SELECTED CASES BY TYPE OF CONTRACT INVOLVED

KEYWORD Count of Cases
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS 11
AGENCY CONTRACT 6
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT 6
ASSIGNMENT CONTRACT 1
BANK GUARANTEE 2
BARTER AGREEMENT 2
BUILD-OPERATE-TRANSFER (BOT) CONTRACT 1
BUSINESS PURCHASE AGREEMENT 1
CONCESSION CONTRACT 3
CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT 2
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT 1
CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT CONTRACT 1
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 23
CONSULTING CONTRACT 2
CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION 1
CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE 1
CONTRACT FOR TRANSFER OF FOOTBALL PLAYER 1
CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE OF GOODS 3
CONTRACT ON TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION 1
COOPERATION AGREEMENT 2
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 3
DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 18
EASEMENT CONTRACT 3
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 2
EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT 1
INSURANCE CONTRACT 4
INTER-FIRM AGREEMENT 1
JOINT-VENTURE AGREEMENT 4
LAND USE CONTRACT 1
LEASE CONTRACT 15
LICENSING AGREEMENT 8
LICENSING AND JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT 1
LICENSING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT 1
LOAN AGREEMENT 11
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS 142
MARKETING AGREEMENT 1
MEDIATION AGREEMENT 1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 5
PRE-BID AGREEMENT 1
PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENT 1
SALES CONTRACT 132
SATELLITE CONTRACT 3
SERVICE CONTRACT 36
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 9
SHARE OPTION AGREEMENT 1
SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT 11
SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT 2
STATE CONTRACTS 33
SUPPLY CONTRACT 41
TRANSPORT CONTRACT 4

SELECTED CASES BY NATIONALITY OF THE PARTIES

KEYWORD Count of Cases
AFRICAN 4
ALGERIAN 1
ARGENTINIAN 14
AUSTRALIAN 16
AUSTRIAN 9
BAHAMIAN 1
BELGIAN 5
BELORUSSIAN 7
BERMUDIAN 1
BRAZILIAN 9
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLAND 1
BULGARIAN 1
CANADIAN 10
CENTRAL EUROPEAN 1
CHILEAN 1
CHINESE 33
COLOMBIAN 5
CONGOLESE 1
COSTA RICAN 5
CYPRIOT 6
CZECH 1
DANISH 3
DUTCH 21
DUTCH ANTILLEAN 1
EAST ASIAN 1
EASTERN EUROPEAN 6
ECUADORIAN 1
EGYPTIAN 1
ENGLISH 33
ESTONIAN 2
EUROPEAN 46
FINNISH 1
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) 1
FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION OF WALES 1
FRENCH 35
GEORGIAN 1
GERMAN 21
GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 1
GIBRALTAR 1
GREEK 4
HONG KONG 3
HUNGARIAN 3
INDIAN 8
INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (IFAD) 1
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 3
IRANIAN 10
IRAQI 1
ISRAELI 1
ITALIAN 37
IVORIAN 1
JAPANESE 5
KAZAKH 5
KOREAN 4
KUWAITI 2
KYRGYZ 1
LATIN AMERICAN 1
LEBANESE 3
LIBYAN 1
LIECHTENSTEIN 5
LITHUANIAN 16
LUXEMBOURG 1
MARSHALLESE 1
MEMBER FIRMS OF THE ANDERSEN WORLDWIDE ORGANIZATION 1
MEXICAN 4
MIDDLE EASTERN 4
MOLDAVIAN 1
MOROCCAN 1
NEW ZEALAND 5
NIGERIAN 1
NORTH AFRICAN 1
NORTH AMERICAN 1
NORWEGIAN 2
PAKISTANI 1
PANAMANIAN 1
PARAGUAYAN 18
PHILIPPINE 2
PLURALITY OF PARTIES OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES 7
POLISH 10
PORTUGUESE 3
PUERTO RICAN 1
ROMANIAN 5
RUSSIAN 95
RWANDESE 1
SALVADORAN 1
SCANDINAVIAN 1
SCOTTISH 1
SERBIAN 2
SINGAPOREAN 1
SLOVAKIAN 1
SLOVENIAN 1
SOUTH AFRICAN 1
SOUTH KOREAN 1
SOUTHWEST ASIAN 1
SPANISH 38
STATE OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION 1
SWEDISH 8
SWISS 20
TURKISH 8
TURKMEN 1
UKRAINIAN 26
UNION OF EUROPEAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS (UEFA) 1
UNITED KINGDOM 3
UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION 2
UNITED STATES 38
Arbitral Award
Ad hoc Arbitration (Place unknown)

00-00-0000
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES OIL COMPANY AND THE GOVERNMENT OF A STATE OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION – CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF DOMESTIC LAW OF THAT STATE - ACCORDING TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DOMESTIC LAW IN QUESTION NOT FULLY DEVELOPED – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT IT

INVESTMENT CONTRACT GRANTED FOREIGN INVESTOR A LONG-TERM CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY TO CUSTOMERS IN HOSTING STATE AT PROFITABLE PRICES – DUE TO SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN ENERGY SUPPLY SYSTEM OF HOSTING STATE SUPPLY OF ENERGY BY FOREIGN INVESTOR NO LONGER PROFITABLE – REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 1.4, 6.2.2-6.2.3 AND 7.1.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES.
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, New York 16314

00-00-0000
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS TURBINE ENGINES SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND A SHIPYARD INCORPORATED IN A EUROPEAN COUNTRY - GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF COUNTRY X IN EUROPE

VIOLATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS - CONTRACT INTERPRETATION UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW - REFERENCE TO ART. 2.1.17 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND TO ART. 2:105 PECL TO CONFIRM THE RULE EXPRESSED BY THE APPLICABLE LAW - EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE MAY BE RELIED UPON TO INTERPRET THE CONTRACT AS FAR AS THE COMMON INTENTION OF THE PARTIES CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY THE PLAIN WORDING OF THE CONTRACT
Arbitral Award
London Court of Arbitration

00-00-1995
STATE CONTRACTS - CONTRACT BETWEEN A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND A GOVERNMENT AGENCY OF A MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY - PARTIES’ CHOICE THAT THEIR CONTRACT BE GOVERNED BY “ANGLO-SAXON PRINCIPLES OF LAW” – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL REFERENCE WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLANATION TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 7375

05-06-1996
STATE CONTRACTS - SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND A MIDDLE EASTERN GOVERNMENT AGENCY - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - INTERPRETED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AS EXCLUSION OF THE DOMESTIC LAW OF BOTH PARTIES - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS WHICH QUALIFY AS RULES OF LAW AND WHICH HAVE EARNED A WIDE ACCEPTANCE AND INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS IN THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY

LIMITATION OF CLAIMS - ISSUE NOT EXPRESSLY DEALT WITH IN THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - PARTIES INVITED TO SUBMIT MEMORIALS ON SUBSTANCE HAVING REGARD TO APPLICABLE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 8540

04-09-1996
PRE-BID AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES SUPPLIER AND A MIDDLE EASTERN MANUFACTURER - GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS USEFUL SOURCE FOR ESTABLISHING GENERAL RULES FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS

AGREEMENT TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH - TO BE CONSIDERED ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - SOLUTION CONFIRMED BY GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AS REFLECTED IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 1.1, 1.3, 1.7, 2.15 [ART. 2.1.15 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)
Arbitral Award
Camera Arbitrale Nazionale ed Internazionale di Milano

01-12-1996
COMMERCIAL AGENCY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ITALIAN COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - AGREEMENT BY PARTIES TO SETTLE THEIR DISPUTE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - TEMPERED BY RECOURSE TO EQUITY

CONTRACT OF COMMERCIAL AGENCY - BINDING UPON PARTIES (ART. 1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

PARTY'S WRITTEN DECLARATION - INTERPRETED AS NOTICE OF TERMINATION (ARTS. 4.1 AND 4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

EXCLUSION OF THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT FOR AN EVENT ON THE OCCURRENCE OF WHICH PARTIES HAD AGREED TO RENEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT (ART. 7.3.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

TERMINATION - CONTRACT TERM INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT AFTER TERMINATION (ART. 7.3.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

DAMAGES - FULL COMPENSATION OF THE HARM SUSTAINED (ARTS. 7.4.1 AND 7.4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - DOES NOT INCLUDE EMOTIONAL SUFFERING AND DISTRESS WHEN AGGRIEVED PARTY IS A CORPORATE ENTITY

DAMAGES - COMPENSATION LIMITED TO FORESEEABLE HARM ARISING OUT OF NON-PERFORMANCE (ARTS. 7.4.3-7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

INTEREST - RUNNING FROM THE TIME WHEN PAYMENT IS DUE (ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

INTEREST - INTEREST RATE FIXED BY THE PARTIES (ART. 7.4.13 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 8264

00-04-1997
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT AND TRANSFER OF KNOW-HOW - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES MANUFACTURER AND AN ALGERIAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (ALGERIAN LAW) AS LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND THE USAGES OF TRADE

BREACH OF DUTY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION - COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF A CHANCE - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3(2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
Ad hoc Arbitration, Paris

21-04-1997
LOAN AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN TRADE ORGANIZATION AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) - IF NECESSARY SUPPLEMENTED BY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

AVOIDANCE OF CONTRACT - PARTY'S CONDUCT PRECLUDING ITS ABILITY TO CLAIM THE INVALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT (VENIRE CONTRA FACTUM PROPRIUM) (ARTS. 3.12 AND 4.3 (C)UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 7365/FMS

05-05-1997
STATE CONTRACTS - CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (IRANIAN LAW) - AGREEMENT BY PARTIES AS TO COMPLEMENTARY AND SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TRADE USAGES - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO DETERMINE CONTENT OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES

HARDSHIP - RIGHT TO DEMAND TERMINATION OR ADAPTATION OF CONTRACT (ART. 6.2.3(4) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS - GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (ARTS. 5.1 AND 5.2 [ARTS. 5.1.1 AND 5.1.2 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

TERMINATION - RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (ART. 7.3.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

INTEREST - RIGHT TO INTEREST INDEPENDENT OF A FORMAL REQUEST BY AGGRIEVED PARTY (ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - DOUBTFUL WHETHER THIS PROVISION CORRESPONDS TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 8223

00-04-1998
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A FRENCH MANUFACTURER AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - GOVERNED BY DOMESTIC LAW (FRENCH LAW) - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL'S REFERENCE TO ART. 2.19 [ART. 2.1.19 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THAT PARTY'S SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT CAN TACITLY MODIFY A CLAUSE CONTAINED IN STANDARD TERMS
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration 9479

00-02-1999
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LICENSING AGREEMENT - BETWEEN AN ITALIAN COMPANY AND ANOTHER ITALIAN COMPANY WITH AN AFFILIATE REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES - SILENT AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW – REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO “USAGES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE” – REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

HARDSHIP – SUPERVENING CHANGES IN THE LAW – HARDSHIP ONLY WHERE CAUSING FUNDAMENTAL ALTERATION OF CONTRACT EQUILIBRIUM (UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ARTICLES 6.2.1-6.2.3).

