中英對(duì)照 仲裁協(xié)議

AWARD OF ARBITRATION OF CONTRACT DISPUTE

日期：The date of

雙方當(dāng)事人：Parties：

申訴方/反訴被訴方：賣(mài)方Claimant/counter-defendant： Seller

被訴方/反訴申訴方：買(mǎi)方Defendant/Counter-claimant： Buyer

仲裁地：　　Place of arbitration：

事實(shí)　　FACTS

1994年，雙方當(dāng)事人根據(jù)某種協(xié)議規(guī)格規(guī)定簽署了3份買(mǎi)賣(mài)一種產(chǎn)品的合同。在收到貨運(yùn)單據(jù)后，買(mǎi)方即按合同規(guī)定，支付了全部合同價(jià)的90%.

In 1994, the parties concluded three contracts for the sale of a product according to certain contract specifications. The buyer paid 90% of the price payable under each of the contracts upon presentation of the shipping documents, as contractually agreed.

按第一和第三份合同提供的產(chǎn)品符合協(xié)議規(guī)格，第二批貨物的規(guī)格在裝運(yùn)前就有過(guò)爭(zhēng)議。產(chǎn)品抵達(dá)目的地后重新檢驗(yàn)，發(fā)現(xiàn)其不符合協(xié)議規(guī)格。為便于脫手，經(jīng)過(guò)某種處理，最終買(mǎi)方將產(chǎn)品賣(mài)給了第三方，損失慘重。

The product delivered pursuant to the first and third contracts met the contract specifications. The conformity of the second consignment was dispute prior to its shipment. When the product was again inspected upon arrival, it was found that it did not meet the contract specifications. The product was eventually sold by the buyer to third parties at considerable loss, after having undergone a certain treatment to make it more saleable.

賣(mài)方提請(qǐng)仲裁，要求收回10%的合同余款。買(mǎi)方提起反訴，聲稱應(yīng)從賣(mài)方所索費(fèi)用中扣除買(mǎi)方估計(jì)應(yīng)由賣(mài)方賠償買(mǎi)方的一筆費(fèi)用，即：直接損失費(fèi)、財(cái)務(wù)成本費(fèi)、所損失的利潤(rùn)及利息費(fèi)。

The seller initiated arbitration proceedings to recover the 10% balance remaining due under the contracts. The buyer filed a counterclaim alleging that the seller's claim should be set off against the amounts which the buyer estimates to be payable to the buyer by the seller, i.e., the direct losses, financing costs, lost profits and interest.

一、適用的法律　　 APPLICABLE LAW

(1)鑒于合同未含有關(guān)實(shí)體法的任何條款，故法律問(wèn)題應(yīng)根據(jù)國(guó)際商會(huì)仲裁規(guī)則第13條第3款決定。根據(jù)該條規(guī)則，仲裁員們應(yīng)適用它們認(rèn)為適合的法律沖突規(guī)則所規(guī)定的準(zhǔn)據(jù)法則。

The contract contains no provisions regarding the substantive law. Accordingly that law has to be determined by the Arbitrators in accordance with Art. 13(3) of the ICC rules. Under that article, the Arbitrators will apply the law designated as the proper law by the rule of conflicts which they deem appropriate.

(2)這是一個(gè)由不同國(guó)際的賣(mài)方和買(mǎi)方簽署的在第三國(guó)交貨的合同。買(mǎi)賣(mài)規(guī)定為船上交貨，故風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在賣(mài)方所在國(guó)便轉(zhuǎn)給了賣(mài)方。由此，賣(mài)方所在國(guó)似乎就成為與買(mǎi)賣(mài)關(guān)系最近的管轄地。

The contract is between a Seller and a Buyer (of different nationalities) for delivery (in a third country). The sale was f.o.b. so that the transfer of risks to the Buyer took place in (the country of Seller). (The country of Seller) accordingly appears as being the jurisdiction to which the sale is most closely related.

