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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

China 13 January 1999 CIETAC Arbitration proceeding (Latex gloves case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990113c1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19990113 (13 January 1999)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; China

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

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

DATABASE ASSIGNED DOCKET NUMBER: CISG/1999/05

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

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

BUYER'S COUNTRY: United States (respondent)

GOODS INVOLVED: Latex gloves


Case abstract

PRC: China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), 13 January 1999

Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 718

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by Meihua Xu

This case deals with the buyer's obligations to pay the price of the goods (Article 53 CISG) and the interest on the price in arrears (Article 78 CISG); and with the general rules for interpreting a party's statements or other conduct in light of the relevant circumstances (Article 8 (3) CISG).

Two American Companies, "A Company" and "B Company", (the buyer) entered into two contracts with a Chinese company (the seller) for the purchase of latex gloves, providing for payment by telex transfer and shipment in four installments. The heading of the two contracts indicated that the buyer was "A Company", the contracts were signed and sealed by a Ms. T., representative of both American companies, and "B Company".

After concluding the contract, the seller delivered the goods and issued invoices, however, the buyer only paid part of the price due, even after being urged by the seller. This caused severe economic loss to the seller, which filed an application for arbitration against both A Company and B Company.

The seller argued that in all of the correspondence between the parties, Ms. T., the representative of A Company, had never mentioned B Company, and that according to the trade practices between the two parties, the seller embedded "A Company" as buyer in the two contracts. A Company signed the contract with B Company's name without making any alteration or explanation on the fact that A Company was the buyer, therefore, A Company should be regarded as the party to the contracts. Pursuant to Article 53 CISG, the buyer should pay the price of the goods since the ownership of the goods had been transferred to the buyer.

A Company counter argued that the contracts were entered into by Ms. T. on behalf of B Company, which made the payment for the goods, freight, and tariff and, therefore, should be considered the party to the contracts. The seller made a mistake in subscribing A Company as the consignee and issuing the invoice to A Company.

Since the buyer and the seller had not stipulated the applicable law in the contracts, the Arbitration Tribunal held that the CISG should apply to the dispute because the places of business of the seller and the buyer, China and the United States, were Contracting States of the Convention.

The Arbitration Tribunal noted that the representative of both A Company and B Company, Ms. T., would have been able to "alter the reference at the title position" from A Company to B Company if she had deemed that B Company was the buyer. From the performance of the contracts, the consignee of the goods delivered by the seller was A Company, which received the goods and cleared the goods from customs. The seller invoiced A Company for the goods, and A Company never denied that it was the buyer of the goods until the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal could not accept A Company's allegation that B Company had paid a sum to the seller and for this B Company should be regarded as the buyer. Such an allegation would violate the bona fide principle. It is common in fact that a buyer authorizes another party to pay for the goods.

In accordance with Articles 53 CISG and 78 CISG, the Arbitration Tribunal concluded that since the buyer, A Company, had accepted the goods, it should have paid the price for the goods and the fact that the buyer's refusal to pay the price constituted a contract violation. Therefore, the seller was entitled to the price for the goods and the interest on it.

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: Article 7(2) ; 8(3) ; 9 ; 53 ; 78

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

7C221 [Recourse to general principles on which Convention is based: behavior of a reasonable person, good faith];

8C [Interpretation of party's statements or other conduct: interpretation in light of surrounding circumstances];

9C [Practices established by the parties];

53A [Buyer's obligation to pay price of goods];

78A [Interest on delay in receiving price or any other sum in arrears]

Descriptors: General principles ; Reasonableness ; Good faith ; Intent ; Usages and practices ; Price ; 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) ) 1999 vol., pp. 1443-1448

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Dong WU, CIETAC's Practice on the CISG, at nn.122, 160, 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

Latex gloves case (13 January 1999)

Translation [*] by Zhan Changzheng [**]

Translation edited by Meihua Xu [***]

INTRODUCTION

China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (Arbitration Commission, originally named the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade) accepted the Latex gloves case on 20 February 1998 in accordance with:

   -    The written application for arbitration submitted by Claimant [Seller], Liaoning ___ Import & Export Company on 20 February 1998; and
 
   -    The arbitration clause in Sales Contracts 95BLNOUSF2034 (Contract No. 2034) and 95BLNOUSF2042 (Contract No. 2042) (collectively, the Contracts) entered into by and between the [Seller] and Respondents, American A Company [Buyer] and American B Company, respectively, on 13 October 1995 and 15 November 1995.