CONTRACT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD – RIGHT OF TERMINATION - EXCLUDED WHERE PARTIES INTENDED TO CREATE PERPETUAL OBLIGATIONS (UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, ARTICLE 5.8 [ART. 5.1.8 OF THE 2004 EDITION]).
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration 11051

00-07-2001
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN AN ITALIAN MANUFACTURER AND TWO UNITED STATES COMPANIES - ITALIAN LAW AS THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASED ITS DECISION ON THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE ITALIAN CIVIL CODE ADDING THAT "SUCH SOLUTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT CUSTOM OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF WHICH THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ARE AN EXPRESSION"

QUESTION AS TO TIME FROM WHEN INTEREST IS DUE - INTEREST DUE AS FROM TIME THE PAYMENTS ARE DUE (SEE ARTICLE 1282 OF THE ITALIAN CIVIL CODE AND ARTICLE 7.4.9 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration 9994

00-12-2001
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LICENSING AGREEMENT - BETWEEN FRENCH AND UNITED STATES COMPANIES - SUPERVENING HARDSHIP - PARTIES UNDER A DUTY TO RENEGOTIATE CONTRACT - REFERENCE NOT ONLY TO THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT (FRENCH LAW) BUT ALSO TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTICLES 6.2.2 - 6.2.3)
Arbitral Award
Camera Arbitrale Nazionale e Internazionale di Milano

28-11-2002
BUSINESS PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND A LUXEMBOURG COMPANY - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE REFERRING TO A DOMESTIC LAW (ITALIAN LAW)

CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - PARTIES' CONDUCT OR UNDERSTANDING PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT RELEVANT UNDER RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF THE APPICABLE LAW (ART. 1362 ITALIAN CIVIL CODE)

MERGER CLAUSE CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT - DOES NOT AFFECT RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF THE APPLICABLE LAW
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration 11849

00-00-2003
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN AN ITALIAN MANUFACTURER AND A UNITED STATES DISTRIBUTOR - CISG IN PRINCIPLE NOT APPLICABLE - PARTIES CHOOSE CISG AS THE LAW GOVERNING THE AGREEMENT - INDICATION OF PARTIES' INTENTION TO EXCLUDE APPLICATION OF ANY DOMESTIC LAW AND TO SUBJECT THE AGREEMENT TO NEUTRAL AND A-NATIONAL RULES OF LAW

AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT BY MEANS OF LETTER OF CREDIT - DISTRIBUTOR'S REFUSAL TO OPEN LETTER OF CREDIT - AMOUNTS TO FAILURE BY DISTRIBUTOR TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATION UNDER AGREEMENT - MANUFACTURER ENTITLED TO TERMINATE AGREEMENT EX ART. 64(1)(B) CISG

AGREEEMENT PROVIDING FOR ANY ADDITION OR MODIFICATION TO BE MADE IN WRITING - ACCEPTANCE ON ONE OCCASION BY MANUFACTURER OF PAYMENT BY WIRE TRANSFER CONSIDERED NOT TO BE SUFFICIENT TO INDUCE DISTRIBUTOR REASONABLY TO BELIEVE THAT OPENING OF LETTER OF CREDIT NO LONGER REQUIRED - REFERENCE TO ART. 29(2) CISG AND TO ART. 2.18 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (1994) EXPRESSING A "GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE"

NOTICE OF TERMINATION - EFFECTIVE EVEN IF WRITTEN IN ITALIAN AND NOT IN ENGLISH AS REQUIRED BY AGREEMENT IF ADDRESSEE KNEW ITALIAN - REFERENCE TO ART. 27 CISG

NOTICE OF TERMINATION GIVEN BY MANUFACTURER KNOWING THAT DISTRIBUTOR HAS PERFORMED ITS OBLIGATION WITHIN ADDITIONAL TIME GRANTED - NOT EFFECTIVE (ART. 64(2)(A) CISG)

DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BY MANUFACTURER - LOSS OF PROFIT SUFFERED BY DISTRIBUTOR - TO BE COMPENSATED - REFERENCE TO ART. 74 CISG AND TO ART. 7.4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES STATING A "GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF LAW"

INTEREST - APPLICABLE RATE - INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATOR ENTITLED TO DETERMINE MOST APPROPRIATE RATE WITHOUT RESORT TO CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES - LIBOR FOR CURRENCY OF PAYMENT PLUS SPREAD OF TWO POINTS - CORRESPOND TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED RATE APPLIED ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKETS
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration 13012

00-00-2004
CONTRACT BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - SILENT AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW – ONE PARTY INVOKED APPLICATION OF FRENCH LAW, THE OTHER APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT NONE OF THE CONNECTING FACTORS WITH ONE OR THE OTHER DOMESTIC LAW WAS COMPELLING AND DECIDED TO BASE ITS DECISION ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW OR THE LEX MERCATORIA – RECOURSE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES “AS A PRIMARY SET OF GUIDELINES IN DETERMINING INTERNATIONAL RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THE PARTIES’ CONTRACT”.
Arbitral Award
Centro de Arbitraje de México (CAM)