(3) 有關(guān)國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)適用法律的1995年6月15日《海牙公約》在涉及銷(xiāo)售合同時(shí)，將賣(mài)方現(xiàn)行居住地法律視為占支配地位的法律。買(mǎi)方所在國(guó)加入了《海牙公約》，賣(mài)方所在國(guó)則沒(méi)有。盡管如此，法律沖突法的總趨勢(shì)卻是適用合同主要業(yè)務(wù)的債務(wù)人現(xiàn)行所在地的國(guó)內(nèi)法。在銷(xiāo)售合同中，此債務(wù)人為賣(mài)方?；谶@些因素，賣(mài)方所在國(guó)的法律似乎便成了規(guī)定買(mǎi)賣(mài)雙方之間合同的準(zhǔn)據(jù)法。

The Hague Convention on the law applicable to international sales of goods dated 15 June 1995 (Art. 3) regarding sales contracts, refers as governing law to the law of the Seller's current residence. (The country of the Buyer) has adhered to the Hague convention, not (the country of the Seller). However, the general trend in conflicts of law is to apply the domestic law of the current residence of the debtor of the essential undertaking arising under the contract. That debtor in a sales contract is the Seller. Based on those combined findings, (the law of the country of the Seller) appears to be the proper law governing the Contract between the Seller and the Buyer.

(4)至于賣(mài)方所在國(guó)法律的適用規(guī)則，仲裁員們依據(jù)的是雙方當(dāng)事人各自陳述的理由，以及仲裁員們從一位獨(dú)立咨詢?nèi)颂幩玫男畔?。根?jù)國(guó)際商會(huì)仲裁規(guī)則第13條最后一段之規(guī)定，仲裁員們也將考慮相關(guān)的貿(mào)易慣例。

As regards the applicable rules of (the law of the country of the Seller), the Arbitrators have relied on the Parties' respective statements on the subject and on the information obtained by the Arbitration from an independent consultant. The Arbitrators, in accordance with the last paragraph of Art. 13 of the ICC rules, will also take into account the relevant trade usage.

二、反訴的可受理性　　 ADMISSIBILITY OF THE COUNTERCLAIM

(5) 仲裁庭認(rèn)為，1980年4月11日的《關(guān)于國(guó)際貨物銷(xiāo)售的聯(lián)合國(guó)公約》(通稱《維也納公約》)是現(xiàn)行貿(mào)易慣例的最好淵源，即使買(mǎi)賣(mài)雙方所在國(guó)均不是公約的成員國(guó)，倘若買(mǎi)賣(mài)雙方所在國(guó)均為公約成員國(guó)，在本案中，該公約不僅可考慮作為貿(mào)易慣例適用，而且還可作為法律適用

The Tribunal finds that there is no better source to determine the prevailing trade usage than terms of the United Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980, usually called the Vienna Convention. This is also even though neither (the country of the Buyer) nor (the country of the Seller) are parties to that Convention. If they were, the Convention might be applicable to this case as a matter of law and not only as reflecting the trade usage.

(6) 《維也納公約》已在17個(gè)國(guó)家生效，考慮用它適用于國(guó)際貨物銷(xiāo)售中的不符規(guī)格事項(xiàng)有通用慣例，應(yīng)屬合情合理?！毒S也納公約》第38條第1款規(guī)定買(mǎi)方負(fù)有“當(dāng)場(chǎng)檢查或叫人檢查貨物”的責(zé)任。買(mǎi)方應(yīng)在注意或應(yīng)當(dāng)注意到瑕疵后的合理期限內(nèi)通知賣(mài)方貨物不符合合同的規(guī)格;否則，他將喪失就上述不符規(guī)格而提起索賠的權(quán)利。第39條第1款具體規(guī)定道：

“如買(mǎi)方在交貨后兩年之內(nèi)沒(méi)有通知賣(mài)方，無(wú)論如何，買(mǎi)方都將喪失在貨物不符規(guī)格問(wèn)題上的申訴權(quán)利，除非此種不符規(guī)格構(gòu)成了對(duì)長(zhǎng)期擔(dān)保的違背”。

The Vienna Convention, which has been given effect to in 17 countries, may be fairly taken to reflect the generally recognized usage regarding the matter of the non-conformity of goods on international sales. Art. 38(1)of the Convention puts the onus on the Buyer to “examine the goods or cause them to be examined promptly”. The buyer should then notify the Seller of the nonconformity of the goods within a reasonable period as of the moment he noticed or should have noticed the defect; otherwise he forfeits his right to raise a claim based on the said non-conformity. Art. 39(1) specifies in the respect that： “In any event the buyer shall lose the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he has not given notice thereof to the seller within a period of two years from the date on which the goods were handed over, unless the lack of conformity constituted a breach of guarantee covering a longer period.”

