仲裁裁決書中英對(duì)照

1、仲裁裁決書中英對(duì)照仲裁裁決書中英對(duì)照雙方當(dāng)事人：(1)申訴方/反訴被訴方：賣方(2)被訴方/反訴申訴方：買方Parties :(1) Claimant/counter-defendantSeller(2) Defendant/Counter-claimantBuyer仲裁地：Place of arbitration事實(shí)FACTSxx年，雙方當(dāng)事人根據(jù)莫種協(xié)議規(guī)格規(guī)定簽署了3份買賣一種產(chǎn)品的合同。在收到貨運(yùn)單據(jù)后，買方即按合同規(guī)定， 支付了全部合同價(jià)的90%.In xx , the parties concluded three contracts for the sale of a produ

2、ct according to certain contract specifications. The buyer paid 90% of the price payable under each of the contracts upon presentation of the shipping documents ， as contractually agreed.按第一和第三份合同提供的產(chǎn)品符合協(xié)議規(guī)格，第二批貨 物的規(guī)格在裝運(yùn)前就有過(guò)爭(zhēng)議。產(chǎn)品抵達(dá)目的地后重新檢驗(yàn)， 發(fā)現(xiàn)其不符合協(xié)議規(guī)格。為便于脫手，經(jīng)過(guò)莫種處理，最終買 方將產(chǎn)品賣給了第三方，損失慘重。The product del

3、ivered pursuant to the first and third contracts met the contract specifications. The conformity of the second consignment was dispute prior to its shipment. When the product was again inspected upon arrival , it was found that it did not meet the contract specifications. The product was eventually

4、sold by the buyer to third parties at considerable loss ， after having undergone a certain treatment to make it more saleable.賣方提請(qǐng)仲裁，要求收回 10%勺合同余款。買方提起反 訴，聲稱應(yīng)從賣方所索費(fèi)用中扣除買方估計(jì)應(yīng)由賣方賠償買方 的一筆費(fèi)用，即：直接損失費(fèi)、財(cái)務(wù)成本費(fèi)、所損失的利潤(rùn)及 利息費(fèi)。The seller initiated arbitration proceedings to recover the 10% balance remaining due u

5、nder the contracts. The buyer filed a counterclaim alleging that the seller's claim should be set off against theamounts which the buyer estimates to be payable to the buyer by the seller , i.e. , the direct losses , financing costs , lost profits and interest.一、適用的法律I. APPLICABLE LAW(1) 鑒于合同未含有

6、關(guān)實(shí)體法的任何條款，故法律問(wèn)題 應(yīng)根據(jù)國(guó)際商會(huì)仲裁規(guī)則第 13條第3款決定。根據(jù)該條規(guī) 則，仲裁員們應(yīng)適用它們認(rèn)為適合的法律沖突規(guī)則所規(guī)定的準(zhǔn) 據(jù)法則。(2) The contract contains no provisions regarding the substantive law. Accordingly that law has to be determined by the Arbitrators in accordance with Art. 13(3) of the ICC rules. Under thatarticle , the Arbitrators will app

7、ly the law designated as the proper law by the rule of conflicts which they deem appropriate.(2)這是一個(gè)由不同國(guó)際的賣方和買方簽署的在第三國(guó) 交貨的合同。買賣規(guī)定為船上交貨，故風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在賣方所在國(guó)便轉(zhuǎn) 給了賣方。由此，賣方所在國(guó)似乎就成為與買賣關(guān)系最近的管 轄地。(3) The contract is between a Seller and a Buyer(of different nationalities) for delivery (in athird country ) 。 The sale

8、was f.o.b. so that thetransfer of risks to the Buyer took place in(thecountry of Seller ) 。(The country of Seller )accordingly appears as being the jurisdiction to which the sale is most closely related.(3)有關(guān)國(guó)際貨物買賣適用法律的xx年6月15日海牙公約在涉及銷售合同時(shí)，將賣方現(xiàn)行居住地法律視為占支 配地位的法律。買方所在國(guó)加入了海牙公約，賣方所在國(guó) 則沒有。盡管如此，法律沖突法的總趨勢(shì)卻

9、是適用合同主要業(yè) 務(wù)的債務(wù)人現(xiàn)行所在地的國(guó)內(nèi)法。在銷售合同中，此債務(wù)人為 賣方?；谶@些因素，賣方所在國(guó)的法律似乎便成了規(guī)定買賣 雙方之間合同的準(zhǔn)據(jù)法。(4) The Hague Convention on the law applicableto international sales of goods dated 15 June xx(Art.3) regarding sales contracts , refers as governinglaw to the law of the Seller's current residence.(The country of the Bu

10、yer ) has adhered to the Hague convention , not (the country of the Seller )。However, the general trend in conflicts of law is toapply the domestic law of the current residence of the debtor of the essential undertaking arising under the contract. That debtor in a sales contract is the Seller. Based

