimant of Switzerland 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 $]; amounts in the currency of the People's Republic of China (renminbi) are indicated as [RMB].

** Zhan Changzheng is an Associate with Shanghai Haoliwen PRC Attorneys.

*** 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 October 20, 2010
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography