MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
v. Becker Autoradiowerk GmbH (U.S.); Central Meat Products Company, Ltd. v. J.V.
McDaniel, Ltd. (GB); Interocean Shipping Co. v. National Shipping & Trad. Corp. (U.S.);
Comité populaire de la Municipalité d’El Mergeb c/ société Dalico contractors (Fr)]. What is
only sought is a written form of assent to arbitration from each party [Holtzmann/Neuhaus,
p. 263; Secretariat Study on the N.Y. Convention, A/CN.9/168, para. 21].
19. Mr. Storck stated in his letter of 7 December 2000 that, since this had been
RESPONDENT’s first order, he would send them a formal contract [CLAIMANT’s Exhibit
No. 1]. Both CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT were convinced that they entered into a long
time contractual relationship, so that RESPONDENT would place all future orders with
CLAIMANT. For the first order, the parties drafted a formal contract in order to facilitate
further transactions. The purpose of this formal contract was to enable the parties to refer to it
and thereby incorporate its terms in subsequent agreements. The reference is perfectly
sufficient, since the parties agreed to this procedure. This is affirmed by RESPONDENT’s
statement of defence [statement of defence para. 12]. Since Mr. Black knew that the contract
dated 15 December 2000 contained an arbitration clause, he accepted the renewal of the
arbitration clause by referring himself to the sales conditions of the previous contract [cf.
Fouchard et al, pp. 294-295; Société Bomar Oil NV c/ ETAP (Fr); Houtte, Arb.Int. 2000,
p. 10].
20. Thus, the general reference to the conditions of the contract dated 15 December 2000
which contained an arbitration agreement in section 13 [CLAIMANT’s Exhibit No. 2] is
sufficient in order to incorporate this clause in the contract concluded on 3 April 2001 [cf.
Republic of Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Company (U.S.); Becker Autoradio USA Inc. v.
Becker Autoradiowerk GmbH (U.S.); Hamburg Award, 18 March 1994 (Germany)].
21. An arbitration agreement between CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT has been concluded
and the writing requirement pursuant to Art. 7(2) Model Law is met.
C. The parties chose validly the “German Institution of Arbitration”
22. The arbitration agreement is effective even though it refers to the arbitration rules of the
“German Arbitration Association” instead of the “German Institution of Arbitration”.
9