MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT - CISG Database

More documents

Recommendations

Info

STATEMENT OF FACTS Equatoriana Office Space Ltd. (“Claimant”) is a developer of residential and business properties incorporated and doing business in Equatoriana. Mediterraneo Electrodynamics S.A. (“Respondent”) distributes and fabricates electrical equipment and is a corporation organised under the laws of Mediterraneo. The Claimant constructed a new development named Mountain View Office Park (“Mountain View”) in Equatoriana. The electrical supply company in that area is Equalec. On 12 May 2005, the Claimant entered into a contract with the Respondent to purchase five primary distribution fuse boards with J type fuses for connection to the electrical supply at Mountain View, at US$168,000 (“Fuse Board Contract”). Each fuse board contained fuseways of different ratings, but all for less than 400 amperes. Each fuseway in turn has three fuses. Attached to the contract were engineering drawings based on comments by a third party, Equatoriana Switchboards Ltd. On the drawings were two descriptive notes: - Fuses to be “Chat Electronics” JP type in accordance with BS 88. - To be lockable to Equalec requirements. Equalec, the electrical supply company, normally locks the primary distribution fuse boards with a small padlock to prevent unauthorised access to the electrical supply (a commercial factor) and to prevent interference with the fuses (a safety factor). The Fuse Board Contract is governed by the law of Mediterraneo, which is a party to the <strong>CISG</strong>. It provides in clause 34 that all disputes shall be settled by the “International Arbitration Rules used in Bucharest”. The Claimant had replaced the original dispute resolution clause drafted by the Respondent when it signed the Fuse Board Contract. Clause 32 also requires amendments to the contract to be in writing. On 14 July 2005, Mr. Peter Stiles, Sales Manager for the Respondent, attempted to contact Mr. Herbert Konkler, Purchasing Director for the Claimant. Mr. Stiles was referred to Mr. Steven Hart in the Purchasing Department since Mr. Konkler was on a business trip. Mr. Stiles informed Mr. Hart that the Respondent did not have JP type fuses in stock and that Chat Electronics was facing production difficulties. Mr. Stiles explained that there were 1
three options: to wait until August 2005 for Chat Electronics JP type fuses, use JP type fuses from another manufacturer, or Chat Electronics JS type fuses. Mr. Stiles assured Mr. Hart that JP and JS type fuses were functionally identical up to 400 amperes and since the ratings in the fuse boards were all below 400 amperes, either type could be used. Mr. Hart decided that since the Claimant was under tight time pressures to give occupancy to its Mountain View tenants, it could not wait for Chat Electronics JP type fuses to become available. Mr. Hart also decided that since the Claimant had a preference for Chat Electronics equipment, JS type fuses should be used. He instructed Mr. Stiles to proceed on that basis. On 22 August 2005, the Respondent delivered the distribution fuse boards. The Claimant transferred US$168,000 as payment on 24 August 2005. On 8 September 2005, Equalec came to make the electrical connection but refused to do so, upon discovering that the distribution fuse boards contained JS type fuses. Mr. Stiles learnt about this from Mr. Konkler the next day, and explained that Equalec was required to have made the connection because both JP and JS fuses met the requirements of the Equatoriana Electrical Regulatory Commission (“Equatoriana Commission”). The Respondent had never encountered problems when delivering many JS fuses for less than 400 amperes to Equatoriana over the years. However, Mr. Konkler merely asked Equalec for a letter stating their policy, but did not alert or complain to the Equatoriana Commission. The Claimant then bought fuse boards using Chat Electronics JP type fuses from Equatoriana Switchboards Ltd. for US$180,000, including additional installation costs of US$20,000. 2
Page 1 and 2: FOURTEENTH ANNUAL WILLEM C. VIS INT
Page 3 and 4: 1. The fuse boards were in conformi
Page 5 and 6: UNIDROIT International Institute fo
Page 7 and 8: Gaillard, Emmanuel Savage, John Gar
Page 9 and 10: Schlechtriem, Peter Uniform Sales L
Page 11 and 12: Austria INDEX OF CASES & AWARDS 199
Page 13 and 14: Russia 1997 Arbitration Award Case
Page 15 and 16: INDEX OF LEGAL SOURCES Convention o
Page 17: INDEX OF NON-LEGAL SOURCES Beatty,
Page 21 and 22: dispute is founded solely upon the
Page 23 and 24: ii. The wording of the arbitration
Page 25 and 26: apply the CICA Rules in the absence
Page 27 and 28: 24. Further, of the three arbitrati
Page 29 and 30: “Article 11(3) is only engaged wh
Page 31 and 32: present case, the arbitration agree
Page 33 and 34: (for use under 400 amperes). Theref
Page 35 and 36: 49. Equalec’s requirements are no
Page 37 and 38: with complete clarity, as it emphas
Page 39 and 40: equirements in Equatoriana as the C
Page 41 and 42: Contract to be put on hold while Mr
Page 43 and 44: formal conformity after Equalec ref
Page 45 and 46: 78. At the conclusion of the Fuse B
Page 47 and 48: consequences [Kruisinga, p. 124]. T
Page 49 and 50: 3. The impediment could neither hav
Page 51: IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF 91. For the

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT - CISG Database

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?