30-11-2006
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A MEXICAN GROWER AND A UNITED STATES DISTRIBUTOR

PARTIES' CHOICE OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS LAW APPLICABLE TO SUBSTANCE OF DISPUTE – ADMISSIBLE WHEN LEX ARBITRI ALLOWS ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO “RULES OF LAW”

NO SPECIFICATION BY PARTIES AS TO WHAT EDITION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES REFERENCE IS MADE – APPLICATION OF THE 2004 EDITION

CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT - AGREEMENT SUFFICIENT – NO FURTHER REQUIREMENTS NEEDED (ART. 3.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

DEFINITION OF NON-PERFORMANCE – ANY FAILURE BY A PARTY TO PERFORM ANY OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT AMOUNTS TO A NON-PERFORMANCE (ART. 7.1.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) .

RIGHT TO TERMINATE CONTRACT - DEPENDENT ON FUNDAMENTAL NON- PERFORMANCE (ART. 7.3.1(1) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER NON-PERFORMANCE IS FUNDAMENTAL - NON-PERFORMANCE SUBSTANTIALLY DEPRIVING OTHER PARTY OF ITS EXPECTATIONS - INTENTIONAL NON-PERFORMANCE - SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT RELYING ON FUTURE PERFORMANCE (ART. 7.3.1(2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

PARTY’S RIGHT TO TERMINATE CONTRACT EXERCISED BY GIVING NOTICE TO OTHER PARTY (ART. 7.3.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

NOTICE BY LETTER WITH RETURN RECEIPT APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE (ART. 1.10 (1) (2) AND (3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

FORCE MAJEURE – DESTRUCTION OF CROPS BY EXTRAORDINARILY HEAVY RAINSTORMS AND FLOODING – NOT AN EXEMPTING EVENT BECAUSE NOT UNFORESEEABLE BY GROWER WITH LONGSTANDING EXPERIENCE IN AGRICULTURE (ART. 7.1.7(1) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

FORCE MAJEURE - PARTY AFFECTED BOUND TO GIVE NOTICE TO OTHER PARTY OF IMPEDIMENT AND ITS EFFECT ON ABILITY TO PERFORM – FAILURE TO GIVE SUCH NOTICE - PARTY AFFECTED LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR NON-PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT (ART. 7.1.7(3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

HARDSHIP - DESTRUCTION OF CROPS BY EXTRAORDINARILY HEAVY RAINSTORMS AND FLOODING – NOT A CASE OF HARDSHIP BECAUSE GROWER TYPICALLY ASSUMES RISK OF OCCURRENCE OF SUCH METEOROLOGICAL EVENTS (ART. 6.2.2 LIT. D UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

HARDSHIP - DOES NOT EXCLUDE DISADVANTAGED PARTY’S LIABILITY FOR NON-PERFORMANCE BUT ONLY ENTITLES TO REQUEST RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT (ART. 6.2.3 (1) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

DAMAGES – AGGRIEVED PARTY ENTITLED TO FULL COMPENSATION FOR HARM, INCLUDING NON-PECUNIARY HARM, SUFFERED AS RESULT OF OTHER PARTY’S NON-PERFORMANCE (ART. 7.4.2 (1) AND (2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

DAMAGES – BURDEN OF PROOF - AGGRIEVED PARTY BOUND TO PROVE CERTAINTY AND FORESEABILITY OF HARM SUFFERED (ARTS. 7.4.3 (1) 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

AGREED PAYMENT FOR NON-PERFORMANCE (ART. 7.4.13 (1) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) – PRECISE AMOUNT TO BE PAID NOT DETERMINED BY PARTIES – DETERMINATION BY COURT ON DISCRETIONARY BASIS (ART. 7.4.3(3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 14108

00-08-2008
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENT TO EXPLORE AND DEVELOP GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES JOINT-VENTURE AND A FOREIGN STATE - PARTIES' CHOICE AS APPLICABLE LAW THE LAW OF THE STATE TOGETHER WITH “PRINCIPLES OF LAW COMMON TO THE LAW OF [THE STATE] AND THE UNITED STATES AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH COMMON PRINCIPLES, [...] PRINCIPLES OF LAW NORMALLY RECOGNIZED BY CIVILIZED NATIONS IN GENERAL, INCLUDING THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN APPLIED BY INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS”.

PROHIBITION OF INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES WHICH ACCORDING TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL “OFFER REASONABLE SOLUTIONS TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF THE MODERN ECONOMY IN LIGHT OF THE EXPERIENCE OF SOME OF THE MAJOR LEGAL SYSTEMS”.

