SELECTED CASES BY TYPE OF CONTRACT INVOLVED
| KEYWORD | Count of Cases |
|---|---|
| ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS | 14 |
| AGENCY CONTRACT | 9 |
| ARBITRATION AGREEMENT | 9 |
| ASSIGNMENT CONTRACT | 2 |
| BANK GUARANTEE | 3 |
| BARTER AGREEMENT | 2 |
| BUILD-OPERATE-TRANSFER (BOT) CONTRACT | 1 |
| BUSINESS PURCHASE AGREEMENT | 1 |
| CONCESSION CONTRACT | 7 |
| CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT | 2 |
| CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT | 1 |
| CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT CONTRACT | 1 |
| CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT | 34 |
| CONSULTING CONTRACT | 2 |
| CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION | 2 |
| 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 | 3 |
| DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT | 6 |
| DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT | 21 |
| EASEMENT CONTRACT | 3 |
| EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT | 2 |
| EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT | 3 |
| INSURANCE CONTRACT | 7 |
| INTER-FIRM AGREEMENT | 1 |
| JOINT-VENTURE AGREEMENT | 7 |
| LAND USE CONTRACT | 1 |
| LEASE CONTRACT | 20 |
| LICENSING AGREEMENT | 8 |
| LICENSING AND JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT | 1 |
| LICENSING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT | 1 |
| LOAN AGREEMENT | 11 |
| LONG-TERM CONTRACTS | 153 |
| MARKETING AGREEMENT | 1 |
| MEDIATION AGREEMENT | 1 |
| MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING | 7 |
| PRE-BID AGREEMENT | 1 |
| PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENT | 1 |
| PROJECT CONTRACT | 1 |
| SALES CONTRACT | 150 |
| SATELLITE CONTRACT | 3 |
| SERVICE CONTRACT | 44 |
| SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT | 10 |
| SHARE OPTION AGREEMENT | 1 |
| SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT | 17 |
| SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT | 3 |
| STATE CONTRACTS | 40 |
| SUPPLY CONTRACT | 50 |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, New York 16314 00-00-0000 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 ICC International Court of Arbitration ICC-FA-2020-226 00-00-0000 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO EUROPEAN PARTIES - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF THE LAW OF THE SUPPLIERS'S COUNTRY - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL APPLIES CISG AS PART OF THE LAW OF THE SUPPLIER'S COUNTRY GOOD FAITH - BREACH OF THE DUTY OF LOYALTY BETWEEN CONTRACTING PARTIES - EXPRESSION OF A GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF GOOD COMMERCIAL PRACTICE REFLECTED IN ART. 1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES GOOD FAITH - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO INTERPRET ART. 7(1) CISG | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration (First Partial Award) 7110 00-06-1995 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY - CONTRACTUAL REFERENCE TO “LAWS OR RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE” – PARTIES’ INTENT TO EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF ANY DOMESTIC LAW IN FAVOUR OF “GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES ENJOYING WIDE INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS” – APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "THE CENTRAL COMPONENT" OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES (CF. PREAMBLE OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) APPLICABILITY OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPLIED CHOICE BY THE PARTIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS THE LAW THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONSIDERS TO BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE ACCORDING TO ART. 13(3)[NOW ART. 17(1) ICC ARBITRATION RULES) | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration (Second Partial Award) 7110 00-04-1998 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY LIMITATION PERIODS - MATTER NOT DEALT WITH BY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES [1994 EDITION] - RECOURSE TO OTHER INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF LAW - HELD THAT THERE IS NO SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLE PRESCRIBING A FIXED LIMITATION PERIOD WITHIN WHICH CLAIMS HAVE TO BE PURSUED LIMITATION PERIOD - CLAIMS MAY BE TIME-BARRED IF PURSUED "WITH UNREASONABLE DELAY" (ART. 1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) RIGHT TO WITHOLD PERFORMANCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW (SEE ART. 7.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)- SELLER'S RIGHT TO WITHOLD DELIVERY OF GOODS IF BUYER FAILS TO PAY THE PRICE MITIGATION OF HARM - GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW (SEE ART. 7.4.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - SELLER ENTITLED TO DISPOSE OF THE GOODS AFTER THEIR STORAGE FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD CONTRACT WITH TERMS DELIBERATELY LEFT OPEN - AGREEMENT NOT PREVENTED FROM COMING INTO EXISTENCE (ART. 2.14 [ART. 2.1.14 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, Geneva 10351 00-02-2001 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - GOVERNED BY A PARTICULAR DOMESTIC LAW SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS TO THE FORMULA FOR CALCULATING THE PRICE - DUTY TO RENEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH - REFERENCE TO ART. 1.7 UNIDROIT TO CONFIRM THAT THAT THE OBLIGATION TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT IN GOOD FAITH IS A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE IN INTERNATIONAL 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 - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS A RULE OF 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 ICC International