Fifteenth Annual Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 14 - 20 March 2008 Memorandum for Claimant Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Bern Faculty of Law of the University of Berne ON BEHALF OF: Mediterraneo Wine Cooperative 140 Vineyard Park Blue Hills Mediterraneo CLAIMANT AGAINST: Equatoriana Super Markets S.A. 415 Central Business Centre Oceanside Equatoriana RESPONDENT COUNSEL: Fabienne Claudon – Christian Dreier – Aylin Erb Isabelle Ganz – Alain Muster – Leonora Schreier
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Fifteenth Annual
Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot
14 - 20 March 2008
Memorandum for Claimant
Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Bern
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................ XIV
Awards ...................................................................................................................................................... XVI
Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Argument................................................................................................................................ 2
Arguments on the procedural issues ........................................................................................................ 3
Issue 1: The Tribunal should not stay the arbitral proceedings ............................................................. 3
I. The Tribunal has the power to determine its own jurisdiction first ........................................................ 3
1. The Tribunal has competence-competence ................................................................................. 3
2. The Tribunal is not prevented from continuing proceedings even though the Court
has direct control of its jurisdiction................................................................................................ 4
3. In recognition of the principle of lis pendens, the Tribunal should have priority ........................... 5
II. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is not seriously in dispute ............................................................................ 6
III. If the Tribunal continues with proceedings, there will be no risk of conflicting decisions
being taken ........................................................................................................................................... 6
IV. The Court cannot interfere with the arbitral proceedings ...................................................................... 7
1. DAL does not provide for anti-suit injunctions issued by courts.................................................... 7
2. Even if the Court had the power to issue an anti-suit injunction and make use of it,
this would not prevent the Tribunal from continuing proceedings................................................. 7
V. Result of Issue 1 ................................................................................................................................... 8
Issue 2: The arbitration agreement was effectively concluded............................................................... 8
I. The arbitration agreement would be in existence even if the sales contract had not
been concluded .................................................................................................................................... 8
1. The arbitration agreement is autonomous from the existence of the main contract ..................... 9
a) The principle of separability also applies to situations where the existence of
the arbitration agreement is disputed and not only its validity ................................................ 9
b) Art. 16(1) DAL enshrines the principle of separability........................................................... 10
c) The arbitration clause itself refers to the principle of separability ......................................... 11
d) Art. 17.1 JAMS Rules enshrines the principle of separability ............................................... 11
2. The arbitration agreement was effectively concluded................................................................. 12
a) The CISG is applicable to the arbitration agreement ............................................................ 12
b) The Parties consented to the arbitration clause ................................................................... 13
II. The arbitration agreement is in existence as part of the concluded sales contract............................. 15
III. Result of Issue 2 ................................................................................................................................. 15
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- II -
Issue 3: The Tribunal shall order RESPONDENT to stay its proceedings before the Court
and to pay the resulting costs.................................................................................................................. 15
I. RESPONDENT violated Art. 17(3) JAMS Rules ..................................................................................... 16
II. The Tribunal should draw the inferences that it considers appropriate............................................... 17
1. The Tribunal is competent to order RESPONDENT to stay its court proceedings ......................... 17
a) Conditions the Tribunal must consider when granting interim measures are
b) It is appropriate to issue an anti-suit injunction in the present case...................................... 19
2. The Tribunal shall award costs and expenses............................................................................ 20
III. Result of Issue 3 ................................................................................................................................. 20
Arguments on the substantive law issues .............................................................................................. 21
Issue 4: The contract was effectively concluded ................................................................................... 21
I. RESPONDENT’s offer was irrevocable .................................................................................................. 21
II. Alternatively the offer was not effectively revoked .............................................................................. 23
1. CLAIMANT has not consented to receiving electronic communications of that type,
in that format, at that specific address ........................................................................................ 23
2. CLAIMANT’s e-mail address was not the unilaterally designated information system .................. 24
3. CLAIMANT’s server failure has no consequences ........................................................................ 26
4. Even if the information was sent to the designated information system or no
information system was designated, RESPONDENT’s revocation did not become
effective prior to the dispatch of CLAIMANT’s acceptance............................................................ 27
III. Result of Issue 4 ................................................................................................................................. 28
Issue 5: “Blue Hills 2005” was in conformity with the contract ............................................................ 28
I. Blue Hills 2005 was in conformity with the agreed contractual obligations ......................................... 28
1. RESPONDENT purchased Blue Hills 2005 by sample................................................................... 28
a) RESPONDENT made its offer based on the wine tasted at the Durhan Wine Fair .................. 29
b) RESPONDENT has not made a reasonable examination ........................................................ 29
c) Any particular purpose not inherent to the sample is not of importance with
respect to the conformity of the contract............................................................................... 30
2. The wine was fit for the particular purpose in any event............................................................. 30
a) Promotion is not a specific quality requirement .................................................................... 30
b) Blue Hills 2005 is a prize-winning wine................................................................................. 31
c) Consumption of Blue Hills 2005 causes no health problems................................................ 31
d) Blue Hills 2005 fulfils all legitimate expectations .................................................................. 31
aa) Given its price, RESPONDENT could not expect a wine of high quality..................... 32
bb) The meteorological conditions in 2005 were not ideal for grape
e) Blue Hills 2005 was merchantable........................................................................................ 32
II. There was no fundamental breach of contract.................................................................................... 33
1. There is no substantial deprivation ............................................................................................. 33
2. CLAIMANT could not foresee any deprivation caused by its practices ......................................... 34
III. Result of Issue 5 ................................................................................................................................. 35
Certificate ................................................................................................................................................. XVII
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- IV -
Abbreviations
Abbreviation Full Text
§(§) paragraph(s)
AA-GBR English Arbitration Act of 1996
AcP Archiv für die civilistische Praxis (Tübingen)
ADRLJ The Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Law Journal (Colchester UK)
Art. Article
ASoC Amendment of Statement of Claim
BGE Entscheidungen des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts, amtliche
Sammlung (Decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court)
BGer Bundesgericht (Swiss Federal Supreme Court)
BGH Bundesgerichtshof (German Supreme Court)
BR Brussels Regulation EC 44/2001
CCP-GER German Code of Civil Procedure
CdA Cour d’appel (French Court of Appeal)
CdC Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation)
C-EC United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic
Communications in International Contracts of 23 November 2005
cf. confer
CISG United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
Goods of 11 April 1980
Cl.Ex. Claimant’s Exhibit
CLAIMANT Mediterraneo Wine Cooperative
CoA Court of Appeal
Court Commercial Court of Vindobona
DAL Danubian Arbitration Law
Ed. Editor
E. Erwägung (consideration)
e.g. exempli gratia (for example)
et seq(q). et sequen(te)s (and the following)
EWCA (Civ) England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
fn. foot note
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- V -
Abbreviation Full Text
FTAC Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission of the USSR Chamber of
Commerce and Industry
Guide to ML-EC UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, Guide to
Enactment of 1996
HCHK High Court Hong Kong
HG Handelsgericht (Commercial Court)
Hrsg. Herausgeber (Editor)
ICC International Chamber of Commerce
ICCA International Council for Commercial Arbitration
ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
i.c.w. in connection with
i.e. id est (that is)
IHR Zeitschrift für das Recht des internationalen Warenkaufs und -
vertriebs (Hamburg)
ISBW Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der
gewerblichen Wirtschaft
JAMS Rules JAMS International Arbitration Rules of 2005
Jnl. Int. Arb. Journal of International Arbitration (Geneva)
LJ-R Letter JAMS to RESPONDENT on 21 June 2007
LSoC Letter of 18 June 2007 enclosed with Statement of Claim
ML-A UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as
adopted on 21 June 1985
ML-A (2006) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as
adopted on 7 July 2006
ML-EC UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce of 1996
NAI Netherlands Arbitration Institute
NJA Nytt Juridiskt Arkiv (Stockholm)
NJW Neue juristische Wochenschrift (München)
No. Number
N.Y. New York
NYC New York Convention on the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
BERNSTEIN H./LOOKOFSKY J., Understanding the CISG in Europe, second Edition, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York 2003 (cited as: BERNSTEIN/LOOKOFSKY)
BIANCA C. M./BONELL M. J., Commentary on the International Sales Law – The 1980 Vienna Sales Convention, Giuffrè, Milan 1987 (cited as: BIANCA/BONELL, AUTHOR)
BOHNET M., Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, Vol. 12, sixth Edition, Wiley – VCH, Weinheim 2003 (cited as: BOHNET)
BRUNNER C., UN-Kaufrecht-CISG – Kommentar zum Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf von 1980 – Unter Berücksichtigung der Schnittstellen zum internen Schweizer Recht, Stämpfli Verlag AG, Bern 2004 (cited as: BRUNNER)
CALAVROS C., Das UNCITRAL-Modellgesetz über die internationale Handelsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit, in: Schriften zum deutschen und europäischen Zivil-, Handels- und Prozessrecht, Bd. 116, Verlag Ernst und Werner Gieseking, Bielefeld 1988 (cited as: CALAVROS)
FOUCHARD/GAILLARD/GOLDMAN, On International Commercial Arbitration – Commentary and Materials, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1999 (cited as: FOUCHARD/GAILLARD/GOLDMAN)
HERBER R./CZERWENKA B., Internationales Kaufrecht – Kommentar zu den Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom 11. April 1980 über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf, Verlag C.H.Beck, München 1991
(cited as: HERBER/CZERWENKA)
HOLTZMANN H. M./NEUHAUS J. E., A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer 1989 (cited as: HOLTZMANN/NEUHAUS)
HONNOLD J. O., Documentary History of the Uniform Law for International Sales, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, The Hague 1989 (cited as: HONNOLD, Documentary History)
HONSELL H. (ED.), Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrecht, Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York 1997 (cited as: HONSELL, AUTHOR)
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- VIII -
HUBER P./MULLIS A., The CISG – A new Textbook for students and practitioners, Sellier European law publishers, München 2007 (cited as: HUBER/MULLIS, AUTHOR)
HUSSLEIN-STICH G., Das UNCITRAL-Modellgesetz über die internationale Handelsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, Köln/Berlin/Bonn/München 1990 (cited as: HUSSLEIN-STICH)
KAROLLUS M., UN-Kaufrecht – Eine systematische Darstellung für Studium und Praxis, Springer Verlag, Wien/New York 1991 (cited as: KAROLLUS)
KAUFMANN-KOHLER G./RIGOZZI A., Arbitrage international – Droit et pratique à la lumiere de la LDIP, Schulthess, Zurich/Bâle/Genève 2006
(cited as: KAUFMANN-KOHLER/RIGOZZI)
KRONKE H./MELIS W./SCHNYDER A. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln 2005 (cited as: KRONKE/MELIS/SCHNYDER, AUTHOR)
LEW J. D. M./MISTELIS L. A./KRÖLL S. M., Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York 2003
(cited as: LEW/MISTELIS/KRÖLL)
NEUMAYER K. H./MING C., Convention de Vienne sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandise – Commentaire, Publication Cediac, Lausanne 1993
(cited as: NEUMAYER/MING)
POUDRET J. F./BESSON S., Comparative Law of International Arbitration, second Edition, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, London 2002 (cited as: POUDRET/BESSON)
REDFERN A./HUNTER M., Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, fourth Edition, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, London 2004
(cited as: REDFERN/HUNTER)
ROBINSON J., Jancis Robinson’s Wine Course, third Edition, Abbeville Press, London 2003 (cited as: ROBINSON)
SCHLECHTRIEM P./SCHWENZER I. (ED.), Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG), second (English) Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York 2005 (cited as: SCHLECHTRIEM/SCHWENZER (E), AUTHOR)
SCHLECHTRIEM P./SCHWENZER I. (HRSG.), Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht – CISG, vierte Auflage, Verlag C.H.Beck, München 2004 (cited as: SCHLECHTRIEM/SCHWENZER (D), AUTHOR)
STAUDINGER J./MAGNUS U., Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen, Sellier – de Gruyter, Berlin 2005 (cited as: STAUDINGER/MAGNUS)
WITZ W./SALGER H.-C./LORENZ, International Einheitliches Kaufrecht, Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft GmbH, Heidelberg 2000 (cited as: WITZ/SALGER/LORENZ)
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- X -
Articles
BACHAND F., The UNCITRAL Model Law’s Take on Anti-Suit Injunctions, in: Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 87 et seqq.
(cited as: BACHAND)
BURGARD U., Das Wirksamwerden empfangsbedürftiger Willensäusserungen im Zeitalter moderner Telekommunikation, in: Archiv für civilistische Praxis (AcP), 195. Band, 1995, pp. 74 et seqq. (cited as: BURGARD)
CHORNIAK J., How Sweet It Is: Chaptalization, available on: http://winemakermag.com/feature/216.html (cited as: CHORNIAK)
CLEMENS R., Die elektronische Willenserklärung – Chancen und Gefahren, in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1985, Heft 34, pp. 1998 et seqq. (cited as: CLEMENS)
DE BOISSÉSON M., Anti-Suit Injunctions Issued by National Courts At the Seat of the Arbitration or Elsewhere, in: Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 65 et seqq. (cited as: DE BOISSÉSON)
DIMOLITSA A., Separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz, in: ICCA Congress series no. 9 (Paris/1999), pp. 217-256 (cited as: DIMOLITSA)
EISELEN S., E-Commerce and the CISG: Formation, Formality and Validity, Reproduced with permission of 6 Vindobona Journal of International Law & Arbitration (2002), pp. 305-318 (cited as: EISELEN)
GOLDMAN B., Note – Cour de cassation (1re Ch. civ.) 6 décembre 1988 – Société Navimpex Centrala Navala v. société Wiking Trader, in: Rev. arb. 1989 No. 4, pp. 641–652 (cited as: GOLDMAN)
FERRARI F., General Principles and International Uniform Commercial Law Convention: a Study of the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention and the 1988 Unidroit Conventions, in: Uniform Law Review – Revue de Droit Uniforme, 1997-1, pp. 451 et seqq.
(cited as: FERRARI)
GRAF VON BERNSTORFF C., Electronic-Commerce – Rechtsprobleme, in: Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) Heft 1/2000, pp. 14 et seqq. (cited as: GRAF VON BERNSTORFF)
HILBERG S. J., Das neue UN-Übereinkommen zum elektronischen Rechtsverkehr und dessen Verhältnis zum UN-Kaufrecht (Teil 1), in: Internationales Handelsrecht – International Commercial Law – Zeitschrift für das Recht des internationalen Warenkaufs und -vertriebs (IHR), 1/2007, pp. 12 et seqq.(cited as: HILBERG (1))
HILBERG S. J., Das neue UN-Übereinkommen zum elektronischen Rechtsverkehr und dessen Verhältnis zum UN-Kaufrecht (Teil 2), in: Internationales Handelsrecht – International Commercial Law – Zeitschrift für das Recht des internationalen Warenkaufs und -vertriebs (IHR), 2/2007, pp. 56 et seqq.
(cited as: HILBERG (2))
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- XI -
KOCH R., The Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG). Reproduced with permission of Pace ed., Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 1998, Kluwer Law International (1999), pp. 177-354 (cited as: KOCH)
LEW J. D. M., Anti-Suit Injunctions Issued by National Courts to Prevent Arbitration Proceedings, in: Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 25 et seqq. (cited as: LEW)
LÉVY L., Anti-Suit Injunctions Issued by Arbitrators, in: Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 115 et seqq.
(cited as: LÉVY)
MAYER P., Note – Cour d’appel de Paris (1re Ch. suppl.) 28 novembre 1989; Cour d’appel de Paris (1re Ch. suppl.) 8 Mars 1990, in: Rev. arb. 1990 No. 3, pp. 675 et seqq. (cited as: MAYER, Note)
MAYER P., The Limits of Severability of the Arbitration Clause, in: ICCA Congress series no. 9 (Paris/1999), pp. 261 – 267 (cited as: MAYER, Limits)
MAZZOTTA F., Notes on the United Nations Convention on the use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts and its effects on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, in: Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2007, pp. 252 et seqq.(cited as: MAZZOTTA)
NEUMAYER K. H., Offene Fragen zur Anwendung des Abkommens der Vereinten Nationen über den internationalen Warenkauf, in: Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW), 1994, Heft 2, pp. 99 et seqq.(cited as: NEUMAYER)
PENGELLEY N., Separability Revisited: Arbitration Clauses and Bribery, Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov, in: Jnl. Int. Arb., Vol. 24 No. 5 (2007), pp. 445-454 (cited as: PENGELLEY)
SAMUEL A., Separability of Arbitration Clauses – some akward questions about the Law on Contracts, Conflict of Laws and the Administration of Justice, in: 9 ADRLJ (2000), p. 36 et seq. (cited as: SAMUEL)
SCHLECHTRIEM P., CISG – Auslegung Lückenfüllung und Weiterentwicklung, Vortrag gehalten auf einem Symposium zu Ehren von Dr. iur. Dr. h.c. Frank Vischer am 11. Mai 2004 in Basel (cited as: SCHLECHTRIEM, CISG-Auslegung)
SCHWENZER I./MOHS F., Old Habits Die Hard: Traditional Contract Formation in a Modern World, in: Internationales Handelsrecht – International Commercial Law – Zeitschrift für das Recht des internationalen Warenkaufs und -vertriebs (IHR), 6/2006, pp. 239 et seqq. (cited as: SCHWENZER/MOHS)
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- XII -
SCHLOSSER P., Arbitral Tribunals or State Court - Who must defer to whom?, in: P. A. Karrer (Ed.), ASA Special Series No.15, Basel 2001, pp. 15 et seqq. (cited as: SCHLOSSER, ASA)
SCHLOSSER P., Der Grad der Unabhängigkeit einer Schiedsvereinbarung vom Hauptvertrag, in: Law of International Business and Dispute Settlement in the 21st Century, Liber Amicorum Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, Köln/Berlin/Bonn/München 2001, pp. 697-713 (cited as: SCHLOSSER, Unabhängigkeit)
SCHROETER U. G., Der Antrag auf Feststellung der Zulässigkeit eines schiedsrichterlichen Verfahrens gemäß § 1032 Abs. 2 ZPO, in: SchiedsVZ 2004, Heft 6, pp. 288 et seqq. (cited as: SCHROETER)
SILFVEN S., Weather rules winegrowing in cold-weather climates, available on: http://info.detnews.com/wine/columns/silfven/details.cfm?id=266(cited as: SILFVEN)
SPAIC A., Approaching Uniformity in International Sales Law: Comparative Analyses of the Concept of Fundamental Breach under the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), December 2006, available on: <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/spaic.html> (cited as: SPAIC)
SVERNLÖV C. M., The Evolution of the Doctrine of Separability in England: Now Virtually Complete? The Doctrines of “Separability” of the Arbitration Agreement and “Compétence de la Compétence”, in: Jnl. Int. Arb., Vol. 9 No. 3 (1992), pp. 115-122 (cited as: SVERNLÖV)
VINCZE A., Remarks on whether and the extent to which the UNIDROIT Principles may be used to help interpret Art. 16 of the CISG, October 2004, available on: <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/anno-art-16.html>(cited as: VINCZE)
Commentary on the Draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods prepared by the Secretariat; UN DOC. A/CONF. 97/5; available on <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/materials-commentary.html> (cited as: Secretariat Commentary)
International Law Association, Conference Report Toronto 2006 (Final Report on lis pendens and Arbitration) (cited as: ILA Report)
Secretariat of UNCITRAL, Seventh Secretariat Note: Analytical Commentary on Draft Text A/CN.9/264, 25 March 1985 (cited as: Seventh Secretariat Note)
UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts with Official Commentary (1994) (cited as: Official Commentary PICC(94))
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- XIV -
Cases
France
Cour de cassation (1re Chambre civile), 6 December 1988, Société Navimpex Centrala Navala v. Société Wiking Trader, Rev. arb. 1989 No. 4, p. 641
(cited as: CdC, FRA, 1988)
Cour de cassation (1re Chambre civile), 25 October 2005, Société Omenex v. M. Hugon, Rev. arb. 2005 No. 4, pp. 1098-1099 (cited as: CdC, FRA, 2005)
Cour d’appel de Paris (1re Chambre supplémentraire), 8 March 1990, Coumet et Ducler v. Société Polar-Rakennusos a Keythio, Rev. arb. 1990 No. 3, pp. 675 et seqq.
(cited as: CdA, FRA, 1990)
Germany
Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 2 July 1993, No. 17 U 73/93 (cited as: OLG Düsseldorf, GER, 1993)
Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 24 April 1997, No. 6 U 87/96 (cited as: OLG Düsseldorf, GER, 1997)
Bundesgerichtshof, 3 April 1996, CISG-online No. 135, VIII ZR 51/95 (cited as: BGH, GER, 1996)
Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 29 October 1991, Fung Sang Trading Ltd. v. Kai Sun Sea Products & Food Co. Ltd., YCA, Vol. XVII (1992), pp. 289-304 (cited as: HCHK, HKG, 1991)
Sweden
Swedish Supreme Court, 24 March 1976, Hermansson v. AB Asfaltbeläggningar, NJA 1976, pp. 125 et seqq. (cited as: SSC, SWE, 1976)
Switzerland
Handelsgericht des Kantons Aargau, 11 June 1999, CISG-online No. 494, No. OR 98.00010 (cited as: HG Aargau, SUI, 1999)
Bundesgericht, 2 September 1993, National Power Corporation v. Westinghouse International Projects Company, Westinghouse Electric S.A., Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Burns & Roe, Enterprises Inc. et Tribunal arbitral, BGE 119 II 380
(cited as: BGer, SUI, 1993)
Bundesgericht, 14 May 2001, Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. v. Colon Container Terminal S.A., BGE 127 III 279
(cited as: BGer, SUI, 2001)
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- XV -
Bundesgericht, 19 February 2007, B. Fund Ltd v. A. Group Ltd. und das Schiedsgericht, BGE 133 III 139 (cited as: BGer, SUI, 2007)
Tribunal cantonal du Valais, 28 October 1997, CISG-online No. 328, Cl 97 167 (cited as: TC Valais, SUI, 1997)
United Kingdom
Court of Appeal, 28 January 1993, Harbour Assurance Co. (UK) Ltd. v. Kansa General International Insurance Co. Ltd., YCA, Vol. XX (1995), pp. 771-790
(cited as: CoA, GBR, 1993)
Court of Appeal, 2 December 2004, Through Transport Mutual Insurance (Eurasia) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Association Company Ltd., EWCA Civ 1598 (cited as: CoA, GBR, 2004)
United States of America
United States District Court, Western District of New York, 1 August 1995, 94-CV-0827E(H), Comptek Telecommunications, Inc. v. IVD Corporation and Aicesa S.A. de C.V., YCA, Vol. XXII (1997), pp. 905 et seqq.
(cited as: USDC N.Y., USA, 1995)
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- XVI -
Awards
Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission of the USSR Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission of the USSR Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 9 July 1984, Award No. 109/1980, All-Union Foreign Trade Association “Sojuznefteexport” (USSR) v. Joc Oil Limited (Bermuda), YCA, Vol. XVIII (1993), pp. 92-110
(cited as: FTAC, 1984)
International Chamber of Commerce
ICC Case No. 8887, April 1997, ICC Bull., Vol. 11, No. 1, 2000, p. 91 (cited as: ICC, 1997)
ICC Case No. 10596, 2000, Interlocutory Award, YCA, Vol. XXX (2005), pp. 66-76 (cited as: ICC, 2000)
ICC Case No. 10973, 2001, Interim Award, YCA, Vol. XXX (2005), pp. 77-84 (cited as: ICC, 2001)
ICC Case No. 8307, 14 May 2001, Interim Award, Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 307-315
(cited as: ICC, 5.2001)
ICC Case No. 10623, 7 December 2001, Salini Costruttori S.p.A. v. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 228-306
(cited as: ICC, 12.2001)
International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes
ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, 16 October 2002, Procedural Order No. 2, SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Rev. – FIJL, 2003, pp. 290-292
(cited as: ICSID, 2002)
Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft (Vienna)
Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft, 15 June 1994, No.SCH-4366, Wien (Vienna), Austria (cited as: ISBW Vienna, 1994)
Netherlands Arbitration Institute
Netherlands Arbitration Institute, 15 October 2002, No. 2319 (cited as: NAI, 2002)
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- 1 -
Statement of Facts
CLAIMANT Mediterraneo Wine Cooperative is a producer and marketer of wine. The grapes for
the wine are grown by the members of the cooperative (SoC, §§1-2).
RESPONDENT Equatoriana Super Markets S.A. is the largest operator of supermarkets as well as the
largest retailer of wine in Equatoriana (SoC, §4).
7-10 May 2006 Mr. Cox, sales manager for CLAIMANT, and Mr. Wolf, wine buyer for RESPONDENT,
meet at a trade Fair in Durhan, Oceania. At this Fair, the wine “Blue Hills 2005”
produced by CLAIMANT wins a prize. Since RESPONDENT is interested in purchasing
this wine, Mr. Cox and Mr. Wolf exchange business cards with their addresses
(SoC, §5).
1 June 2006 After some initial correspondence between the Parties, Mr. Cox offers in a letter to
Mr. Wolf to sell “Blue Hills 2005” at a price of US$72 per case containing 12 bottles
(Cl.Ex.No.2) for an order of 10,000 cases and a price of US$68 per case for an order
of 20,000 cases (Cl.Ex.No.3).
10 June 2006 Mr. Wolf responds to this offer by making a counter offer including a contract, which
he sends to CLAIMANT by e-mail and courier (Cl.Ex.No.4-5). Therein he offers to
purchase 20,000 cases at a price of US$68 per case and indicates that RESPONDENT
would have to turn to another producer should the contract closing be delayed beyond
21 June 2006 (Cl.Ex.No.4).
11 June 2006 Ms. Kringle, assistant to Mr. Cox, informs Mr. Wolf that Mr. Cox is absent but will
return on 19 June 2006. She assures him that the purchase order will receive Mr. Cox’
immediate attention on his return (Cl.Ex.No.6).
11 June 2006 Mr. Wolf responds and asks Ms. Kringle to be sure to have Mr. Cox act on the
purchase order immediately on his return (Cl.Ex.No.7).
19 June 2006 Morning: Mr. Cox signs RESPONDENT’s contract and sends it back by courier
(Cl.Ex.No.8).
Afternoon: Mr. Cox receives an e-mail from Mr. Wolf in which he attempts to
withdraw the offer based on newspaper articles reporting that anti-freeze had been
used to sweeten wine in Mediterraneo (Cl.Ex.No.9). The e-mail is dated
18 June 2006, but was delayed by a service failure in the internal network of CLAIMANT
(SoC, §10; PO2, Q.26).
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- 2 -
20 June 2006 Mr. Cox writes to Mr. Wolf and insists that the contract was concluded. He explains
that the articles are completely incorrect and notifies him of the first shipment of wine
as stipulated in the contract (Cl.Ex.No.10).
Mr. Wolf answers the same day that RESPONDENT will not take delivery because it
claims to have withdrawn its offer (Cl.Ex.No.11).
15 July 2006 Mr. Cox submits an expert report to Mr. Wolf, prepared by Professor Sven Ericson, a
world renowned leader in research on improving wine production (Cl.Ex.No.12-13).
Mr. Cox explains that CLAIMANT is still holding the wine and is waiting for shipping
directions.
25 July 2006 Mr. Wolf answers that RESPONDENT still refuses to take delivery (Cl.Ex.No.14).
18 June 2007 CLAIMANT submits a Request for Arbitration and Statement of Claim to JAMS. A copy
is sent to RESPONDENT (LSoC).
6 July 2007 CLAIMANT receives a notice from the Commercial Court of Vindobona, Danubia, that
RESPONDENT has commenced an action requesting the Court to issue a decision
stipulating that no arbitration agreement existed between CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT
(ASoC, §2).
10 July 2007 CLAIMANT submits an amendment to the Request for Arbitration and the Statement of
Claim and asks the Tribunal to order RESPONDENT to terminate its litigation and pay
the full costs of the litigation (ASoC, §6).
17 July 2007 RESPONDENT submits its Statement of Defense in which it requests the Tribunal to
stay the proceedings until the Commercial Court of Vindobona has ruled on the
existence of the arbitration agreement (SoD, §21).
Summary of Argument
The following shall demonstrate in law and fact that:
• The Tribunal should exercise its discretionary power and not stay the arbitral proceedings [Issue 1].
• An arbitration agreement was validly concluded between the Parties [Issue 2].
• RESPONDENT’s action before the Commercial Court of Vindobona is in violation of Art. 17(3) JAMS
International Arbitration Rules and the Tribunal should therefore order RESPONDENT to terminate its
litigation in court and award all costs [Issue 3].
• A contract was validly concluded between the Parties [Issue 4].
• The wine offered by CLAIMANT was in conformity with the contract and RESPONDENT could therefore
not refuse to take delivery [Issue 5].
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- 3 -
Arguments on the procedural issues
Issue 1: The Tribunal should not stay the arbitral proceedings
1 The Tribunal is requested to find that it will continue the arbitral proceedings and that RESPONDENT’s
request for a stay, while the action filed before the Commercial Court of Vindobona (hereinafter
“Court”) is pending, is to be rejected.
2 The Parties chose, in their arbitration clause, Vindobona (Danubia) as the place of arbitration
(Cl.Ex.No.5, §13). Danubia has enacted the 1985 text of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration (hereinafter “ML-A”) with a single amendment to Art. 8 (SoC, §15). The law
governing the arbitration is the law at the seat of the arbitral tribunal, the so-called lex arbitri
(REDFERN/HUNTER, §2.14), and the Arbitration Law of Danubia (hereinafter “DAL”) therefore applies.
3 According to Art. 8(3) DAL, it is at the Tribunal’s discretion to decide whether or not the arbitral
proceedings should continue or stay while an action is pending before a court. The Tribunal has
already decided that there would be no immediate stay of the arbitral proceedings (PO1, §7).
4 In order to safeguard the efficiency and the speed of the arbitral proceedings and to give effect to the
Parties’ agreement to submit their disputes to arbitration, the Tribunal should continue and not grant
a stay. The reasons for this are: First, there is a widely recognized principle that an arbitral tribunal
has the power to decide on its own jurisdiction first [I.]. Second, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not
seriously in dispute [II.]. Third, if the Tribunal continued the arbitral proceedings, there would not be
a risk of contradictory decisions being taken [III.]. Fourth, the Tribunal is requested to take into
consideration that the Court cannot intervene with the arbitral proceedings [IV.].
I. The Tribunal has the power to determine its own jurisdiction first
5 CLAIMANT will demonstrate that a stay of the proceedings should not be granted due to the widely
recognized principle of competence-competence, which empowers the Tribunal to decide on its own
jurisdiction [I.1.]. The direct control of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by the Court according to
Art. 8(2) DAL does not prevent the Tribunal from continuing its proceedings [I.2.]. Recognizing the
principle of lis pendens, which confers priority to the court first seized, the Tribunal should continue
its proceedings [I.3.].
1. The Tribunal has competence-competence
6 The doctrine known as competence-competence states that “the arbitrators have jurisdiction to
determine their own jurisdiction” (FOUCHARD/GAILLARD/GOLDMAN, §650). It is derived from the
principle pursuant to which all tribunals have the competence to rule on their own jurisdiction and
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- 4 -
from the presumption that the parties intended to also submit this preliminary question to an arbitral
tribunal (POUDRET/BESSON, §457).
7 The main function of this principle is to resolve the conceptual problems that may arise when
arbitrators decide on their own jurisdiction, e.g. when an arbitral tribunal finds that no arbitration
agreement has been concluded. This would implicitly include the ruling that there was not even a
basis for such a decision either (LEW/MISTELIS/KRÖLL, §14.13). To avoid such circular arguments, the
arbitrators’ basis for ruling on their jurisdiction is not to be found in the arbitration agreement itself,
but instead in the principle of competence-competence. Even if no arbitration agreement has
effectively been concluded, an arbitral tribunal has the power to decide on its own jurisdiction due to
the principle of competence-competence (POUDRET/BESSON, §658).
8 In the present case, the principle of competence-competence is stipulated in DAL. According to
Art. 16(3) DAL, “[t]he arbitral tribunal may rule on a plea [that the arbitral tribunal does not have
jurisdiction] either as a preliminary question or in an award on the merits”. In the event of an action to
review a preliminary ruling on the jurisdiction, the Tribunal “may continue and make an award.”
9 Therefore the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction even though the arbitration
agreement is in dispute.
