UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG - CISG Database

ALBERT LUDWIG UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG
1. The Fire Constitutes an Unforeseeable Impediment Beyond High
Performance’s Control ................................................................................... 21
2. High Performance Could Not Have Reasonably Overcome the Impediment 21
a) High Performance Was Not Required Under Art. 79(1) CISG to
Distribute the Chips on a Pro Rata Basis .............................................. 22
b) High Performance Was Not Required By the Principle of Good Faith to
Distribute the Chips on a Pro Rata Basis .............................................. 23
CONCLUSION OF THE SECOND ISSUE ...................................................................................... 23
ISSUE 3: CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES................................................... 24
A. Bribery Prohibits Arbitration and Prevents Entitlement to Damages ........................ 24
I. Bribery Has Been Committed to Facilitate Business for CLAIMANT....................... 24
II. Bribery Constitutes a Barrier to Arbitral Proceedings ............................................. 25
1. The Tribunal Should Decline Jurisdiction over Any Claims Affected by
Bribery ............................................................................................................ 25
2. Any Award Granting Damages Based on Bribery Would Not Be Enforceable
........................................................................................................................ 25
III. Alternatively, Bribery Hinders Claim for Most Damages for Substantive Reasons 26
1. CLAIMANT Is Responsible Since It Condoned Illegal Actions of Its Broker . 26
2. CLAIMANT Is Responsible Since It Engaged an Independent Agent .............. 27
B. Even if Bribery Did Not Invalidate the Lease Contract, CLAIMANT Would Not Be
Entitled to Damages in the Amount of the Success Fee ............................................ 28
I. The Success Fee Is Not Recoverable Under Art. 74 CISG As It Was Not
Foreseeable .............................................................................................................. 28
II. The Success Fee Is No Reasonable Measure of Mitigation in Terms of
Art. 77 CISG ............................................................................................................ 29
C. CLAIMANT Is Not Entitled to Damages for the Ex Gratia Payment of USD 112,000 30
I. The Ex Gratia Payment Is Not Recoverable as CLAIMANT Neither Did Nor Would
Have Suffered Any Goodwill Damages .................................................................. 31
IV