On 16 April 1998, the Secretariat of the Arbitration Commission sent to the two Respondents by express mail the Notice of Arbitration, the Arbitration Application and its annexes, the Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Commission, and the Arbitrators List, but the express company testified that the Respondents had refused to accept the above materials. Pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Commission, the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission appointed Mr. P as the Presiding Arbitrator. Mr. P, Mr. A, appointed by the [Seller], and Mr. D, appointed by the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission on behalf of the Respondents, in accordance with Article 26 of the Arbitration rules, formed the Arbitral Tribunal to hear the case on 12 June 1998.

On 4 August 1998, as requested by the [Seller], the Secretariat of the Arbitration Commission sent to Ms. Tang, the legal representative of both Respondents, the Notice of Arbitration, the Arbitration Application and its annexes, the Arbitration Rules, and the Arbitrators List. Ms. Tang signed the receipt for this material. On 6 July 1998, the firm of Oswald & Yap Lawyers sent a letter to the Arbitration Commission, stating that they are the delegated attorneys for the dispute between Ms. Tang and the [Seller], and requested the Arbitration Commission to send to them the materials rejected by Ms. Tang. On 10 July 1998, the Secretariat of the Arbitration Commission sent to this law firm the materials rejected by the Respondents. On 15 July 1998, the law firm signed the receipt. Thereafter, the Respondents authorized Mr. Zhao ___, an attorney associated with Dalian __ Law Firm, to represent them in the arbitration and provided to the Arbitration Commission their Power of Attorney.

The Arbitral Tribunal reviewed the Arbitration Application submitted by the [Seller] and the response submitted by the Respondents, and held an oral hearing in Beijing on 16 October 1998. The parties' representatives were present. They made oral statements, presented arguments, and answered the Tribunal's questions. After the hearing, the parties submitted supplementary materials each of which was forwarded to the other party by the Arbitral Tribunal through the Secretariat of the Arbitration Commission.

The case has been concluded. The Arbitral Tribunal rendered the award through discussion based on the available facts and the hearing.

The facts, opinions, and the award are as follows:

I. THE FACTS

On 13 October 1995, [Seller] and [Buyer] entered into Contract No. 2034 under which [Buyer] purchased from [Seller] 4,800 cartons of latex gloves:

   -    Delivery date: The goods shall be delivered between October and November 1995 in four installments, 1,200 cartons each installment and 2,000 pieces per carton;
 
   -    Unit price: US $2.455 per hundred pieces FOB Dalian; the total amount is US $264,000;
 
   -    Terms of payment: Telex transfer within 50 days after departure of shipment.

On 15 October 1995, [Seller] and [Buyer] entered into Contract No. 2042 under which [Buyer] purchased from [Seller] 2,200 cartons of latex gloves. 2,000 pieces per carton.

   -    Delivery date: The goods should be shipped in December 1995;
 
   -    Unit price: US $2,455 per hundred pieces FOB Dalian; the total amount is US $108,020;
 
   -    Terms of payment: Telex transfer within 50 days after departure of shipment.

The heading of the above two contracts indicates that the buyer is American A Company, but the contracts are signed and sealed by Mai Tang and "American B Company". Because the [Seller] had not received the payment after the departure of the goods, the [Seller] brought this application for arbitration against both American A Company and American B Company as Respondents.

II. POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[Seller]'s position

1. After conclusion of the Contracts, the [Seller] delivered to the [Buyer] 2,400 cartons of goods under Contract No. 2034, and then loaded the remaining 2,400 cartons of gloves on 26 December 1995 and 9 January 1996. The [Seller] invoiced the [Buyer] for the goods. On 26 December 1995, the [Seller] loaded 1,100 cartons of gloves under Contract No. 2042 in Dalian and shipped to the [Buyer]. Under the Contracts, the payments for the aforesaid goods shall be made, respectively, on 14 February 1996 and 28 February 1996, however, the [Buyer] failed to pay US $186,010 for the goods under the Contracts on the due date. The [Seller] sent to the [Buyer] letters requesting for payment on 14 February 1996, 28 February 1996, and 4 April 1996. The [Buyer] replied by letter on 6 April 1996 that it would remit US $66,000 for the second shipment under Contract No. 2034 the following week and would endeavor to pay off the outstanding payment within the month. On 14 April 1996, the [Buyer] paid the US $66,000 and promised by letter "to endeavor to remit next payment the following week." On 28 April 1996, the [Buyer] undertook again to remit the payment as soon as possible. However, until the end of May, the [Buyer] had not made the payment. On 6 June 1996, the [Seller] sent a letter to the [Buyer] again, asking the [Buyer] to arrange for payment immediately. The [Buyer] has still not made the payment until now, which resulted in a huge economic loss for the [Seller].

2. The real party to Contract No. 2034 and Contract No. 2042 should be the American A Company, not American B Company. During the performance of the two contracts, the [Seller] delivered the goods to American A Company as the [Buyer], and American A Company, as the [Buyer], confirmed upon receipt of the delivery. Although the American A Company did not make the payment that was due, American A Company did not challenged either the quality or the quantity of the goods delivered under the Contracts or allege that the goods were delivered to the wrong party. The [Buyer]'s allegation that American A Company is not the competent Respondent in this case because the Contracts were signed by American B Company should be regarded as unfounded:

     (1) American A Company was the party to the Contracts considering the conclusion and the actual performance of the Contracts. The [Seller] has dealt with the American A Company as [Buyer] since 1993. Certain trading custom and usages have come into being between the parties, namely, for each dealing, the [Seller] prepares a contract based on quantity and specification provided by the [Buyer] and then faxes the contract with the [Seller]'s signature to the [Buyer]. After the [Buyer] signed the contract and sent it back to the [Seller], the parties start to execute the contract. Contract No. 2032 and Contract No. 2042 were also entered into through the parties' consultation according to the requests of the [Buyer], American A Company. In all of the foregoing correspondence between the parties, Ms. Tang (Mei Tang or Lisa Tang), the representative of the [Buyer], American A Company, has never mentioned issues associated with American B Company. The [Seller] therefore embedded American A Company into the Contracts as buyer according to their custom. The Respondents signed the Contracts with the name of American B Company, though they did not make any alteration or explanation with regard to the discrepancy between the signature and the buyer title indicated in the Contracts. The entire process of negotiation and subscription of the Contracts was conducted between the [Seller] and American A Company; accordingly, American A Company should be regarded as the party to the Contracts, which was also echoed by the performance of the Contracts. In accordance with the Contracts and the CISG, the [Seller]'s obligations were to deliver the goods, to convey any related documents, and to transfer the ownership of the goods. The [Seller] performed all of its obligations for the American A Company:

a.     The [Seller] delivered the goods to American A Company;
b. All the shipping documents and invoices are titled with American A Company;
c. The ownership of the goods was transferred to American A Company.

[Buyer]'s obligations were to accept the goods and the related documents and to make payment for the goods. In the present case, it is American A Company that accepted the goods and related documents and cleared the goods from customs. In fact, the [Seller] can perform the contractual obligations only with the American A Company because American B Company does not have the essentials and the competence to execute the Contracts. American B Company is neither a party of invoices and bill of ladings, nor a registered party with customs. The Contracts would miss their precondition and target without performance with American A Company. Hence, American A Company should be regarded as the party to the Contracts from the aspect of the conclusion and the performance of the Contracts.