LIMITATION PERIOD - DAY FROM WHICH PERIOD STARTS TO RUN - APPLICABLE LAW UNCLEAR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 10.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
Ad hoc Arbitration, The Hague

30-03-2010
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO UNITED STATES COMPANIES AND THE ECUADORIAN GOVERNMENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW AS WELL AS ECUADORIAN LAW)

LOSS OF A CHANCE – CRITERION FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IN CASE OF BREACH OF THE BIT DUE TO DENIAL OF JUSTICE – REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(2) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES – ACCORDING TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ONLY ADMISSIBLE WHERE AMOUNT OF LOSS NOT DETERMINABLE – REFERENCE TO COMMENT 2 TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

FORCE MAJEURE – HARDSHIP – DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN A JUST AND EQUITABLE MANNER OF THE LOSSES AND GAINS RESULTING FROM UNFORESEEABLE EVENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (COMMENT ARTICLES 7.1.7 AND TO ARTICLES 6.2.2 – 6.2.3(2)) AND TO PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW (ARTICLE 6:111(3)(B)) AS A MEANS TO INTERPRET ECUADORIAN LAW (ARTICLE 1563 ECUADORIAN CIVIL CODE)
Arbitral Award
International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation

23-08-2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL APPLIED RUSSIAN LAW AND, AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES COMPANY, ALSO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Belarus
Supreme Economic Court of the Republic of Belarus

20-05-2003
SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES AND A BELORUSSIAN COMPANY - GOVERNED BY BELORUSSIAN LAW

CISG APPLICABLE SINCE PARTIES SITUATED IN TWO CONTRACTING STATES

NON-PAYMENT OF THE PRICE - SELLER ENTITLED TO INTEREST (ART. 78 CISG) - RATE OF INTEREST DETERMINED ACCORDING TO ART. 7.4.9(2) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Canada
Cour d'Appel, Province de Québec, District of Montreal

16-05-2014
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CANADIAN COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION FOUND UNDER THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (QUEBEC LAW)

INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOR – DUTY OF CO-OPERATION - UNEXPECTED DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED BY CONTRACTOR IN COURSE OF PERFORMANCE DUE TO INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOR AND LACK OF CO-OPERATION BY PURCHASER – PURCHASER LIABLE FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS CAUSED TO CONTRACTOR – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.7, 1.8 AND 5.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SAME CONCLUSION REACHED ON THE BASIS OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH LAID DOWN IN CIVIL CODE OF QUEBEC
Colombia
Corte Suprema de Justicia

08-09-2011
CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA - BETWEEN A COLOMBIAN AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (COLOMBIAN LAW)

EXEMPTION CLAUSES - SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
France
Cour d'appel de Grenoble

24-01-1996
TRANSPORT CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY

STANDARD TERMS - CONFLICT BETWEEN A STANDARD TERM AND A NON-STANDARD TERM - NON STANDARD TERM PREVAILS (ART. 2.21 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES [ART. 2.1.21 OF THE 2004 EDITION])

INTERPRETATION - UNCLEAR CONTRACT TERMS SUPPLIED BY ONE PARTY - INTERPRETATION AGAINST THE SUPPLYING PARTY (CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE) - REFERENCE BY COURT TO ART. 4.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

20-03-2000
STATE CONTRACTS - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT - RECORDED AS AWARD

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT LAYING DOWN "PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT" - PROVISIONS CORRESPOND ALMOST LITERALLY TO ARTICLES 1.7, 3.3(1), 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 5.3, 5.4(1) [ARTS. 5.1.3 AND 5.1.4(1) OF THE 2004 EDITION], 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 7.1.1, 7.1.4 AND 7.1.5(1)(2)(3)OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

07-10-2003
DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES INVESTOR AND THE KAZAKH GOVERNMENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (KAZAKH LAW)

MITIGATION OF HARM – REFERENCE TO ART. 77 OF THE CISG AND TO ART. 7.4.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

04-06-2004
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - BUILD-OPERATE-TRANSFER (BOT) CONTRACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICITY PLANT IN TURKEY - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES - TURKISH CONSORTIUM AND THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (TURKISH LAW)

CONTRACT WITH ESSENTIAL TERMS DELIBERATELY LEFT OPEN AND TO BE AGREED UPON AT LATER DATE - CONTRACT VALID IF PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE BY CLAIMANT TO ART. 2.14 (NOW 2.1.14) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES- ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

19-01-2007
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES-TURKISH CONSORTIUM AND THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

CONCESSION CONTRACT CONCLUDED WITH TERMS LEFT OPEN - ONE PARTY ARGUED THAT NEVERTHELESS CONTRACT HAD BEEN VALIDLY CONCLUDED INVOKING ARTICLE 2.1.14 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASICALLY CONFIRMS

ONE PARTY ARGUED THAT DUTY TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT ENTAIL OBLIGATION TO REACH AGREEMENT INVOKING ARTICLE 2.1.15 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASICALLY CONFIRMS



International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

29-07-2008
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CONGOLESE COMPANY CONTROLLED BY A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND THE CONGOLESE GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

DISPUTE OVER THE LATTER'S FAILURE TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE PRICE OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH THE FORMER

JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT NO CONTRACT HAD EVER BEEN CONCLUDED OR HAD NOT BEEN CONCLUDED IN WRITING - OBJECTION REJECTED - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 2.1.1 AND 1.2 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004

JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE HAD ARISEN WHEN COMPANY WAS NOT YET CONTROLLED BY A US NATIONAL - OBJECTION ACCEPTED - MERE NON-PERFORMANCE AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 7.1.1 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 AMOUNTS TO DISPUTE

DISSENTING OPINION BY ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - DECISION IF AND WHEN TO TRANSFORM OBLIGOR'S FAILURE TO PERFORM INTO DISPUTE UP TO OBLIGEE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 7.1.4 AND 7.1.5(1) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

01-09-2009
APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OF AN ICSID AWARD RENDERED BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF COURTS WHERE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - REFERENCE BY CLAIMANT TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 (3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - STANDARD OF COMPENSATION CONFIRMED BY BOTH ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AND AD HOC COMMITTEE
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

14-01-2010
STATE CONTRACTS – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT - REFERRING TO ARTICLE 54 OF THE ICSID ADDITIONAL FACILITY ARBITRATION RULES RECORDED AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW - APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "A PRIVATE CODIFICATION OF CIVIL LAW, APPROVED BY AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTION WHICH ARE NEITHER TREATY, NOR COMPILATION OF USAGES, NOR STANDARD TERMS OF CONTRACT BUT IN FACT ARE A MANIFESTATION OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW"

CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - ACCORDING TO COMMON INTENTION OF PARTIES - RELEVANCE OF PRELIMINARY NEGOTIATIONS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 4.1 AND 4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

MERGER CLAUSE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 2.1.17 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

DUTY TO USE BEST EFFORTS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 5.1.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

28-03-2011
STATE CONTRACTS – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS - TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM DAMAGES FOR SIMPLE LOSS OF A CHANCE - REFERENCE TO THE EXAMPLE IN COMMENT 2 TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

31-10-2011
DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES INVESTOR AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY (BIT) - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY THE BIT AND "INTERNATIONAL LAW, WHEN APPLICABLE" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES "A SORT OF INTERNATIONAL RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS REFLECTING RULES AND PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY THE MAJORITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS".

DEFENDANT INVOKING FORCE MAJEURE AS EXCUSE FOR VIOLATION OF BIT - OBJECTION REJECTED ON GROUND OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF "PRECLUSION OF WRONGFULNESS" - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 6.2.2, 7.1.6 AND 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES


International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

01-06-2012
DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND THE SALVADORAN GOVERNMENT OVER THE LATTER'S ARBITRARY REFUSAL TO GRANT THE FORMER A MINING EXPLOITATION CONCESSION - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE HAD ARISEN WHEN CLAIMANT WAS NOT YET A UNITED STATES COMPANY

BREACH OF AN OBLIGATION UNDER INVESTMENT TREATY BY OMISSION - EXPLICIT REFUSAL TO GRANT CONCESSION NOT NECESSARY - MERE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO APPLICATION SUFFICIENT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.1 UNDIROIT PRINCIPLES
Iranian-U.S. Arbitral Tribunal
Iranian-U.S. Arbitral Tribunal (Full Tribunal)

02-07-2014
DISPUTE BETWEEN IRAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONCERNING ALLEGED BREACH BY UNITED STATES OF ITS OBLIGATION UNDER ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE 1981 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION ESTABLISHING THE IRAN-UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – ACCORDING TO ARTICLE V OF THE 1981 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION TRIBUNAL BOUND TO “DECIDE ALL CASES ON THE BASIS OF RESPECT FOR LAW, APPLYING SUCH CHOICE OF LAW RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINES TO BE APPLICABLE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT USAGES OF TRADE, CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES”

UNITED STATES ORDERED TO PAY IRAN DAMAGES PLUS INTEREST – INTEREST CALCULATED “AT AN ANNUAL RATE EQUAL TO THE AVERAGE PRIME BANK LENDING RATE IN THE UNITED STATES” – TRIBUNAL SO DECIDED “[…] ALSO MINDFUL OF ARTICLE 7.4.9 (2) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2010”
Switzerland
Bundesgericht

16-12-2009
LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A SOUTH AFRICAN COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF "DOMESTIC SWISS LAW" - APPLICATION OF CISG EXCLUDED

CONTRACT PROVIDING TERMINATION IN CASE OF "MATERIAL BREACH" - CONCEPT OF "MATERIAL BREACH" UNKNOWN IN DOMESTIC SWISS LAW - INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 25 CISG AND ARTICLE 7.3.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

CONTRACT INTERPRETATION UNDER DOMESTIC SWISS LAW - ABSENT A COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON - INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS - CISG AND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF DETERMINING UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON
USA
United States District Court, S.D. California

07-12-1998
STATE CONTRACTS - CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE

REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A SOURCE OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND TRADE USAGES WITHOUT EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION BY PARTIES DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE V (1) (C) OF THE 1958 NEW YORK CONVENTION
USA
Administrative Determination; Overseas Private Investment Corp.

08-02-2005
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LICENSING AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES INVESTOR AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT

ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION BY U.S. GOVERNMENTAL INSURANCE AGENCY ON EXPROPRIATION CLAIM - QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A VALID CONTRACT HAD BEEN CONCLUDED BETWEEN UNITED STATES INVESTOR AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO THE TWO CRITERIA SET OUT IN ART. 2.1.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
URUGUAYAN 3
UZBEK 1
VENEZUELAN 3
VIETNAMESE 1
WEST INDIAN 2
WESTERN EUROPEAN 2

