《國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)與操作》Chapter 11

國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)與操作

InternationalTradePracticeandOperation1Chapter11InternationalCommercialDisputeResolutionTeachingObjectives1.Discusscausesofdisputesininternationalsalecontracts.2.Studythefeaturesofarbitration.3.Outlinefactorsweighedbycourtsinselectingthelawtoapplytoadispute.4.IntroducetheWTOdisputesettlementprocedures.2Section1DisputesandClaims1.BreachofContractBreachofcontractmeanstherefusalorfailurebyapartytoacontracttofulfillanobligationimposedonhimunderthecontract.Fundamentalbreachdeprivestheotherpartyofwhatheisentitledtoexpectunderthecontract.Theinjuredpartyshallhavetherighttocancelthecontractandtorecoverdamagesfromthepartyinbreach.3Section1DisputesandClaimsSeller’sObligationsDeliveryofgoodsTimeofDeliveryPlaceofDeliveryConformityofgoodswiththecontractTransferofproperty(ownership,IPrights)inthegoodsBuyer’sObligationsPaymentofthepriceTimeofpaymentPlaceofpaymentReceiptofthegoodsdelivered4Section1DisputesandClaims2.DisputesThemainreasonsfordisputesarethefollowing:Seller’sFault:DiscrepancyinqualityInsufficientquantityDeficient/poorpackingDelayeddelivery5Section1DisputesandClaimsBuyer’sFault:NotdispatchavesseltocarrythegoodsNotnamethecarrierintimeNotopenaL/CintimeUnreasonablerejectionofthegoodsMisunderstanding:Unclearstipulationsofthecontractleadtodifferentinterpretationse.g.“quantityabout10000M/T”,

“promptshipment”.6Section1DisputesandClaims3.ClaimClaimreferstotheclaimoflosses.Ifthesellerbreachesthecontract,whichincursloss,thesellerwillshouldertheresponsibilityandthebuyershouldraiseaclaimagainsthimaccordingtothecontractstipulations.Claimmustbelodgedwithinthetimeofvaliditystipulatedinthecontract.Settlement(acceptanceofclaim)referstothesettlementoftheparty,whoisresponsiblefortheclaimlodgedbythepartysufferedloss.Claimclausesinthecontract.7Section2AlternativeDisputeResolutionAlternativeDisputeResolution(ADR)referstoanymeansofsettlingdisputesoutsideofthecourtroom,suchasmediationandarbitration.1.MediationMediationisavoluntary,nonbindingconciliationprocess.Itfocusesoneffectivecommunicationandnegotiationskills.2.ArbitrationArbitrationisaprocedurefortheresolutionofdisputesonaprivatebasisthroughtheappointmentofanarbitrator,anindependent,neutralthirdpersonwhohearsandconsidersthemeritsofthedisputeandrendersafinalandbindingdecisioncalledanaward.Case11-1(Istheawardfinalandbinding?):Thecourtrejectedtheapplicationinthecourtandconfirmedthevalidityofthearbitrationagreement.8Section2AlternativeDisputeResolutionAdvantagesofArbitration(1)Finalandbindingdecisions.(2)Internationalrecognitionofarbitralawards.(3)Neutrality.(4)Specializedcompetenceofarbitrators.(5)Speedandeconomy.(6)Confidentiality.TheNewYorkConventionof1958:TheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards,knownasthe“NewYorkConvention”,isthemostimportantmultilateraltreatyoninternationalarbitration.ICCArbitration

9Section2AlternativeDisputeResolution3.LegalFrameworkGoverningInternationalCommercialArbitration(1)TheNewYorkConventionof1958

Courtsofeachcontractingstate:-torecognizearbitrationagreementsinwritingandtorefusetoallowadisputetobelitigatedbeforethemwhenitissubjecttoanarbitrationagreement;and-torecognizeandenforceforeignarbitralawards.(2)NationalArbitralLaw10Section3LitigationCase11-2(EdenElectrical,Ltd.v.AmanaCo.):Facts：EdenElectrical,Ltd.,ownedtwenty-fiveappliancestoresthroughoutIsrael,atleastsomeofwhichsoldrefrigeratorsmadebyAmanaCo.EdenrepresentativesmetwithAmanaexecutives.TheexecutivesmadeassurancesaboutAmana’sgoodfaith,itshopeofhavingalong-termbusinessrelationshipwithEden,anditswillingnesstohaveEdenbecomeitsexclusivedistributorinIsrael.EdensignedadistributorshipagreementandpaidAmana$2.4million.AmanafailedtodeliverthisamountininventorytoEden,continuedsellingrefrigeratorstootherentitiesfortheIsraelimarket,andrepresentedtoothersthatitwasstilllookingforalong-termdistributor.LessthanthreemonthsaftersigningtheagreementwithEden,Amanaterminatedit,withoutexplanation.Questions:EdenfiledasuitinaU.S.federaldistrictcourtagainstAmana,allegingfraud.ThecourtawardedEden$12.1millionindamages.Isthisamountwarranted?Whyorwhynot?Howdoesthiscaseillustratewhybusinessethicsisimportant?11Section3LitigationTypicalproblemsassociatedwithinternationallitigation:personaljurisdiction,serviceofprocess,conflictoflaws,evidencefromabroad,andenforcementofjudgment.1.ServiceofProcessTheformalnotificationofdefendantstodefendthemselvesincourt.2.JurisdictionTheauthorityofacourttohearanddeterminedisputes.3.ConflictofLawsTherulesbywhichcourtsdeterminewhichjurisdiction’slawsapplytoacaseandhowdifferencesbetweenlawswillbereconciled.12Section3Litigation4.DiscoveryTheprocessofgatheringevidencefromone’sadversaryandfromthirdparties.5.EnforceabilityofJudgmentsThewinningpartyoftenneedstoenforcethejudgmentinaforeigncountryafterobtainingajudgmentinaninternationallitigation.Case11-3

Facts:U.S.corporation(Plaintiff)agreedtodistributewinesforanItaliancorporation(Defendant)inPennsylvaniaandotherpartsoftheUnitedStates.Thepartiesnegotiatedthreeagreements,oneforanexclusivedistributorship,anothertograntPlaintiffa25%interestinDefendant,andathirdagreementonsalescommission.Theagreementsatissuedonotcontainachoiceoflawprovision.ThePlaintiffbroughtsuitforbreachofcontract,promissoryestoppel,unjustenrichmentandtortiousinterferencewithbusinessrelations.Question:Whatlawappliesinthiscase?13Section3LitigationCase11-4:ConflictofLawsinArbitrationFacts：ARussiancompany(Seller)soldtoaSouthKoreancompany(Buyer)componentsof“highsensitivity”tobeincorporatedinfinalproduct.Uponinspectionofthegoodsdelivered,itturnedoutthattheyweretoalargeextentdefectiveanddidnothavethecharacteristicsnecessaryfortheirintendeduse.Issue：Buyerbroughtanactionfordamages;SelleracknowledgedthepresenceofdefectsbutaccusedBuyerofnothavinginspectedthemproperlyandingoodtimeafterdelivery.Thecontractwassilentastothegoverninglaw.

Whatlawshouldbeusedinthiscase?

14Section