Click to view: 

Stockholm Arbitration Report (SAR)

Preview Page SAR 2003 - 1

Observations by Alain Prujiner

Subject-matters:
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.

Findings:
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)

Place of arbitration: Stockholm, Sweden

Language of the proceedings: English

Nationality of arbitrators:
Chairman: Swedish
Arbitrator: Swedish
Arbitrator: Canadian