14 Respondent

TEAM CODE: 14R
THE 3RD NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT

COURT COMEPTITION, 2018
Before the
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AT

LAKE CITY, CENTRAL PROVINCE
ANTARIA INTERNATIONAL INC.
CLAIMANT
v.
RACONIAN DEFENCE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ VI
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................. XII
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ XIII
ISSUES RAISED................................................................................................................ XVI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................... XVII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1
ISSUE 1: EXPEDITED PROCEDURE PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY .................... 1
A. APPLICATION OF THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE PROVISIONS U/ART. 30 WILL
VIOLATE PARTY AUTONOMY ............................................................................................. 1
I. The Parties had no intention to be governed by the Expedited Procedure

Provisions u/Art. 30 ....................................................................................................... 1
II. The Parties only intended to expedite the procedure u/Art. 38 of the ICC
Arbitration Rules, 2012 .................................................................................................. 2
B. ART. 30 OF THE AMENDED RULES SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONSENT OF THE PARTIES................................................................................................. 3
I. There are substantial changes in the expedited procedure ....................................... 3
II. Changes in the expedited procedure were not foreseeable ...................................... 4
III. Changes in the expedited procedure will affect the rights of RESPONDENT ............ 4
C. THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION OF
THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE PROVISIONS U/ART. 30 ..................................................... 5
I. The conditions for application of Art. 30(2) are not fulfilled .................................. 6
II. The Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 cannot be applied retrospectively.. 6
III. It is inappropriate in these circumstances to apply the Expedited Procedure

Provisions....................................................................................................................... 7
ISSUE 2: TESTIMONY OF MR. ANTONY MARTYR SHOULD BE RECORDED.. 8
Page | I
A. THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE DISCRETION TO RECORD THE EVIDENCE .......................... 8
I. The Tribunal has a general discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence .. 8
II. The IBA Rules can be applied in the present case ................................................... 9
B. THE TESTIMONY OF MR. ANTONY MARTYR IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE PRESENT
CASE……………………………………………………………………………………..9
I. The testimony of Mr. Martyr is relevant ................................................................ 10
II. The testimony of Mr. Martyr is material to the outcome of the case ..................... 11
C. EXCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY WOULD VIOLATE RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO BE
HEARD .............................................................................................................................. 12
ISSUE 3: RESPONDENT HAS LEGALLY AVOIDED THE CONTRACT .............. 13
A. CLAIMANT HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION OF HANDING OVER REQUIRED
DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 13
B. BREACH BY CLAIMANT AMOUNTS TO FUNDAMENTAL BREACH ............................. 14
I. Breach by CLAIMANT has caused substantial deprivation to RESPONDENT ........... 14
II. The substantial deprivation caused by the breach of CLAIMANT was foreseeable 15
C. RESPONDENT HAS FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT AND THE
CONVENTION ................................................................................................................... 16
I. RESPONDENT only had the obligation to inform about the assistance required from
CLAIMANT .................................................................................................................... 17
II. RESPONDENT notified CLAIMANT about the avoidance .......................................... 18
ISSUE 4: RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES..... 18
A. CLAIMANT BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT AND THE
CONVENTION ................................................................................................................... 19
B. BREACH BY CLAIMANT CAUSED LOSS TO RESPONDENT ........................................ 20
C. THE LOSS WAS FORESEEABLE BY CLAIMANT ......................................................... 20
D. LOSS HAS BEEN PROVED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY ...................................... 21
Page | II
ISSUE 5: RESPONDENT CAN RECOVER STORGAE COSTS FROM CLAIMANT

.............................................................................................................................................. 22
A. RESPONDENT IS NOT BOUND TO PAY THE STORAGE COST AFTER AVOIDING THE
CONTRACT ....................................................................................................................... 22
I. RESPONDENT is released from all its obligations under the Contract and the
Convention ................................................................................................................... 23
II. RESPONDENT had no obligations under the Convention after avoidance ............... 23
i. RESPONDENT had no obligation to preserve the goods ...................................... 24
ii. RESPONDENT had no obligation to restitute the goods ................................... 25
B. ADDITIONALLY, THE STORAGE COSTS CAN BE RECOVERED AS DAMAGES............. 25
I. CLAIMANT breached its obligation ......................................................................... 26
II. Breach of obligation by CLAIMANT has caused loss to RESPONDENT ................... 26
III. The storage cost was foreseeable by CLAIMANT.................................................... 26
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................. XIX
Page | III
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Expansions
& And
¶ Paragraph
ALI American Law Institute
Art. Article
ASA Swiss Arbitration Association
CFR Cost and Freight
United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of