     (2) Ms. Tang, the representative of American A Company, confirmed upon receipt of the goods under the Contracts, raised no objection, and undertook to make the payment. The [Seller] committed no fault during the performance of the Contracts, which had been proven by Ms. Tang. On 31 January 1996, after the [Seller] had performed its contractual obligations, Ms. Tang sent to the [Seller] a letter titled with "American A Company", stating that "all the containers to be shipped since February should be addressed to 'American B Company' because the new company name will be used for insurance of customs clearance since February " From this, the [Seller] can deem that:

            a.  Ms.Tang agreed that American A Company was the actual party to the Contracts No. 2034 and No. 2042, because the two contracts were concluded and performed before February;

            b.  The [Seller] has not accepted American B Company as the party to the two contracts;

            c.  Ms.Tang has actually affirmed the reasonableness and the completeness of the performance by the [Seller], because American B Company could be the legitimate and proper subscribing party only since February 1996 but not before then.

     (3) The paying party need not be the contracting party. The sole payment document cannot evidence that the paying party shown in the payment document is the contracting party. The paying party is not and should not be the contracting party to Contracts No. 2034 and No. 2042. Article 53 of the CISG provides that the buyer's obligations are to receive the goods and to make payment. By contrast, the seller's parallel obligations are to deliver the goods and to transfer all related documents, which is the precondition for the buyer to receive the goods. The buyer can only realize its ownership upon receipt of the goods, but which should be pre conditioned on the transfer thereof by the seller, and such a transfer is the cause for the buyer to make payment. The buyer would not make payment in case of failure to achieve the ownership of the goods. The party who fails to achieve the ownership of the goods should not be regarded as the performing party, because no cause or precondition exists for the party to perform the contract. In the present case, the [Seller] delivered the goods and conveyed the related documents to American A Company as the buyer. American A Company cleared customs and achieved the ownership on its own behalf after receiving the goods and the related documents. The [Seller] should be entitled to receive the payment under the Contracts after [Seller] transferred the ownership of the goods to the American A Company. Except for the terms of payment agreed by the parties, the [Seller] should not be obligated to ponder how the buyer had made the payment. Only by reason that the buyer made the payment under the Contracts through American B Company or by authorizing American B Company, American B Company cannot be regarded as the party to the Contracts.

     (4) Unilateral alteration as to the contracting party should be invalid. American B Company itself cannot perform the Contracts, and there is no reasonable and legitimate basis for it to become the contracting party to the Contracts. In this case, Ms. Tang, the representative of American A Company, without any notification, altered by herself the contracting party to Contracts No. 2034 and No. 2042 to American B Company. Such alteration is unreasonable and violates the CISG and the Law of the People's Republic of China on Economic Contracts Involving Foreign Interest (the Economic Contract Law). The CISG stipulates that a contract can only be altered or terminated upon the agreement of the parties. Article 26 of the Economic Contract Law provides that when a party assigns, wholly or in part, its contractual rights and obligations to a third party, it must obtain the consent of the other party. Article 32 of the Economic Contract Law provides that notices or agreements on the modification or rescission of contracts shall be made in writing. The alteration as to the contracting party made by Ms. Tang, the representative of American A Company, without any notification, should be regarded as invalid. The [Seller] should be entitled not to accept American B Company as the contracting party of the Contracts.

3. The [Seller] committed no fault during the performance of the Contracts. The Contracts were entered into through the parties' consultation according to the requests of the [Buyer], American A Company. American A Company also accepted the rights and obligations stipulated by the Contracts. The [Seller] has fully performed the contractual obligations according to the Contracts concluded by the parties. The [Seller] has delivered the goods to the American A Company and conveyed the related documents. American A Company received all of the goods under the Contracts, raised no objection with regard to quality, quantity, and way of performance, and promised to make payment. The [Seller], as the non-breaching party, should be entitled to the benefits contemplated in the Contracts.

