CIETAC RULES 2005 PDF

A flowchart showing all the stages of a China International Economic and Trade Commission (CIETAC) arbitration, based on the CIETAC Arbitration Rules CIETAC Arbitration Rules · CIETAC Arbitration Rules · CIETAC Arbitration Rules (These rules entered into force on 1 January ). The Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Commission [hereafter, the “Arbitration Rules”], which took effect on 1 May, , apply to this case.

Author: Dajinn Taushicage
Country: Turkmenistan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 19 January 2004
Pages: 245
PDF File Size: 18.50 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.76 Mb
ISBN: 388-7-51784-976-4
Downloads: 3274
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Maujar

Yes [Article 1 1 a ].

Key CISG provisions at issue: Cietwc 25 ; 35 ; 36 ; 49 ; 74 [Also cited: The Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Commission [hereafter, the “Arbitration Rules”], which took effect on 1 May,apply to this case.

On 17 Maythe Secretariat of the Arbitration Commission by express mail served the [Seller] and the [Buyer] the Arbitration Notice, the Arbitration Rules and the Arbitrators List, and also served the [Seller] the [Buyer]’s arbitration application and attachments. The [Buyer] appointed Mr. Because the [Buyer] and the [Seller] did not jointly appoint a Presiding Arbitrator within the time limit, pursuant to the Arbitration Rules, the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission appointed Mr.

On 27 Junethese three arbitrators formed an Arbitration Tribunal to hear this case. On 16 Augustthe Arbitration Tribunal opened the court session in Beijing. Each party’s representatives appeared in the court session, and stated their opinion and facts, presented evidentiary material and submitted pertinent evidence, answered the Arbitration Tribunal’s questions, and made arguments regarding pertinent facts and law.

After the court session, each party submitted its Attorneys’ Opinion to the Arbitration Tribunal and evidentiary material, and also filed a written opinion cross-examining the evidence.

Based on the facts verified in the court session and all written material, the Arbitration Tribunal entered this award by consent. Thereafter, on that same day, the [Buyer], which was entrusted by AAA, executed the Contract with the [Seller] that is the subject of this case. After signing the Contract, the [Buyer] paid the contract price as stipulated in the Contract. The [Buyer] and the [Seller] failed to resolve the dispute by negotiation.

Thereafter, the [Buyer] filed this arbitration application. The total amount is RMB 96, The ccietac should bear the arbitration fee. Thereafter, the [Buyer] and the [Seller] signed the Contract that is the subject of this case. After the explosion of the furnace, the [Buyer] immediately requested the China Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau the “Bureau” to conduct an inspection. The Bureau issued an Inspection Certificate on 26 March It stated that “the [Seller] should bear full liability for the explosion of the heat transfer ciefac furnace during the process of adjustment and test.

Therefore, the [Seller] should be held fully liable for any damages which the [Buyer] incurred. The [Seller] would fulfill its contractual obligations only when it completed its duty of adjusting and testing, warranty, training and cietzc complying goods pursuant to the Contract.

The [Seller] alleged that the Contract had been fully performed, and that there was no legal citac to revoke the Contract. The aforementioned stipulations demonstrate that the parties agreed that the Ciehac Agreement was part of the Contract that is the subject of this case, and was equally valid with the Contract.

Pursuant to CIF A5 Transfer of Risk of INCOTERMwhich states that “the seller must bear rukes risks of loss of or damage to the goods until such time as they have rulws the ship’s rail at the port of shipment,” the [Buyer] should bear the risk when the Heat transfer oil furnace passed the ship’s rail. As to the issue of whether the Contract had been fully performed, it should be determined by the rights and obligations stipulated in the Contract.

Therefore, the goods’ passing the ship’s rail did not mean that the [Seller] had completely fully performed its cietqc under the Contract. The [Seller] fulfilled its contractual obligations only when it completed its duty of adjusting and testing, warranty, training and delivering complying goods pursuant to the Contract.

The [Seller] failed to adjust and test the furnace to normal operation. Therefore, the [Seller] had not completed its contractual duty, and the Contract had still been in the process of performance. This demonstrated that the quality of the furnace did not satisfy the requirements stipulated in the Contract.

  EL ARENERO HOFFMAN PDF

CIETAC arbitration ( Rules): flowchart | Practical Law

Therefore, the [Seller] fundamentally breached the Contract, and the [Buyer] was entitled to revoke the Contract. The reason the [Buyer] signed the Contract was to purchase a Heat transfer oil furnace which satisfied the quality and data requirements, not simply the equipment itself.

The [Buyer] intended to purchase a Heat transfer oil furnace ciettac satisfied the quality and data requirements. For this purpose the parties stipulated the specifications of the furnace such as the temperature of exit should be F, etc.

After the [Seller] promised to comply with the stipulations, the [Buyer] executed the Contract. The furnace delivered by the [Seller] did not comply with the Contract. However, ruls [Seller]’s adjusting and testing record showed that the temperature of the heat transfer oil furnace waved from C to C, and could not reach the stipulated temperature. The explosion of the furnace proved that the [Seller] failed to deliver the goods complying with the [Buyer]’s specification, design and usage requirements.

CIETAC Arbitration Rules

The furnace exploded when tested and cieta. The [Buyer]’s purpose of the Contract could not be fulfilled; therefore, the [Seller] fundamentally breached the Contract. The furnace exploded when the [Seller] tested and adjusted it.

The explosion caused the core part to fly 9. Since the core parts were broken, the entire furnace could not be used. The explosion caused the [Buyer]’s rrules of the Contract to be frustrated.

The [Seller] fundamentally breached the Contract. The explosion of the furnace constituted the [Seller]’s fundamental breach of the Contract, and caused that the [Buyer] had to buy vietac furnace from another supplier after days’ stoppage of operations. The [Buyer]’s purpose to execute the Contract could not be fulfilled.

Article of the Contract Law provides that “[w]here the purpose of the contract is frustrated due to failure of the subject matter to meet the quality requirements, the buyer may reject the subject matter or terminate the contract. It was unjustified that the [Seller] doubted the Bureau’s qualification, when the Inspection Certificate issued by the Bureau was against the [Seller]. The [Seller] should honor the stipulation of the Contract. The [Buyer] applied for inspection with the Bureau on the express ground and was entitled to claim damages from the [Seller] with the Inspection Certificate.

The Inspection Certificate was the basis for claim stipulated in the Contract. Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of the Contract, after the explosion the [Buyer] was entitled to request the Bureau to conduct an inspection and to claim damages based on the Inspection Certificate.

When the Contract was executed, the function of the Bureau had already been determined. The [Seller] had full knowledge of the Bureau’s function. It was the parties’ true intent to stipulate the Bureau as the inspection agency when they knew the Bureau’s function.

It was the parties’ true intent to invite the Bureau to inspect the explosion, and the parties should honor their stipulation. The 205 and Container Pressure Inspection Center was not an agency designated by law to inspect furnace accidents. Under the supervision of National Quality Supervision and Quarantine Bureau Furnace Pressure Container Safety Supervision Bureau, the Center is authorized to organize inspection of severe accidents of furnace, pressure containers, pressure tunnels and special facilities notes-severe accidents: In view of the above, the Center was not an inspection center provided by law, and it was not the Center’s legal responsibility to inspect accidents.

Before the process of testing and adjusting the furnace, the [Seller]’s engineer and staff fully inspected the facilities and equipments, and did not raise any issue regarding the natural gas, pressure, filter, etc.

The [Seller] bore the duty of inspection before testing and adjusting the furnace. However, it did not raise any issue of the nature gas. However, the [Seller] did not raise any issue regarding the natural gas.

The [Seller] alleged that some explosion accidents in other factories were caused by natural gas this was not verified. Accordingly, it should have paid full attention to the elements of natural gas. In the court session the [Seller] alleged several times that some explosion cierac in other factories were caused by natural gas. If this allegation were true, the [Seller] as a professional manufacturer should have paid special attention rulrs such problems, and should have improved design and paid attention during the process of testing and adjusting.

However, the [Seller] failed to do so, but only alleged other factories’ explosion accidents as an excuse to reduce its own liabilities. During the eight days’ testing and adjusting, the furnace did not explode due to natural gas, and the [Seller] did not raise any issue of the natural gas. During the nine days’ testing and adjusting, i. Although the furnace did not run normally, it did not explode. On September 27 when the furnace stopped rulez, it did not explode.

  ATMLH 940 PDF

During the eight days’ testing and adjusting, the furnace did not explode. Why had not the furnace exploded during the eight days’ use of the nature gas, but did explode 205 the ninth day due to the natural gas? Therefore, it was groundless for the [Seller] to doubt the element of the natural gas. In fact, the quality of the natural gas supplied by the [Buyer] was good.

In addition, the [Buyer] purchased another furnace one year after the explosion, and still used the natural gas, and the furnace ran normally.

CIETAC Current Arbitration Rules-China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission

The natural gas filtered by the V Filter had been satisfying the requirements of all furnaces and equipment since when the AAA-Sub started operation, and no accidents have ever taken place. Before the furnace started running, the [Seller] bore the duty to inspect whether the quality of the system and natural gas had been reached.

With the knowledge of some explosion accidents at other factories, the [Seller] should have intensively inspected the natural gas. When the explosion occurred, the [Seller] should bear the burden of proof regarding whether the quality of the natural gas had been satisfied when inspected.

However, the [Seller] did not raise any issue of the natural gas. Therefore, when the [Seller] started running the furnace, it showed that the natural gas, pressure and filter satisfied the requirements of the furnace. Secondif there was any problem which might affect the operation of the furnace, the [Seller] should have immediately raised the issue. When knowing that some explosion accidents in other factories were caused by natural gas this had not been verifiedthe [Seller] as a professional manufacturer should have paid special attention to such problems, and should have improved design and paid attention during process of the natural gas, and should not started running the furnace to enlarge damages.

When the furnace exploded during the process of testing and adjusting, the [Seller] should bear the burden of proof regarding the inspection result. The Inspection Record submitted by the [Buyer] indicated that before the explosion and during the process of installing, inspecting, testing and filtering, the furnace was completely under the [Seller]’s operation and control, and the [Buyer] could not know the status of operation.

Therefore, the [Seller] should bear the burden of proof with respect to cause of the explosion. In the Technology Agreement the [Seller] expressly promised to “completely satisfy the user’s design requirements” and to “provide a Heat transfer oil furnace to completely satisfy the design and usage requirements.

Therefore, the [Seller] should bear the burden of proof of the cause of explosion. The explosion itself proved that the furnace had severe quality problems. The [Seller] should be completely liable for the explosion if it could not prove that the explosion was caused by other reasons.

The reason the [Buyer] executed the Contract was to purchase a furnace that would comply with the quality standards stipulated in the Contract, and should run normally.

However, the explosion caused the [Buyer] to incur severe economic loss including direct loss of 26 tons of heat transfer oil and other direct economic loss of RMB 1,, and also caused the [Buyer]’s stoppage of operation for about half a year and indirect economic loss of RMB 10, During about three years after the explosion, the [Buyer] and AAA actively contacted the [Seller] several times requesting either to exchange the goods or refund the contract price as stipulated in the Contract.

However, the [Seller] neither actively negotiated with the [Buyer] to resolve the dispute nor took any remedial measures as stipulated in the Contract, and ignored the [Buyer]’s requests.