Court of Arbitration 14581 00-06-2007 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR LEASING EQUIPMENT AND LICENSING TECHNOLOGY - BETWEEN TWO MINISTRIES OF STATE X AND A COMPANY OF STATE Y - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS AN "EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES" ARBITRATION CLAUSE PROVIDING THAT DISPUTES TO BE DECIDED BY "THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION COURT IN SWITZERLAND" AND "IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW" - INTERPRETATION OF AMBIGUOUS CLAUSE ACCORDING TO SWISS LAW AS LAW OF SEAT OF ARBITRATION AND ACCORDING TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INVOKED BY PARTES AS "EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES", TOGETHER WITH EUROPEAN PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT LAW AND CISG - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SIMILAR PROVISION IN SWISS LAW | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 08-02-2008 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A MOLDAVIAN COMPANY - PROVIDING FOR DELIVERY OF PART OF THE GAS TO A THIRD PARTYSILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - REFERENCE BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (AND TO CISG) WITH NO FURTHER EXPLANATION THIRD PARTY'S FAILURE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR THE GAS DELIVERED - SUPPLIER REQUESTS PAYMENT FROM BUYER THAT REFUSES TO PAY BECAUSE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR DIRECT DELIVERY OF GAS TO AND PAYMENT OF PRICE BY THIRD PARTY GOOD FAITH ONE OF BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND 7 AND 8 CISG AS WELL AS TO ARTICLE 5.1.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND COMMENTS 1 TO 3 TO ARTICLE 1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award Corte arbitrale nazionale ed internazionale di Milano 00-03-2008 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - GOVERNED BY ITALIAN LAW - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO STATE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SOLUTIONS ADOPTED UNDER ITALIAN LAW AND INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES PARTIES' DUTY TO COOPERATE AS APPLICATION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH (ART. 1375 ITALIAN CIVIL CODE) - REFERENCE TO ART. 5.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES PROHIBITION OF INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - PARTY PREVENTED FROM TERMINATING THE CONTRACT AFTER LEADING THE OTHER PARTY TO BELIEVE IT WOULD TOLERATE THAT PARTY'S BREACH - BELIEF MUST BE REASONABLE - REFERENCE TO ART. 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DAMAGES - AMOUNT MY BE ASSESSED AT DISCRETION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL IF ACTUAL LOSS PROVED (ART. 1226 ITALIAN CIVIL CODE) - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award Câmara FGV de Conciliação e Arbitragem (São Paulo, Brazil) 09-02-2009 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - ENERGY SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO BRAZILIAN COMPANIES REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF CONCLUSION REACHED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (BRAZILIAN LAW) POWER SUPPLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BRAZILIAN ENERGY TRADERS – UNFORESEEN SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN POWER PRICE - ALLEGED HARDSHIP AND CLAIM FOR TERMINATION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 478 OF BRAZILIAN CIVIL CODE – CLAIM REJECTED - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 6.2.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES STATING THAT THE MERE FACT THAT CONTRACT PERFORMANCE ENTAILS HIGHER ECONOMIC BURDEN FOR ONE OF THE PARTIES DOES NOT AMOUNT TO HARDSHIP | |
|
Arbitral Award Permanent Court of Arbitration 30-04-2009 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A LEBANESE COMPANY AND THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) – CONTRACT REFERRING TO THE “GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM” AS LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT AND APPLICABLE TO SUBSTANCE OF POSSIBLE DISPUTES – APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 FORCE MAJEURE – EU DECISION PROHIBITING EXPORT OF CERTAIN GOODS FROM THE EU TO THIRD COUNTRIES NOT AMOUNTING TO FORCE MAJEURE IF PARTY COULD HAVE OVERCOME ITS EFFECTS BY TRANSFERRING ITS PLANT OUTSIDE THE EU – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT – EFFECTIVE VIS-À-VIS PARTY ASSIGNED ONLY IF THAT PARTY HAS GIVEN ITS CONSENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 19272 00-00-2014 INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CONTRACT - ORGALIME S2000 STANDARD TERMS INCORPORATED INTO THE CONTRACT - CONTRACT GOVERNED BY THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF SUPPLIER'S COUNTRY - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - INTERPRETATION OF THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 4.1 AND 4.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Australia Federal Court of Australia 24-10-2008 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO AUSTRALIAN PARTIES – AGREEMENT DEFINED AS ONE OF SELLER AND BUYER, NOT AS ONE OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT – CONTRACT GOVERNED BY AUSTRALIAN LAW - APPLICATION OF THE CISG EXCLUDED RELEVANCE OF GENERALLY KNOWN PRACTICES AND USAGES OF THE TRADE SECTOR CONCERNED FOR CHARACTERISATION OF NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTIES – REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 9(2) CISG, 1.9(2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 AND § 1-303 UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE COURSE OF DEALING AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING AND SUPPLEMENTING TERMS OF THE CONTRACT – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 9(1) CISG, 1.9(1) AND 5.1.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 AND § 1-303 UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE IN SUPPORT OF CORRESPONDING SOLUTION ACCEPTED IN DOMESTIC LAWS OF COMMON LAW COUNTRIES PRICE REDUCTION DUE TO QUALITY DEFECTS OF GOODS DELIVERED – BUYER’S RIGHT TO PASS BACK TO SELLER PRICE REDUCTION IT HAD TO ACCEPT FROM ITS FINAL CUSTOMERS – EXISTENCE OF CORRESPONDING COURSE OF DEALING BETWEEN SELLER AND BUYER – TO BE PROVED | |
|
Australia Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Appeal 16-12-2009 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO AUSTRALIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND CISG AS MEANS OF INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (AUSTRALIAN LAW) PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS AND POST-CONTRACTUAL CONDUCT AS AID TO INTERPRETATION OF WRITTEN CONTRACT - NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER AUSTRALIAN LAW - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTICLES 4.1-4.3) AND TO CISG (ARTICLE 8) - IRRELEVANCE OF BOTH INSTRUMENTS IN THE CASE AT HAND | |
|
Canada Cour d'Appel du Québec (Montréal) 08-08-2016 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - ENERGY SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO CANADIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (QUEBEC LAW) CONTRAT D'ENERGIE - PRICE OF ELECTRICITY TO BE SUPPLIED FIXED FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF CONTRACT - SUPERVENING CHANGES ON ENERGY MARKET BENEFITING CUSTOMER - SUPPLIER INVOKING HARDSHIP - RIGHT TO ASK RENEGOTIATION DENIED - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 6.2.2 AND 6.2.3 AS WELL AS TO ILLUSTRATION 2 IN COMMENTS TO ARTICLE 6.2.2 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW | |
|
Canada Supreme Court of Canada 20-01-2018 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - ENERGY SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO CANADIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (QUEBEC LAW) CONTRAT D'ENERGIE - PRICE OF ELECTRICITY TO BE SUPPLIED FIXED FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF CONTRACT - SUPERVENING CHANGES ON ENERGY MARKET BENEFITING CUSTOMER - SUPPLIER INVOKING HARDSHIP - RIGHT TO ASK RENEGOTIATION DENIED - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 6.2.2 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW | |
|
France Cour de cassation (Chambre commerciale) 16-11-2022 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A US COMPANY - REFERENCE IN THE CONTRACT TO "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AS APPLIED TO INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL USAGE" DISPUTE BETWEEN THE FRENCH COMPANY AND THE CREDITORS OF THE US COMPANY (ITALIAN AND US COMPANIES) BEFORE FRENCH COURTS - REFERENCE BY THE DEBTOR TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS REFLECTING THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND USAGES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, TO WHICH THE SUPPLY CONTRACT AND ITS PURCHASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERRED - APPLICATION EXCLUDED - COUR DE CASSATION DENYING THE VALIDITY OF THE CHOICE OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS LEX CONTRACTUS IN DISPUTE BEFORE STATE COURTS | |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 30-10-2017 STATE CONTRACTS – LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO SWISS COMPANIES AND THE VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISSENTING OPINION OF ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - COMPENSATION ONLY FOR FORESEEABLE HARM - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 74 CISG DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISSENTING OPINION OF ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - LOSS OF PROFITS CALCULATED AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE PRICE PAID BY THE BUYER FOR REPLACEMENT GOODS OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE MARKET PRICE AT THE TIME DELIVERIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IF REPLACEMENT GOODS ARE NOT PURCHASED - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 7.4.5-7.4.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 75-76 CISG | |
|
Italy Tribunale Padova - Sez. Este 11-01-2005 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A SLOVENIAN INDIVIDUAL AND AN ITALIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE BY PARTIES TO "THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PARIS, FRANCE" AS THE LAW GOVERNING THEIR CONTRACT - INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE TOO VAGUE AND IMPRECISE REFERENCE BY PARTIES TO LEX MERCATORIA, UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OR CISG (IN CASES WHERE CISG IS NOT APPLICABLE) AS THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - NOT VERITABLE CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE - MERELY AMOUNTS TO INCORPORATION OF SUCH NON-BINDING RULES INTO THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENT CONTRACTS - COVERED BY CISG SUPPLIER'S FAILURE TO DELIVER GOODS - AMOUNTS TO FUNDAMENTAL BREACH - BUYER ENTITLED TO TERMINATE CONTRACT (ART. 49(1)(B CISG) - CONDITIONS | |
|
Lithuania Supreme Court of Lithuania 07-03-2012 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - ENERGY SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO LITHUANIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (LITHUANIAN LAW). CONTRACT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD - REASONABLE TIME FOR A NOTICE OF TERMINATION - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 6.199 OF THE LITHUANIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ARTICLE 5.1.8 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Netherlands Hoge Raad 24-04-2009 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - MILITARY EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND THE IRANIAN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET CONTRACT CLAUSE TERMINATION - CONTRACTS TO BE PERFORMED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME - TERMINATION NOT AFFECTING PARTS ALREADY PERFORMED (ARTICLE 7.3.6 (2) [ART. 7.3.7 OF THE 2010 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) | |