4. The [Buyer]'s action violated the bona fide principle respected by Chinese civil law. In the present case, it is reasonable for the [Seller] to deem that the [Buyer]'s purpose is to escape from its contractual obligations by means of fraud.

     (1) When signing the Contracts, Ms. Tang intentionally concealed the real status of American B Company and did not explain the nature of the company, which deprived the [Seller] of the right to learn the risk of performance and to make the necessary preparation in this regard. After the [Seller]'s full performance of the Contracts, in order to escape from the remaining payment, Ms. Tang made the [Buyer]'s partial payment through American B Company to make a feint that the Contracts had been concluded and performed by American B Company.

     (2) Ms. Tang altered the nature of the company from an unlimited company to a limited company; Ms. Tang put forward American B Company on 31 January 1996 after the [Seller] had fully performed the contractual obligations.

5. The arbitration procedure is lawful. The challenge posted by the representative of the [Buyer] with regard to the arbitration procedure is not reasonable. The [Seller]'s representative sent a letter to Ms. Tang, the representative of the [Buyer], in April 1998, expecting to reach an agreement with the [Buyer] to designate jointly the Presiding Arbitrator or to authorize jointly the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission to designate the Presiding Arbitrator. The [Seller] authorized an American express company to deliver the letter to Ms. Tang's domicile, registered with an American court. Ms. Tang, upon receipt of the letter, authorized the firm of Oswald & Yap Lawyers to send a letter to the representative of the [Seller]. The challenge by the [Buyer]'s representative has no factual and legal basis.

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

(1)     The [Buyer] should pay US $186,010 for the goods under the Contracts;
 
(2) The [Buyer] should indemnify the [Seller] US $31,154.20 for interest on the overdue payment for the goods. The interest on US $120,010 should be calculated from 14 February 1996 to 14 February 1998 and comes to US $20,401.70. The interest on US $66,000 should be calculated from 28 February 1996 to 24 February 1998 and comes to US $10,752.50. The interest should be calculated at the annual rate of 8.5%;
 
(3) The [Buyer] should bear the arbitration fee, and the attorneys' fee, trip fee, and other expenses paid by the [Buyer] for the arbitration.

[Buyer]'s position

1. Contracts No. 2034 and No. 2042 were entered into by Ms. Tang on behalf of American B Company. American B Company was established in June 1995. The two contracts in this case were entered into on 13 October 1995 and 15 November 1995. The signing party was American B Company. According to the Economic Contract Law, a contract involving foreign interests shall come into force upon signature of the parties. Ms. Tang signed the Contracts on behalf of American B Company, and the signing party shall be regarded as the contracting party.

2. Contracts No. 2034 and No. 2042 were performed by American B Company. American B Company was entitled to enter into contracts, and therefore should have the right and competence to perform the Contracts. American B Company made the payment for the goods, freight, and tariff. The [Seller]'s allegation that American B Company had no competence to perform the contracts should be regarded as ungrounded.

3. The [Seller] made a mistake in subscribing the American A Company as the Consignee. The [Seller] should invoice the signing party of the Contracts. It was a mistake for the [Seller] to issue its invoice listing American B Company the signing party. American A Company was not the signing party and should not assume the contractual rights and obligations. It is the [Buyer]'s position that American A Company and American B Company are independent and different enterprises. The two companies should not be mixed up because of the same wording. The rights and obligations of the two companies should not be shifted to each other.

III. OPINION OF THE TRIBUNAL

1) Applicable law

The parties did not stipulate the applicable law in the Contracts. The Arbitral Tribunal holds that the CISG shall apply to the dispute because the places of business of the [Seller] and the [Buyer] are in China and USA, which are Contracting States of the CISG.