2. The Tribunal is not prevented from continuing proceedings even though the Court has
direct control of its jurisdiction
10 DAL states in Art. 8(2) that “[p]rior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, an application may be
made to the court to determine whether or not arbitration is admissible”. According to this provision,
the Parties are allowed to seize a court directly with a declaratory action concerning the validity of
the arbitration agreement and the jurisdiction (POUDRET/BESSON, §483). Unlike the ML-A and the vast
majority of national arbitration laws, DAL provides for such a direct control. From a comparative
perspective, this form of control by courts is tending to disappear, as most legislations have
strengthened the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in recognition of the competence-competence
doctrine (POUDRET/BESSON, §483).
11 The direct control of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction is also specified in the German Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter “CCP-GER”). Art. 1032(2) CCP-GER is consistent with Art. 8(2) DAL (PO2,
Q.2). Direct control is used in Germany to determine the validity of an arbitration agreement and the
jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal at an early phase in the proceedings (SCHROETER, p.288) by using
an accelerated and facilitated court procedure (SCHLOSSER, ASA, p.29). England is among those
legislations allowing a similar form of direct control. Since the Arbitration Act of 1996
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- 5 -
(hereinafter “AA-GBR”), however, direct control is now allowed only in exceptional cases in
sec. 32 and sec. 72 AA-GBR (POUDRET/BESSON, §485).
12 As direct control runs counter to the principle of competence-competence, its application should only
be justifiable if the claimant in court proceedings can show probable cause that unwarranted
arbitration would effect irreparable damage, that the initiation of arbitration is abusive or that there is
a manifest absence of an arbitration agreement (POUDRET/BESSON, §487).
13 As CLAIMANT will show in §§79-83 [Issue 3], the Parties have derogated from this direct control by the
Court with the application of the JAMS Rules.
14 In addition, the purpose of the direct control, namely to determine at an early stage in proceedings
the arbitrators’ jurisdiction, could not be achieved in the present case. The Court is not expected to
find a ruling prior to summer 2008 (PO2, Q.10), at which time the Tribunal will have already decided
on its jurisdiction, as oral hearings are scheduled in March 2008 (PO1, §13) and an award on
jurisdiction can be expected to be issued afterwards. Although the arbitration agreement might be in
dispute, there is no manifest absence of an arbitration agreement. If there had been, this would
justify the Court having direct control. CLAIMANT’s initiation of arbitration is not abusive as CLAIMANT
did file the request for arbitration in good faith.
15 Furthermore, it would be sufficient for RESPONDENT’s interests to challenge an award rendered by the
Tribunal according to Art. 16(3) DAL and thus obtain a court decision on the issue not much later
than summer 2008.
3. In recognition of the principle of lis pendens, the Tribunal should have priority
16 If the same legal action is pending before two different courts, the doctrine of lis pendens gives effect
to a first-in-time rule, which is very similar to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, where the order
in which the proceedings were commenced is one of several factors to consider (ILA Report, §1.5).
With the application of the principle of lis pendens, it is possible to find guidance for situations of
parallel proceedings and to avoid contradictory decisions. According to the principle of lis pendens,
the proceedings initiated first have priority.
17 In its strict sense, the first-in-time rule would only apply where parallel proceedings continue between
two different state courts of the same jurisdiction. Nevertheless, this situation is very akin to that
when an arbitral tribunal is involved (SCHWAB/WALTER, §16.13a). Since an award can be executed
the same way as a judgment, the principle of lis pendens should be applied by analogy (BGer,
SUI, 2001, E.2.c.).
18 Although DAL does not explicitly provide for the application of the principle of lis pendens, it should
be considered as a means to solve conflicts involving parallel proceedings. In the present case, there
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- 6 -
is not literally a conflict of parallel proceedings since there is a declaratory action pending before the
Court and an action on the merits pending before the Tribunal. Nevertheless, the question as to
which proceedings should have priority remains.
19 The Tribunal is the court first seized, as the arbitral proceedings commenced with the request for
arbitration being received by RESPONDENT (Art. 21 DAL) on 22 June 2007 (the Request was sent by
JAMS to RESPONDENT on 21 June 2007) (LJ-R) and the action before the Court was filed afterwards
on 4 July 2007 (PO2, Q.9). Thus, the Tribunal has priority and should continue its proceedings.
20 Conclusion of I.: The Tribunal has competence-competence and therefore it has the power to
determine its own jurisdiction. The direct control by the Court according to Art. 8(2) DAL does not
hinder the arbitral proceedings. Moreover, in recognition of the principle of lis pendens, the Tribunal
should not grant a stay since it was seized first.
II. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is not seriously in dispute
21 The Tribunal should grant a stay of the proceedings “not too hastily” (SCHROETER, p.29) and only
when it has “serious concerns” about the existence of the arbitration agreement (HUSSLEIN-STICH,
p.50). Furthermore, a stay of arbitral proceedings should only be granted in exceptional cases with
compelling reasons (BGer, SUI, 2007, E.6.1).
22 In the present case, there are no such serious concerns or compelling reasons that would justify the
stay of the arbitral proceedings. RESPONDENT’s contract order included the arbitration clause
(Cl.Ex.No.5, §13), which CLAIMANT validly accepted. The alleged “withdrawal” of the offer to submit
any dispute to arbitration, including a dispute on the formation of the contract, does not lead to a
manifest inexistence of the arbitration agreement [Issue 2, §§38 et seqq.]. As there are no serious
concerns about the existence of the arbitration agreement, a stay of the arbitral proceedings is not
justified.
