(1) Conformity of delivered goods (quality complaints).

(2) May prolongation of the delivery term in the issued letter of credit beyond the dates stated in the contract be interpreted as extension granted to the seller for delivery?

Procedure: (3) Who is to bear the costs of arbitration as between the parties, when both parties’ claims were satisfied in part?

 

Findings:

 

(1) The only documents submitted in this case supporting Respondent’s statement are the letters that had been sent by Respondent to Claimant concerning complaints of the quality. The evidence put forward in this respect is not sufficient to prove that the quality of the delivered goods was not in accordance with the contract.

(2) The burden of proof for Claimant being given an extension lies with Claimant. The arbitrator has found that Claimant has not succeeded in presenting enough evidence supporting such statement. The arbitrator therefore finds that the delivery of the goods was made six days late and Claimant has to pay contractual penalty for the delay.

(3) Where Claimant has been awarded a substantial part of its claim, Respondent shall, in relation between the parties, bear the costs of the arbitrator and the Arbitration Institute.