|
Netherlands Rechtbank's-Gravenhage 11-05-2011 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY 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 | |
|
Netherlands Gerechtshof Den Haag 11-09-2013 STATE 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 | |
|
Netherlands Hoge Raad 22-05-2015 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY 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 | |
|
New Zealand Supreme Court of New Zealand 10-02-2010 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO NEW ZEALAND COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (NEW ZEALAND LAW) CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND IN PARTICULAR OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS FOR INTERPRETATION OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ART. 4.3) | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District – Yugra 08-07-2008 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN REGIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS OF INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Thirteenth circuit arbitrazh court of appeal 05-06-2009 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW). NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 22-11-2010 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND CHINESE COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FREEDOM OF CONTRACT – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 12-07-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58 (1) OF THE CISG FREEDOM OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Supreme Commercial Court of Russian Federation 01-08-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT BETWEEN A GERMAN COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) CONTRACT NOT EXPRESSLY SPECIFYING COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF GOODS - SELLER UNDER DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE INFORMATION ABOUT ORIGIN OF GOODS DELIVERED - REFERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH AS LAID DOWN IN ART.304 OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND IN ART. 1.7 (1) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Trans-Baikal Territory 12-09-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) OF THE CISG FREEDOM OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 20-11-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 23-12-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Trans-Baikal Territory 27-12-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fifteenth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 21-01-2014 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A SPANISH COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS AND TO ARTICLE 432 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 31-01-2014 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fifteenth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 05-02-2014 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A TURKISH COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FREEDOM OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND TO ART. 432 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 14-02-2014 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 11-03-2014 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Spain Tribunal Supremo (sala de lo Civil, Sección 1ª) 03-12-2008 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO SPANISH COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY SPANISH LAW TERMINATION OF CONTRACT FOR FUNDAMENTAL BREACH - NOTION OF "FUNDAMENTAL BREACH" - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.3.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, ARTICLES 8:101 AND 8:103 PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AND ART. 49(1) CISG BUYER'S FAILURE TO PAY THE PRICE - AMOUNTS TO FUNDAMENTAL BREACH - SELLER ENTITLED TO TERMINATION | |
|
Spain Tribunal Supremo 17-02-2010 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - COAL SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO SPANISH COMPANIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (SPANISH LAW) FUNDAMENTAL NON-PERFORMANCE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.3.1(2)(A) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Spain Tribunal Supremo 06-07-2020 SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR GOODS TO BE MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED – BETWEEN A SPANISH SELLER AND A GERMAN BUYER - COVERED BY CISG (ART. 3(1) CISG) LIMITATION PERIODS (PRESCRIPTION) - MATTER EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF CISG (ART. 4 CISG) - REFERENCE BY PARTY TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS TO SUPPLEMENT THE CONVENTION - APPLICATION EXCLUDED BECAUSE THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES HAVE NO BINDING NORMATIVE FORCE AND ABSENT A CHOICE OF THE PARTIES IN THIS SENSE - DOMESTIC LAW APPLIED | |
|
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 | |
|
Switzerland Bundesgericht 31-01-2012 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - JOINT-VENTURE AGREEMENT AND SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN COMPANY X AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY (Z) - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW SOLE ARBITRATOR ENTITLED TO DECIDE EX AEQUO ET BONO - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - AWARD ANNULLED ON OTHER GROUNDS RIGHT TO DAMAGES - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.1 AND 7.4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - NEED FOR A CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN THE NON-PERFORMANCE AND THE HARM | |
|
Switzerland Bundesgericht 10-02-2021 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - INTERNATIONAL GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - SILENT AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW - REFERENCE BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES SUPPLIER’S RIGHT TO WITHHOLD PERFORMANCE IN CASE OF BUYER’S NON-PERFORMANCE - APPLICATION BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF ARTICLE 7.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - ARBITRAL AWARD CONFIRMED BY THE SWISS FEDERAL COURT ALSO IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Ukraine High Commercial Court of Ukraine 24-11-2010 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN UKRAINIAN COMPANY AND AN UKRAINIAN CITY COUNCIL - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (UKRAINIAN LAW) HARDSHIP - REFERENCE TO ART. 652 OF THE UKRAINIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ART. 6.2.1 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Ukraine Volyn Regional Commercial Court 08-06-2012 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO UKRAINIAN COMPANIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS OF INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (UKRAINIAN LAW) HARDSHIP - SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 652 OF THE UKRAINIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ARTICLE 6.2.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Ukraine High Commercial Court of Ukraine 16-04-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO UKRAINIAN COMPANIES - APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ACCORDING TO UKRAINIAN LAW - EXPLANATORY NOTE OF THE HIGH COMMERCIAL COURT OF UKRAINE OF 2008, STATING THAT UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ENSHRINE THE TRADE CUSTOMS APPLIED IN UKRAINE. APPLICATION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - ACCORDING TO COURT ONLY IF SO AGREED BY THE PARTIES. | |
|
Ukraine High Administrative Court of Ukraine 22-04-2013 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN UKRAINIAN COMPANY AND KAZAKH COMPANY - UKRAINIAN LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE BY PARTIES TO CISG AND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE BY COURT TO CISG AND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER UKRAINIAN LAW | |
|
United Kingdom Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 17-02-2006 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO ENGLISH COMPANIES - CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW - WRITTEN CONTRACT CONTAINING A MERGER CLAUSE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND IN PARTICULAR OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 4.1-4.3) AND CISG (ART. 8) | |
| TRANSPORT CONTRACT | 4 |
| TRAVEL AGENCY CONTRACT | 1 |
SELECTED CASES BY NATIONALITY OF THE PARTIES
SELECTED CASES BY DOMESTIC LAW INVOLVED
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 - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS A RULE OF 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 ICC International Court of Arbitration 14581 00-06-2007 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR LEASING EQUIPMENT AND LICENSING TECHNOLOGY - BETWEEN TWO MINISTRIES OF STATE X AND A COMPANY OF STATE Y - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS AN "EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES" ARBITRATION CLAUSE PROVIDING THAT DISPUTES TO BE DECIDED BY "THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION COURT IN SWITZERLAND" AND "IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW" - INTERPRETATION OF AMBIGUOUS CLAUSE ACCORDING TO SWISS LAW AS LAW OF SEAT OF ARBITRATION AND ACCORDING TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INVOKED BY PARTES AS "EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES", TOGETHER WITH EUROPEAN PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT LAW AND CISG - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SIMILAR PROVISION IN SWISS LAW |
|
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) |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 17146 00-00-2013 INTERNATIONAL CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSNATIONAL RULES AND TRADE USAGES) ARBITRATION CLAUSE - INTERPRETATION - ACCORDING TO PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH, OF EFFECTIVE INTERPRETATION AND OF CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE - REFERENCE TO ART. 4.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
Arbitral Award Permanent Court of Arbitration 04-06-2014 DISPUTE BETWEEN AN AUSTRIAN COMPANY AND THE SLOVAKIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE LATTER NEGATIVELY AFFECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE SECTOR - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY SLOVAKIA OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) JURISDICTION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT CLAIMANT INITIATED COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC THAT WERE PREDICATED ON THE SAME FACTS AND LEGAL BASIS AND SOUGHT THE SAME RELIEF AS IN THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDING IMPLIED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN THE NATIONAL COURTS, NOT IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS – REFERENCE BY BOTH PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.11, 3.2.12, 4.1 AND 4.2) – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AGREES WITH CLAIMANT THAT NO SUCH AGREEMENT WAS CONCLUDED WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATE – REFERENCE BY BOTH PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONFIRMS THAT CLAIMANT HAS WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE SINCE THE PROCEEDING BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 03-04-2018 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN BUYER AND A UKRAINIAN SELLER - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE REFERRING TO "INTERNATIONAL LAW" - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY CISG AND, FOR QUESTIONS NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE CISG, THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES SINCE THE PARTIES EXPRESS THEIR INTENTION TO EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF ANY NATIONAL LAW RIGHT TO INTEREST - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE INTEREST RATE |
|
Arbitral Award Permanent Court of Arbitration 10-01-2019 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN UNITED STATES INVESTORS AND THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT – BREACH OF THE LATTER OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE NORTH AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF A CHANCE - RIGHT TO COMPENSATION - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DAMAGES – COMPENSATION FOR FUTURE HARM DUE WHEN THERE IS A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS – REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 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 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL 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) 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" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL 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) 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) 28-03-2011 STATE CONTRACTS – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 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" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) 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) 12-05-2011 DISPUTE BETWEEN A SWISS COMPANY AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC - CONCERNING MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE LATTER NEGATIVELY AFFECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN THE TOBACCO SECTOR - ICSID ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT) CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT AGREEMENT CONTAINING THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE WAS NULL AND VOID - LACK OF PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE - RESPONDENT CANNOT INVOKE THE VIOLATION OF ITS LOCAL LAW TO CONSIDER ITS CONSENT TO ARBITRATION VITIATED OR NULL SEVERABILITY OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE - CLAIMANT INVOKING ART. 3.16 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ON PARTIAL AVOIDANCE [NOW ART. 3.2.13] - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONCURS |
|
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 |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 18-04-2017 STATE CONTRACTS – SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO ITALIAN NATIONALS AND THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY - CAN BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF COURTS WHERE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - IN CASE OF LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY MUST BE TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION THE PROBABILITY OF THE CHANCE COMING TO FRUITION - REFERENCE TO THE EXAMPLE IN COMMENT 2 TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 30-10-2017 STATE CONTRACTS – LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO SWISS COMPANIES AND THE VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISSENTING OPINION OF ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - COMPENSATION ONLY FOR FORESEEABLE HARM - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 74 CISG DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISSENTING OPINION OF ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - LOSS OF PROFITS CALCULATED AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE PRICE PAID BY THE BUYER FOR REPLACEMENT GOODS OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE MARKET PRICE AT THE TIME DELIVERIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IF REPLACEMENT GOODS ARE NOT PURCHASED - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 7.4.5-7.4.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 75-76 CISG |
|
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 - 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 |
|
Venezuela Civil Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court 02-12-2014 CONTRACT BETWEEN A VENEZUELAN COMPANY AND A DUTCH COMPANY - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - CONTRACT GOVERNED BY THE LAW WITH WHICH IT IS MOST DIRECTLY CONNECTED - TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS, AMONG OTHERS, OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (ART. 30 VENEZUELAN ACT ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW) - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO AS AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES |
|
Venezuela Civil Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court 17-03-2023 BILL OF EXCHANGE - SIGNED BY VENEZUELAN INDIVIDUALS IN CURAÇAO – APPLICABLE LAW IN THE ABSENCE OF A CHOICE OF THE PARTIES – REFERENCE TO LEX MERCATORIA CONTAINED IN THE NATIONAL PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE LEX MERCATORIA LAW APPLICABLE TO A BILL OF EXCHANGE - MONETARY OBLIGATION FOR WHICH THE PARTIES DID NOT CHOOSE THE APPLICABLE LAW - OBLIGATION SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE - OBLIGEE’S PLACE OF BUSINESS” AS THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE (ART. 6.1.6[1][a] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES). |