SCC Case 34/1999 - Chapter 13 - 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:
Alain Prujiner, Professor, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Christophe Imhoos, Law Offices of J.-P. and C. IMHOOS & Partners, Geneva, Co-Reporter of the ICC Commission on International Arbitration, Former Counsel at the International Court of Arbitration, ICC Paris.
Originally from SCC Arbitral Awards 1999-2003
1) Introduction of a new party in the arbitration. The seller requested to introduce as party the manufacturer of the goods who had signed a modification to the agreement, but not the original agreement.
2) Availability of separate award and dissenting opinion under the SCC Rules.
3) Applicable law. Whether a stipulation in the contract takes over the CISG.
1) There was not sufficient ground to establish that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the buyer and the manufacturer. The manufacturer could not be brought in as a party to the arbitration.
2) The respondent’s motion to dismiss the arbitration was rejected in a separate award. The arbitrator appointed by the respondent attached a dissenting opinion to the award.
3) The claimants did not base their claims on the contract, but on the CISG. However, since the contract contained specific provisions on remedies for the relevant breach of contract the CISG did not apply.
Parties: Claimants: 1.C1, Importer/End User (China)
2. C2, Agent (China)
3. C3, Buyer (China)
Respondent: R, Seller (Canada)
XIII. SCC case 34/1999
(1) Introduction of a new party in the arbitration. The seller requested
to introduce as party the manufacturer of the goods who had signed a
modification to the agreement, but not the original agreement.
(2) Availability of separate award and dissenting opinion under the SCC Rules.
(3) Applicable law. Whether a stipulation in the contract takes over the CISG.
Observations by Alain Prujiner
Observations by Christophe Imhoos