(7)本案中，買(mǎi)方在合理的期限內(nèi)已對(duì)貨運(yùn)作過(guò)檢查，因?yàn)樵谪浳锏诌_(dá)之前，一位專家曾被請(qǐng)去檢查過(guò)裝船。買(mǎi)方也應(yīng)被認(rèn)定在合理的期限內(nèi)，即在專家報(bào)告公布后的8天內(nèi)，就產(chǎn)品瑕疵作過(guò)通報(bào)。

In the circumstances, the Buyer had the shipment examined within a reasonable time-span since (an expert) was requested to inspect the shipment even before the goods had arrived. The Buyer should also be deemed to have given notice of the defects within a reasonable period, that is eight days after the expert's report had been published.

(8)仲裁庭認(rèn)為，就本案情況而言，買(mǎi)方遵守了上述《維也納公約》的要件規(guī)定。這些要件要比賣(mài)方所在國(guó)的法律的規(guī)定靈活許多。賣(mài)方所在國(guó)法律所規(guī)定的買(mǎi)方通知賣(mài)方的時(shí)限特別短，特別具體，在這點(diǎn)上，似乎是通用的貿(mào)易慣例的一種例外。

The Tribunal finds that, in the circumstances of the case, the Buyer has complied with the above-mentioned requirements of the Vienna Convention. These requirements are considerably more flexible than those provided under (the law of the country of the Seller). This law, by imposing extremely short and specific time requirements in respect of the giving of the notice of defects by the Buyer to the Seller appears to be an exception on this point to the generally accepted trade usage.

(9) 無(wú)論如何，也應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定賣(mài)方已經(jīng)喪失了援引《維也納》第38和第39條有關(guān)產(chǎn)品不符規(guī)格的任何規(guī)定的權(quán)利，因?yàn)榈?0條規(guī)定：“只有賣(mài)方知道，或他不可能不知道，或他沒(méi)有透露有關(guān)的不符規(guī)格的事實(shí)，他便不能適用第38和第39條規(guī)定”。實(shí)際看來(lái)這也是事實(shí)，因?yàn)闀?shū)證和口證都清楚表明賣(mài)方知道且不可能不知道提交的貨物不符合同規(guī)格規(guī)定。

In any case, the Seller should be regarded as having forfeited its right to invoke any non-compliance with the requirements of Art. 38 and 39 of the Vienna Convention since Art. 40 states that the Seller cannot rely on Arts. 38 and 39, if the lack of conformity relates to facts of which he knew, or of which he could not have been unware, and which he did not disclose. Indeed, this appears to be the case, since it clearly transpires from the file and evidence that the Seller knew and could not be unaware (of the non-conformity of the consignment to ) contract specification.

(10)就是假定該條款可適用于本案，它無(wú)論如何也沒(méi)有規(guī)定本仲裁庭應(yīng)駁回反訴，即使對(duì)反訴的審理會(huì)耽誤對(duì)主訴的審查。按其規(guī)定，要求抵消的反訴一般都應(yīng)接受，除非仲裁庭認(rèn)為同時(shí)審理反訴會(huì)過(guò)分耽誤對(duì)事實(shí)的判決，因而認(rèn)為把反訴同主訴分開(kāi)比較恰當(dāng)。在本案中，按規(guī)定說(shuō)明，主訴和反訴已經(jīng)進(jìn)行共同審理，成為一次性裁決事項(xiàng)，故沒(méi)有理由在將它們分割開(kāi)。

This provision, even assuming that it may apply in the circumstances, does not in any way require the tribunal to reject the counterclaim if its examination might delay that of the main claim. It simply states that the counterclaim for setting off is always admissible except only that the tribunal may find it appropriate to serve the counterclaim from the main claim lest a concurrent examination of counterclaim should excessively delay the judgment on the merits. In the present case, the main Claim and the counterclaim, in accordance with the Terms of Reference, have been examined together so as to be the subject of a single award, and there is no reason to separate them.

(11)仲裁庭裁決如下：賣(mài)方應(yīng)獲得其全部所主張的金額，扣除買(mǎi)方在反訴中提出的抵消部分?jǐn)?shù)額。

The Tribunal awarded the Seller the full amount of its claim and set it off against part of the counterclaim filed by the Buyer

仲裁員 (簽字) :

Arbitrator (signature)