2) The party to the Contracts

The [Seller] and the [Buyer] presented different allegations with regard to the party to the two contracts. The [Seller] alleged that American A Company should be regarded as the buyer to the Contracts while the [Buyer] contended that American B Company was the buyer to the Contracts. The Arbitral Tribunal notes that the Contracts had been titled with American A Company but had been signed and sealed by American B Company and Mei Tang (Ms. Tang). The Arbitral Tribunal holds that from the aspect of the conclusion of the Contracts, Ms. Tang, as the representative of both American B Company and American A Company, would have been able to alter the reference the [Buyer] at the title position from American A Company to American B Company if Ms. Tang had deemed that American B Company was the buyer to the Contracts, however, Ms. Tang did not make such alterations; from the aspect of the performance of the Contracts, the consignee of the goods delivered by the [Seller] is American A Company and American A Company has received the above goods and has cleared the goods from customs. American A Company had never denied that it was the buyer of the goods during the two years from receipt of the goods until its representative made this defense in the arbitration. The [Seller] invoiced American A Company for the goods. Therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal holds that American A Company which has received the goods under the Contracts is the buyer of the goods. American A Company alleged that American B Company should be regarded as the buyer of the goods because American B Company had paid a sum to the [Seller]. The Arbitral Tribunal holds that the [Buyer]'s allegation would violate the bona fide principle. No matter whether the payment was made for the goods under the Contracts, it cannot be regarded as the basis of judging the contracting party. It is common that a buyer authorizes another party to pay for the goods. Therefore, the [Buyer]'s allegation is ungrounded. American A Company shall be regarded as the buyer in the case.

3) Regarding the goods delivered by the [Seller] and the payment for the goods

The Arbitral Tribunal finds that in order to perform Contract No. 2034, the [Seller] shipped to the [Buyer] four shipments on 21 November 1995, 7 December 1995, 26 December 1995, and 9 January 1996. Each shipment contained 1,200 cartons that were worth US $66,000. In order to perform Contract No. 2042, on 26 December 1995, the [Seller] shipped to the [Buyer], American A Company, 1,100 cartons that were worth US $54,010. After paying US $66,000 for Contract No. 2034, the [Buyer] owes the [Seller] the remaining US $186,010. The [Buyer]'s attorney with full power expressly indicated at the hearing that US $ 180,010 was due to the [Seller]. Based on the delivery documents submitted by the [Seller] and the [Buyer]'s acknowledgement in this regard, the Arbitral Tribunal finds that the [Buyer] owes the [Seller] US $186,010.

4) Regarding the [Seller]'s arbitration claims

Article 53 of the CISG provides that the buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract and this Convention. In the present case, the [Buyer] should be obligated to make the payment after receiving the goods. The [Buyer]'s refusal to pay the price constituted a breach of contract and [Buyer] should pay the outstanding sum and interest on any overdue payment. The Arbitral Tribunal therefore sustains the [Seller]'s claim for the [Buyer]'s payment of US $180,610 for goods and US $ 31,154.20 of interest.

The [Seller] requested the [Buyer] to pay the attorneys' fee paid by the [Seller] for the arbitration, but, during the prescribed time, the [Seller] failed to submit the amount and any solid evidence in this regard. The Arbitral Tribunal does not sustain this request.

5) Regarding the arbitration fee

The [Buyer] shall pay the arbitration fee because the [Buyer]'s default caused the [Seller] to initiate the arbitration.

IV. THE AWARD

The Arbitral Tribunal renders the following award:

1)     The [Buyer] shall pay to the [Seller] US $186,010 for the goods;
2) The [Buyer] shall pay to the [Seller] US $31,154.20 of interest on the above payment for the goods.
3) The [Buyer] shall pay the arbitration fee.
4) All of the [Buyer]'s other claims are rejected.

The [Buyer] shall pay to the [Seller] US $226,089.20 within 45 days of the award. 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 the People's Republic of China is referred to as [Seller] and Respondent American A Company of the United States is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the currency of the United States (dollars) are indicated as [US $].

** Zhan Changzheng is an Associate with Shanghai Haoliwen PRC Attorneys. He received his LL.M from Xiamen University. He concentrates on company law, international commercial arbitration law, and international trade law.

*** 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 November 7, 2007
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography