SCC Case 107/1997 - Chapter 5 - SCC Arbitral Awards - 1999-2003
About the Editors:
Sigvard Jarvin has been involved in more than 215 international arbitrations under the arbitration rules of the ICC, the Stockholm Arbitration Institute, the Dutch Arbitration Institute, the American Arbitration Association, LCIA, UNCITRAL, the Cairo Regional Centre, and other arbitration organizations. He was general counsel to the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris (1982-1987) and member of the Court (1988-1995). He also chaired the ICC working party revising the ICC/CMI Maritime Arbitration Rules (1997-1998).
Mr. Jarvin was the rapporteur at the 1990 and 1998 ICCA Congresses and was chairman of the foreign section of the Swedish Bar from 1999 to 2000, and he is also a member of the board of the Institute of Arbitration Law at Stockholm University and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and the International Arbitration Club, London. He is cited yearly as one of the best arbitration lawyers in France in Chambers Global — The World’s Leading Lawyers , published by Chambers & Partners.
Annette Magnusson, is a Professional Support Lawyer at the firm of Mannheimer Swartling, Stockholm. She was formerly Assistant Secretary General and legal counsel for the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.
Observation Commentary by:
Ivan Zykin, Professor and Vice President of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation.
Originally from SCC Arbitral Awards 1999-2003
Preview Page
Subject-matters:
(1) Applicable law
(2) Contradictory provisions in the contract regarding technical specifications. Nonconformity of goods delivered.
(3) Contractual provision depriving the buyer of its remedies against the seller’s breach of contract.
(4) The Vienna Sales Convention, article 74, and right to set-off.
Findings:
(1) The parties agreed at the hearing that Russian law applies; the choice of Russian law entails the application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (The Vienna Sales Convention).
(2) The sole Arbitrator concluded that the goods did not conform to the Contract and that consequently, there was a breach of contract on the part of Claimant.
(3) Respondent’s contractual obligation to make payment to Claimant, irrespective of any objections to the quantity or the quality of the goods, does not in itself deprive Respondent of the right to react against a breach of contract related to the quality or quantity of the goods or to resort to the remedies provided by law in this respect.
(4) A buyer’s dispute with a third party (a forwarder) was not a foreseeable cost when calculating damages under article 74 of the Vienna Sales Convention. A party’s declaration of a set-off was permissible.
V. SCC case 107/1997
Subject-matters:
(1) Applicable law.
(2) Contradictory provisions in the contract regarding technical specifications. Non-conformity of goods delivered.
(3) Contractual provision depriving the buyer of its remedies against the seller’s breach of contract.
(4) The Vienna Sales Convention, article 74, and right to set-off.
Observations by Ivan Zykin