23 Furthermore, CLAIMANT will prove later that the arbitration agreement is not “null and void, inoperative
or incapable of being preformed” (Art. 8(1) DAL), and that the Court will therefore have to affirm the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal and refer the Parties to arbitration [Issue 2, §§35-77]. Keeping in mind the
future decision of the Court, a stay of the arbitral proceedings is not justified.
III. If the Tribunal continues with proceedings, there will be no risk of conflicting
decisions being taken
24 In the present case, the Court is the competent instance according to Art. 6 DAL and 8(2) DAL (PO2,
Q.10). This means that the same court is competent to decide the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and, if
necessary, later review an award, which eliminates the risk of conflicting decisions
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- 7 -
(POUDRET/BESSON, §484). The Tribunal should consider the risk of conflicting decisions if, e.g., a
court other than the competent court according to Art. 6 DAL were seized to assess the merits of the
dispute. However, this is clearly not an issue in the present case.
25 Thus, even if the Tribunal continued proceedings and the Court concluded that the Tribunal in fact
lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute, there would still be no risk of conflicting decisions.
IV. The Court cannot interfere with the arbitral proceedings
26 RESPONDENT requests the Court to issue an order preventing CLAIMANT from continuing with the
arbitral proceedings, which is a so-called “anti-suit injunction” (LEW, p.25). CLAIMANT will show that
DAL does not provide for anti-suit injunctions [IV.1.]. However, if the Court were to consider issuing
an anti-suit injunction on the basis of a general rule, this would not prevent the Tribunal from
continuing proceedings [IV.2.].
1. DAL does not provide for anti-suit injunctions issued by courts
27 DAL is one of the legislations that do not allow any court to intervene in the arbitral proceedings
“except where so provided” (Art. 5 DAL). This means that all situations in which judicial intervention
is possible must be governed by DAL in order to increase certainty and predictability
(HOLTZMANN/NEUHAUS, p.216).
28 The cases in which the courts are allowed to assist to the arbitral process (Art. 9, 11, 14, 15, 27 and
36 DAL) and to control its legality (Art. 8, 13, 16(3) DAL) are governed by DAL (BACHAND, p.100).
29 Anti-suit injunctions are not among those measures which state courts are allowed to issue
according to DAL. Therefore, the Court is not empowered to interfere with the ongoing arbitral
proceedings by ordering CLAIMANT or the arbitrators to suspend arbitration (BACHAND, p.111).
2. Even if the Court had the power to issue an anti-suit injunction and make use of it, this
would not prevent the Tribunal from continuing proceedings
30 The Court could order CLAIMANT to suspend its arbitral proceedings on the basis of a general rule
that allows the courts to issue injunctions whenever it is “justified and convenient to do so”
(LEW, p.27). The application of this general rule would not be appropriate in cases of potentially
unwarranted arbitration since anti-suit injunctions are only justified in “extraordinarily rare cases”
(USDC N.Y., USA ,1995, §4).
31 Nonetheless, if the Court were to issue an anti-suit injunction, the Tribunal would not be bound to
suspend the proceedings (DE BOISSÉSON, p.67). Since it is the primary duty of the arbitrators to give
effect to the arbitration agreement, an arbitral tribunal should not grant a stay of the proceeding, as
“it would be improper […] to observe the injunctions” (ICC, 12.2001, §§177 et seq.).
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- 8 -
32 Finally, it should be recalled that Art. 8(3) DAL leaves it up to the discretion of the arbitrators to
decide whether or not to stay arbitral proceedings. The Tribunal has, therefore, a clear legal basis to
continue proceedings.
33 Conclusion of IV.: DAL does not contain provisions concerning anti-suit injunctions issued by state
courts. If the Court were to derive the power to order CLAIMANT to suspend arbitration from a general
rule, this would still not affect the arbitral proceedings.
V. Result of Issue 1
34 In order to ensure that the proceedings can be conducted efficiently and quickly to give effect to the
arbitration agreement, the arbitral proceedings should not be stayed. The principle of competence-
competence means the Tribunal has the power to determine its own jurisdiction. The fact that the
Tribunal is directly controlled by the Court does not prevent the Tribunal from continuing the
proceedings, especially as the Tribunal was seized first. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is
not seriously in dispute as there is an apparent existence of an arbitration agreement. If the Court did
not recognize the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, this would not lead to the problematic situation of conflicting
judgments. Not least of all, the Court cannot interfere with the arbitral proceedings.
Issue 2: The arbitration agreement was effectively concluded
35 The Tribunal is requested to find that it has jurisdiction to consider the dispute between CLAIMANT
and RESPONDENT (SoC, §23).
36 By concluding an arbitration agreement, parties oust the jurisdiction of state courts and opt for
arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal is based on an existing
arbitration agreement. It will be demonstrated that an agreement is in existence in the present case.
37 First, the arbitration agreement would still exist even if the sales contract had not been effectively
concluded [I.]. Second, in the present case the arbitration agreement exists as part of the sales
contract, and has thus necessarily been concluded anyway [II.].
I. The arbitration agreement would be in existence even if the sales contract had
not been concluded
38 RESPONDENT alleges that the offer containing the arbitration clause was validly “withdrawn” and that
therefore no arbitration agreement has been effectively concluded (SoD, §7). However, the mere fact
that a sales contract was not concluded does not per se affect the existence of an arbitration
agreement.
Memorandum for Claimant University of Berne
- 9 -
39 It will be demonstrated that the arbitration agreement is autonomous from the existence of the main
contract [I.1.]. Furthermore, it will be shown that an arbitration agreement was effectively concluded
in the present case [I.2.].
1. The arbitration agreement is autonomous from the existence of the main contract
40 The principle of separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract is widely recognized