11、 on those combined findings ,(the lawof the country of the Seller ) appears to be the proper law governing the Contract between the Seller and the Buyer.(4)至于賣方所在國(guó)法律的適用規(guī)則，仲裁員們依據(jù)的 是雙方當(dāng)事人各自陳述的理由，以及仲裁員們從一位獨(dú)立咨詢 人處所得的信息。根據(jù)國(guó)際商會(huì)仲裁規(guī)則第13條最后一段之規(guī)定，仲裁員們也將考慮相關(guān)的貿(mào)易慣例。As regards the applicable rules of(the law ofth

12、e country of the Seller ) , the Arbitrators have relied on the Parties' respective statements on the subject and on the information obtained by the Arbitration from an independent consultant. The Arbitrators , in accordance with the last paragraph of Art. 13 of the ICC rules , will also take int

13、o account the relevant trade usage.二、反訴的可受理性II. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE COUNTERCLAIM(5)仲裁庭認(rèn)為，xx年4月11日的關(guān)于國(guó)際貨物銷 售的聯(lián)合國(guó)公約(通稱維也納公約)是現(xiàn)行貿(mào)易慣例的 最好淵源，即使買賣雙方所在國(guó)均不是公約的成員國(guó)，倘若買 賣雙方所在國(guó)均為公約成員國(guó)，在本案中，該公約不僅可考慮 作為貿(mào)易慣例適用，而且還可作為法律適用(5) The Tribunal finds that there is no better source to determine the prevailing trade usage

14、 than terms of the United Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11 April xx , usually called the Vienna Convention. This is also even though neither(the country of the Buyer ) nor (the country of the Seller ) are parties to that Convention. If they were , the Convention might be applicabl

15、e to this case as a matter of law and not only as reflecting the trade usage.(6)維也納公約已在 17個(gè)國(guó)家生效，考慮用它適 用于國(guó)際貨物銷售中的不符規(guī)格事項(xiàng)有通用慣例，應(yīng)屬合情合 理。維也納公約第 38條第1款規(guī)定買方負(fù)有“當(dāng)場(chǎng)檢查 或叫人檢查貨物”的責(zé)任。買方應(yīng)在注意或應(yīng)當(dāng)注意到瑕疵后 的合理期限內(nèi)通知賣方貨物不符合合同的規(guī)格；否則，他將喪失就上述不符規(guī)格而提起索賠的權(quán)利。第 39條第1款具體規(guī) 定道：“如買方在交貨后兩年之內(nèi)沒有通知賣方，無(wú)論如何，買 方都將喪失在貨物不符規(guī)格問(wèn)題上的申訴權(quán)利，除非此種不符 規(guī)格

16、構(gòu)成了對(duì)長(zhǎng)期擔(dān)保的違背”。(6) The Vienna Convention , which has been given effect to in 17 countries , may be fairly taken to reflect the generally recognized usage regarding the matter of the non-conformity of goods on international sales. Art. 38(1) of the Convention puts the onus onthe Buyer toa examine the g

17、oods or cause them to beexamined promptly " 。 The buyer should then notify the Seller of the nonconformity of the goods within a reasonable period as of the moment he noticed or should have noticed the defect ; otherwise he forfeits his right to raise a claim based on the said nonconformity. Ar

18、t. 39(1) specifies in the respectthat :“In any event the buyer shall lose the rightto rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he has not given notice thereof to the seller within a period of two years from the date on which the goods werehanded over , unless the lack of conformity constituted a

19、 breach of guarantee covering a longer period. ”(7)本案中，買方在合理的期限內(nèi)已對(duì)貨運(yùn)作過(guò)檢查， 因?yàn)樵谪浳锏诌_(dá)之前，一位專家曾被請(qǐng)去檢查過(guò)裝船。買方也 應(yīng)被認(rèn)定在合理的期限內(nèi)，即在專家報(bào)告公布后的8天內(nèi)，就產(chǎn)品瑕疵作過(guò)通報(bào)。(7) In the circumstances , the Buyer had the shipment examined within a reasonable time-span since (an expert ) was requested to inspect the shipment even before

20、the goods had arrived. The Buyer should also be deemed to have given notice of the defects within a reasonable period , that is eight days after the expert's report had been published.(8)仲裁庭認(rèn)為，就本案情況而言，買方遵守了上述 維也納公約的要件規(guī)定。這些要件要比賣方所在國(guó)的法律 的規(guī)定靈活許多。賣方所在國(guó)法律所規(guī)定的買方通知賣方的時(shí) 限特別短，特別具體，在這點(diǎn)上，似乎是通用的貿(mào)易慣例的一 種例外。(8) The Tribunal finds that , in the circumstances of the case , the Buyer has compliedwith the above-mentioned requirements of the Vienna Convention. These requirements are considerably more fle