SELECTED CASES BY DOMESTIC LAW INVOLVED

KEYWORD Count of Cases
ALGERIAN LAW 1
ARGENTINIAN LAW 8
AUSTRALIAN LAW 14
AUSTRIAN LAW 3
BELORUSSIAN LAW 6
BRAZILIAN LAW 4
CHINESE LAW 14
COLOMBIAN LAW 5
COSTA RICAN LAW 4
CZECH LAW 1
DANISH LAW 1
DUTCH CARRIBEAN LAW 1
DUTCH LAW 7
ECUADORIAN LAW 1
EGYPTIAN LAW 1
ENGLISH LAW 16
FRENCH LAW 10
GERMAN LAW 6
GREEK LAW 1
INDIAN LAW 2
IRANIAN LAW 1
ITALIAN LAW 21
IVORIAN LAW 1
JAPANESE LAW 1
KAZAKH LAW 1
KUWAITI LAW 1
LAW OF A EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY 1
LAW OF A NORDIC COUNTRY 1
LAW OF THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 1
LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 1
LEBANESE LAW 1
LIBYAN LAW 1
LITHUANIAN LAW 16
MEXICAN LAW 2
NEW ZEALAND LAW 5
NORWEGIAN LAW 2
PARAGUAYAN LAW 18
POLISH LAW 3
PORTUGUESE LAW 3
QUEBEC LAW 3
ROMANIAN LAW 2
RUSSIAN LAW 74
SCOTTISH LAW 1
SERBIAN LAW 1
SPANISH LAW 27
SWEDISH LAW 5
SWISS LAW 11
TURKISH LAW 2
TURKMEN LAW 1
UKRAINIAN LAW 20
URUGUAYAN LAW 3

BY INTERNATIONAL LAW INVOLVED

Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 7365/FMS

05-05-1997
STATE CONTRACTS - CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (IRANIAN LAW) - AGREEMENT BY PARTIES AS TO COMPLEMENTARY AND SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TRADE USAGES - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO DETERMINE CONTENT OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES

HARDSHIP - RIGHT TO DEMAND TERMINATION OR ADAPTATION OF CONTRACT (ART. 6.2.3(4) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS - GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (ARTS. 5.1 AND 5.2 [ARTS. 5.1.1 AND 5.1.2 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

TERMINATION - RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (ART. 7.3.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

INTEREST - RIGHT TO INTEREST INDEPENDENT OF A FORMAL REQUEST BY AGGRIEVED PARTY (ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - DOUBTFUL WHETHER THIS PROVISION CORRESPONDS TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Arbitral Award
ICC International Court of Arbitration 12111

06-01-2003
SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUMANIAN COMPANY AND AN ENGLISH COMPANY - REFERRING TO "INTERNATIONAL LAW" AS THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND THE LEX MERCATORIA - APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE PREAMBLE OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)

PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW - ACADEMIC EXERCISE PRELIMINARY TO A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE - AS SUCH NOT YET APPLICABLE TO INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS
Arbitral Award
Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce

29-03-2005
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A GIBRALTAR COMPANY AND A KYRGYZ STATE OWNED COMPANY -REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

BUYER'S FAILURE TO PAY THE PRICE DUE TO INSOLVENCY CAUSED BY INTERFERENCE BY ITS COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT - GOVERNMENT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES VIS-A-VIS SELLER

INTEREST - TO BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL RULES - APPLICATION OF ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL "TO BE AN APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE INTEREST"
Arbitral Award
Ad hoc Arbitration, Brussels

19-08-2005
STATE CONTRACTS - SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A DUTCH COMPANY AND THE POLISH GOVERNMENT - TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE BILATERAL TREATY FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AND "THE UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW" - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission

17-08-2009
ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION - DAMAGES CLAIMS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW

DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION FOR UNCERTAIN LOSSES - ASSESSMENT AT DISCRETION OF ADJUDICATING BODY - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Arbitral Award
Ad hoc Arbitration, The Hague

30-03-2010
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO UNITED STATES COMPANIES AND THE ECUADORIAN GOVERNMENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW AS WELL AS ECUADORIAN LAW)

LOSS OF A CHANCE – CRITERION FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IN CASE OF BREACH OF THE BIT DUE TO DENIAL OF JUSTICE – REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(2) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES – ACCORDING TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ONLY ADMISSIBLE WHERE AMOUNT OF LOSS NOT DETERMINABLE – REFERENCE TO COMMENT 2 TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

FORCE MAJEURE – HARDSHIP – DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN A JUST AND EQUITABLE MANNER OF THE LOSSES AND GAINS RESULTING FROM UNFORESEEABLE EVENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (COMMENT ARTICLES 7.1.7 AND TO ARTICLES 6.2.2 – 6.2.3(2)) AND TO PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW (ARTICLE 6:111(3)(B)) AS A MEANS TO INTERPRET ECUADORIAN LAW (ARTICLE 1563 ECUADORIAN CIVIL CODE)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

19-01-2007
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES-TURKISH CONSORTIUM AND THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

CONCESSION CONTRACT CONCLUDED WITH TERMS LEFT OPEN - ONE PARTY ARGUED THAT NEVERTHELESS CONTRACT HAD BEEN VALIDLY CONCLUDED INVOKING ARTICLE 2.1.14 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASICALLY CONFIRMS

ONE PARTY ARGUED THAT DUTY TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT ENTAIL OBLIGATION TO REACH AGREEMENT INVOKING ARTICLE 2.1.15 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASICALLY CONFIRMS
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

29-07-2008
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CONGOLESE COMPANY CONTROLLED BY A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND THE CONGOLESE GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

DISPUTE OVER THE LATTER'S FAILURE TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE PRICE OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH THE FORMER

JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT NO CONTRACT HAD EVER BEEN CONCLUDED OR HAD NOT BEEN CONCLUDED IN WRITING - OBJECTION REJECTED - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 2.1.1 AND 1.2 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004

JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE HAD ARISEN WHEN COMPANY WAS NOT YET CONTROLLED BY A US NATIONAL - OBJECTION ACCEPTED - MERE NON-PERFORMANCE AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 7.1.1 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 AMOUNTS TO DISPUTE

DISSENTING OPINION BY ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - DECISION IF AND WHEN TO TRANSFORM OBLIGOR'S FAILURE TO PERFORM INTO DISPUTE UP TO OBLIGEE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 7.1.4 AND 7.1.5(1) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

01-09-2009
APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OF AN ICSID AWARD RENDERED BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF COURTS WHERE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - REFERENCE BY CLAIMANT TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 (3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - STANDARD OF COMPENSATION CONFIRMED BY BOTH ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AND AD HOC COMMITTEE
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

03-03-2010
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION AGREEMENT -BETWEEN GREEK AND ISRAELI INVESTORS AND THE GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF OIL PIPELINES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES AS TO SCOPE OF THE CONCESSION - WHETHER EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUING THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF ADMISSIBILITY - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, THOUGH WITHOUT EXPRESSLY REFERRING TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, BASICALLY CONCURRED
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

16-06-2010
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN FRENCH AND ARGENTINIAN COMPANIES AND THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT – BIT AND GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW APPLICABLE - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

DAMAGES – COMPENSATION DUE ONLY FOR HARM, INCLUDING FUTURE HARM, ESTABLISHED WITH REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY – REFERENCE TO ART. 36 ILC DRAFT ARTICLES ON RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS OF 2001 AND TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

30-07-2010
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN FRENCH AND SPANISH INVESTORS AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - DUE TO ARGENTINA'S FINANCIAL CRISIS ARGENTINIAN AUTHORITIES ADOPTED A SERIES OF MEASURES NEGATIVELY AFFECTING PROFITABILITY OF FOREIGN INVESTORS' INVESTMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY ARGENTINA OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

RESPONDENT INVOKING FORCE MAJEURE AS EXCUSE FOR VIOLATION OF BIT - OBJECTION REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS FINANCIAL CRISIS

REQUEST FOR RE-NEGOTIATION OF TERMS OF CONCESSION - IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS IMPOSING IN LONG-TERM CONTRACTS IN THE EVENT OF HARDSHIP AN OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT ADAPTATION - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 6:111 PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AND ARTICLES 6.2.2 AND 6.2.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

31-10-2011
DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES INVESTOR AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY (BIT) - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY THE BIT AND "INTERNATIONAL LAW, WHEN APPLICABLE" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES "A SORT OF INTERNATIONAL RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS REFLECTING RULES AND PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY THE MAJORITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS".

DEFENDANT INVOKING FORCE MAJEURE AS EXCUSE FOR VIOLATION OF BIT - OBJECTION REJECTED ON GROUND OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF "PRECLUSION OF WRONGFULNESS" - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 6.2.2, 7.1.6 AND 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

01-06-2012
DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND THE SALVADORAN GOVERNMENT OVER THE LATTER'S ARBITRARY REFUSAL TO GRANT THE FORMER A MINING EXPLOITATION CONCESSION - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE HAD ARISEN WHEN CLAIMANT WAS NOT YET A UNITED STATES COMPANY

BREACH OF AN OBLIGATION UNDER INVESTMENT TREATY BY OMISSION - EXPLICIT REFUSAL TO GRANT CONCESSION NOT NECESSARY - MERE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO APPLICATION SUFFICIENT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.1 UNDIROIT PRINCIPLES
Iranian-U.S. Arbitral Tribunal
Iranian-U.S. Arbitral Tribunal (Full Tribunal)

02-07-2014
DISPUTE BETWEEN IRAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONCERNING ALLEGED BREACH BY UNITED STATES OF ITS OBLIGATION UNDER ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE 1981 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION ESTABLISHING THE IRAN-UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – ACCORDING TO ARTICLE V OF THE 1981 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION TRIBUNAL BOUND TO “DECIDE ALL CASES ON THE BASIS OF RESPECT FOR LAW, APPLYING SUCH CHOICE OF LAW RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINES TO BE APPLICABLE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT USAGES OF TRADE, CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES”

UNITED STATES ORDERED TO PAY IRAN DAMAGES PLUS INTEREST – INTEREST CALCULATED “AT AN ANNUAL RATE EQUAL TO THE AVERAGE PRIME BANK LENDING RATE IN THE UNITED STATES” – TRIBUNAL SO DECIDED “[…] ALSO MINDFUL OF ARTICLE 7.4.9 (2) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2010”
Netherlands
Gerechtshof Den Haag

11-09-2013
STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW)

REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE OF ARBITRAL AWARDS APPLYING THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS RULES OF LAW GOVERNING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DISPUTE - REQUEST REJECTED BY COURT (DUTCH COURT)

APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ON ITS OWN MOTION OF ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - OBJECTION THAT ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HAD EXCEEDED ITS MANDATE - REJECTED

LIMITATION PERIODS - A PARTY'S OBJECTION THAT OTHER PARTY'S CLAIMS WERE TIME-BARRED REJECTED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AS THE 1994 EDITION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE

LIMITATION PERIODS - ARGUMENT THAT THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT 2004 EDITION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES REJECTED - RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT EDITIONS OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DENIED