CISG
Goods
ed. Edition
eds. Editors
Engg Engineering
et al. and others
FCA Federal Court of Australia
i.e. that is
IBA International Bar Association
ICC International Chamber of Commerce
ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
Inc. Incorporation
Incoterms International Commercial Terms
ITA International Trade Association
Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Page | IV
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
PECL Principles of European Contract Law
Pte Ltd. Private Limited Company
Pty Ltd. Proprietary Company
Spcl. Special
Suppl. Supplement
U.C.C. Uniform Commercial Code
U.S.A. United States of America
u/Art. under Article
UN United Nations
UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
UNIDROIT The International Institute for Unification of Private Law
US$ US Dollars
v. Versus
YBCA Yearbook Commercial Arbitration
Page | V
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
UN DOCUMENTS
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted on June 21, 1985
UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, (May 2016)
United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods, in force from
January 1, 1988
RULES
IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, adopted on May 29, 2010
ICC Rules of Arbitration, in force from January 1, 2012
ICC Rules of Arbitration, in force from March 1, 2017
AWARDS
China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Case No., CISG/1996/53,
November 18, 1996, (China) ............................................................................................... 18
Daniel Dillon (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States.................................................................... 12
Final Award in Case No. 9187, (1999) .................................................................................... 20
Final Award in ICC Case No. 5946, Seller v. Buyer, (1990) .................................................... 7
Glamis Gold, Ltd., v. United States, (2009) ............................................................................ 11
Final Award in ICC Case No. 6850, Manufacturer Y SA v. Distributor X GmBH, (1992)...... 2
Final Award in ICC Case No. 6379, Principal v. Distributor, (1990) ....................................... 2
Procedural Order in ICC Case No. 5542 ................................................................................. 11
Procedural Order No. 1 in ICSID Case No. ARB/10/5, Tidewater Inc. v. The Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, (2011) ...................................................................................... 10, 11
Interim Award in ICC Case No. 7645, Supplier v. Buyer, (1995) .......................................... 19
CASES
A._ v. World Anti Doping Agency (WADA), 4A_358/2009, First Civil Law Court,
November 6, 2009, (Switzerland) .......................................................................................... 2
Amtsgericht [Lower Court], Case No. 1 C 216/92, October 14, 1992, (Germany) ................. 18
Page | VI
Beziksgericht [District Court], Case No. T 171/95, February 20, 1997, (Switzerland) .......... 23
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court], Case No. VIII ZR 100/11, September 26, 2012,
(Germany) ............................................................................................................................ 22
Castel Electronics Pty Ltd. v. Toshiba Singapore Pte Ltd., [2011] FCAFC 55, April 20, 2011
.............................................................................................................................................. 25
High Commercial Court [Second Instance Court], Case No. Pz. 10784/2010, July 6, 2011,
(Serbia) ................................................................................................................................. 23
Jabsheh Trading Est. v. Iberconsa, Audiencias Provinciales [Court of Appeal], October 3,

2002, (Spain). ....................................................................................................................... 18
Komplex v. Voest Alpine Stahl ................................................................................................. 5
Landgericht [Regional Court], Case No. 2 O 506/94, October 11, 1995, (Germany) ............. 24
Landgericht [Regional Court], Case No. 54 O 644/94, April 5, 1995, (Germany) ................. 19
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Case No. 1 U 486/07, November 21, 2007, (Germany)
.............................................................................................................................................. 18
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Case No. 2 U 27/99, October 28, 1999, (Germany) ... 25
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Case No. 20 U 76/94, May 24, 1995, (Germany) ....... 25
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Case No. 3 U 83/98, January 13, 1999, (Germany) .... 18
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Case No. 6 U 32/93, February 10, 1994, (Germany) .. 19
Oberlandesgericht [Provincial Court of Appeal], Case No. 2 U 2723/99, December 27, 1999
.............................................................................................................................................. 17
Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court], Case No. 1 Ob 74/99k, June 29, 1999, (Austria) ..... 25
Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court], Case No. 7 Ob 301/01t, January 14, 2002, (Austria)21
Pamesa Ceramica v. Yisrael Mendelson Engg Technical Supply Ltd., Supreme Court, March
17, 2009, (Israel). ................................................................................................................. 11
RJ & AM Smallmon v. Transport Sales Limited and Grant Alan Miller, Court of Appeal, July
22, 2011, (New Zealand) ..................................................................................................... 15
Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft X. AG v. Versicherungs Gesellschaft Y., Iere Courcivile,

4P.23/2006, 27 March 2006 ................................................................................................. 12
Page | VII
The International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Russian Federation Chamber of

Commerce and Industry, Case No. 95/2004, May 27, 2005, (Russian Federation). ........... 17
Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of

Commerce, Case No. 375/93, September 9, 1994, (Russian Federation). ........................... 25
X._ v. Federation A._, 4A_600/2010, Swiss First Civil Law Court, March 17, 2011,
(Switzerland) ........................................................................................................................ 12
X._ v. Y._, 4A_669/2012, Swiss First Civil Law Court, April 17, 2013, (Switzerland) ......... 12
TREATISES
ALBERT H. KRITZER & SIEG EISELEN, INTERNATIONAL CONTRACT MANUAL (2012). ............. 19
ERIC A. SCHWARTZ & YVES DERAINS, GUIDE TO THE ICC RULES OF ARBITRATION (2005). .... 6
HERMAN VERBIST ET AL., ICC ARBITRATION IN PRACTICE (2015). ........................................... 1
HOWARD M. HOLTZMANN & JOSEPH E. NEUHAUS, A GUIDE TO UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMENTARY
(1989) ..................................................................................................................................... 1
JAN PAULSSON & GEORGIOS PETROCHILOS, UNCITRAL ARBITRATION (2017) ....................... 5
JAN RAMBURG, ICC GUIDE TO INCOTERMS 2010 (2011). .................................................... 13
JOHN HONNOLD, UNIFORM LAW FOR INTERNATIONAL SALES UNDER THE 1980 UNITED
NATIONS CONVENTION (1991) ............................................................................................. 16
NATHALIE VOSER, THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (2016) .... 2
OLE LANDO, Article 34, in BIANCA-BONELL COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES

LAW (1987). ......................................................................................................................... 13
PHILIPP A. HABEGGER & ANNA VON MUHLENDAHL, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW: SYNERGY, CONVERGENCE AND EVOLUTION (2011) .... 7
RETO MARGHITOLA, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (2015) ...... 11
ROBERT KOCH, REVIEW OF THE CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE
OF GOODS (CISG) (1998) ..................................................................................................... 15
TOBIAS ZUBERBUHLER ET AL., SWISS RULES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: COMMENTARY

(2005) ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Page | VIII
UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, COMMENTARY ON THE
DRAFT CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS PREPARED

BY THE SECRETARIAT (1978) .................................................................................... 15, 19, 21
UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, UNCITRAL DIGEST OF
CASE LAW ON THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL
SALE OF GOODS (2016) .................................................................................................. 11, 13
VICTOR KNAPP, Article 74, in BIANCA-BONELL COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES

LAW (1987). ......................................................................................................................... 26
ARTICLES
Alan Uzelac, Succession of Arbitral Institutions, CROATIAN ARBITRATION YEARBOOK

(1996) ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Andrew Babiak, Defining Fundamental Breach under the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, TEMPLE INTERNATIONAL AND
COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL (1992) ........................................................................ 14
Andrew de Lotbiniere Mcdougall et al., Mandatory Time Limit for Rendering Awards Under
Indian Law: How Good Intentions can Lead to Bad Outcomes, INDIAN JOURNAL OF
ARBITRATION LAW (2016) ............................................................................................... 8
Elizabeth Shackelford, Party Autonomy and Regional Harmonization of Rules in

International Commercial Arbitration, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW
(2006) ..................................................................................................................................... 5
H Patrick Glenn, ALI / UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, UNIFORM

LAW REVIEW (2004) ........................................................................................................ 10
Harry M. Flechtner, Remedies under the New International Sales Convention: The
perspective from Article 2 of the U.C.C., JOURNAL OF LAW AND COMMERCE (1998)
.............................................................................................................................................. 19
Hong-Lin Yu, Amiable Composition- A Learning Curve, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL

ARBITRATION (2000) ......................................................................................................... 2
Howard M. Holtzmann & Giorgio Bernini, Hypothetical Case for use in a Comparative Study
of Arbitration Practice in Various Legal Systems, COMPARATIVE ARBITRATION
PRACTICE AND PUBLIC POLICY IN ARBITRATION (1987) ....................................... 7
Page | IX
Jose Ricardo Feris, The 2017 ICC Rules of Arbitration and the New ICC Expedited
Procedure Provisions, ICC DISPUTE RESOLUTION BULLETIN (2017) ................ 4, 6, 7
Michael Buhler & Pierre Heitzmann, The 2017 ICC Expedited Rules: From Softball to
Hardball?, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (2017) ........................... 5
Nathalie Voser, Overview of the Most Important Changes in the Revised ICC Arbitration
Rules, ASA BULLETIN (2011). ........................................................................................... 7
Pierre Yves Tschanz, The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Geneva’s Arbitration Rules
and their Expedited Procedure, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIOANAL ARBITRATON
(1993) ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Sunday A. Fagbemi, The Doctrine of Party Autonomy in International Commercial

Arbitration: Myth or Reality?, JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW
AND POLICY (2015) ............................................................................................................ 2
Virginia Hamilton, Document Production in ICC Arbitration, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (2006) ................................................................ 10
ONLINE SOURCES
Adam Kramer, Remoteness: New Problems with the Old Test, 3 VERULAM BUILDINGS 21
Albert Jan van den Berg, The New York Convention of 1958: An Overview,
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ............................ 1
Amir Al-Hajaj, The Concept of Fundamental Breach and Avoidance under CISG, BRUNEL
UNIVERSITY LONDON .................................................................................................... 23
Chengwei Liu, The Concept of Fundamental Breach: Perspectives from the CISG,
UNIDROIT Principles and PECL and Case Law, INSTITUTE OF INTENATIONAL
COMMERCIAL LAW ........................................................................................................ 15
Ignacio Corbera Dale, Fundamental Breach of Contract under the CISG, UNION
INTERNATIONALE DES AVOCATS .............................................................................. 11
International Chamber of Commerce, Expedited Procedure Provisions, INTERNATIONAL

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE .............................................................................................. 4
International Chamber of Commerce, Procedure, INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE......................................................................................................................... 5
Page | X
Julianne Hughes et al., New ICC Expedited Rules: Big Change for Small Claims?,
THOMSON REUTERS PRACTICAL LAW ........................................................................ 4
Lucja Nowak & Nata Ghibradze, The ICC Expedited Procedure Rules- Strengthening the
Court’s Power, KLUWER ARBITRATION BLOG ......................................................... 2, 4
Richard Chernick & Barbara Reeves Neal, Expediting Arbitration, AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION ..................................................................................................................... 7
OTHER AUTHORITIES
CISG Advisory Council Opinion No. 6: Calculation of Damages under CISG Article 74
................................................................................................................................... ….21, 25
CISG Advisory Council Opinion No. 9: Consequences of Avoidance of the Contract .......... 25
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ICC COMMISSION REPORT CONTROLLING TIME

AND COSTS IN ARBITRATION (2012). ...................................................................................... 3
Page | XI
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Antaria International Inc., C LAIMANT in the present case, has the honor to submit this
Memorandum in accordance with Art. 4 of the Rules of Arbitration of the International
Chamber of Commerce pursuant to Clause 15 of the Contract between Antaria International
Inc. and Raconian Defence Technologies Ltd. RESPONDENT has the honor to submit the
counter-claims pursuant to Art. 5 of the ICC Arbitration Rules, 2012.
Page | XII
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF FACTS
PARTIES
The Parties to this arbitration are Antaria International Inc. [“C LAIMANT”] and Raconian
Defence Technologies Ltd. [“RESPONDENT”].
CLAIMANT is a company, incorporated under the laws of the country of Antaria. Its primary
product in the aerospace and defence markets is the AI Optra which is a ballistic composite
material used for soft and hard armor, manufactured using AI proprietary technology.
RESPONDENT is a company where the Government of Raconia is the majority shareholder. It

is incorporated under the laws of Raconia, and is a primary supplier of defence equipment to
the Government of Raconia. RESPONDENT imports most of the raw materials from various
suppliers and the Government of Raconia subsidizes the procurement of the same.
CONTRACT
The Parties entered into a Contract wherein the CLAIMANT agreed to sell and the
RESPONDENT agreed to buy 8000 rolls of 45.8 kg roll weight, of 63 inches minimum width
AI Optra at a price of US$ 335.00 per roll of material plus CFR Charges.
The terms of the Contract included:
1. Total price US$ 2,680,000 CFR Capital City to Oceanside Port.

2. Shipment to be made in two equal installments of 4000 rolls each.
3. RESPONDENT was responsible for all procedural formalities in the port of import.
4. CLAIMANT to reasonably assist RESPONDENT in regard to procedural requirements
that may arise during delivery of the Goods.
5. Disputes to be submitted to Rules of Arbitration of the ICC subject to application of
the Expedited Procedure Provisions.
ENSUING EVENTS
2016
21 June 2016 Mr. Udeshwar, Chief Executive Officer of RESPONDENT sent an order to the
CLAIMANT for 8000 rolls of 45.8 kg roll weight, of 63 inches minimum width
AI Optra at a price of US$ 335.00 per roll of material. He further asked for a
formal contract for signature as per their continuing agreed price list, post
acceptance by CLAIMANT.
Page | XIII
23 June 2016 CLAIMANT accepted the order of RESPONDENT and sent the contract as per
their standard terms of business.
20 July 2016 The Contract was signed by the Parties.
2017
12 January 2017 Raconia Times, a reputed national newspaper in Raconia published an excerpt
stating that the CLAIMANT shall be dealing with private defence contractors
in Raconia in supplying ballistic materials.
20 January 2017 Customs Notification No. 14/2017 [“Customs Notification”] was issued by
the Government of Raconia. It stated that for import of Ballistic Material,
Exporter Certificate needs to be filed, duly signed and sealed by the manager
of the business of the foreign exporter.
10 February 2017 The first shipment arrived at Oceanside Port.
15 February 2017 CLAIMANT received communication from RESPONDENT seeking assistance
in customs clearance as per the Customs Notification.
16 February 2017 Mr. Antony Martyr, the authorized representative of the CLAIMANT in
Raconia, filed the Exporter Certificate with the Raconian Customs
Authorities.
17 February 2017 CLAIMANT informed RESPONDENT that Mr. Antony Martyr has filed the
exporter certificate with the Raconian Customs Authorities.
25 February 2017 CLAIMANT was informed by RESPONDENT that the customs officials would
not accept the clearance from an authorized person, and the goods would now
stand confiscated by the Raconian authorities. Further, RESPONDENT already
placed an order with a competitor and avoided the present Contract.
27 February 2017 CLAIMANT responded to the avoidance of Contract, asking for payment of
the goods, and stating that the CLAIMANT was not informed in advance of
the requirements of Raconian customs.
13 March 2017 RESPONDENT, however, responded only by stating that the avoidance of the
Contract was valid and it has no responsibility under law to assist CLAIMANT
in clearance of the goods. Therefore, CLAIMANT can be free to claim the
goods from customs as owner of the goods.
20 March 2017 CLAIMANT thereafter in communication with the Raconian Customs
Authorities, requested for the release of the goods.
15 May 2017 CLAIMANT communicated with the Customs Authorities, informing them
that the goods should not be subject to deterioration and disposal under their
Page | XIV
care. However, the Customs Authorities did not respond.

14 July 2017 RESPONDENT forwarded a communication from the Customs Authorities
stating that the unclaimed confiscated goods would now stand to be disposed
of / sold / destroyed in accordance with Raconian law owing to no claim by
the importer-on-record and storage costs of US$ 5,000 is liable to be paid by
the importer-on-record. RESPONDENT claimed the cost from the
CLAIMANT.
02 August 2017 CLAIMANT files the Request for Arbitration to the Secretariat of the
International Court of Arbitration under the ICC [“Secretariat”].
05 August 2017 Correspondence from the Secretariat acknowledging C LAIMANT‟S request
for arbitration is received.
20 August 2017 RESPONDENT sends Answer to Notice of Arbitration and files Statement of
Defence and Counter-claim.
20 September 2017 Secretariat‟s Notification of ICC Court Decision(s) Setting in
Motion the Arbitration.
05 October 2017 Procedural Order No. 1 is issued.
30 January 2017 Procedural Order No. 2 is issued.
Page | XV
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT ISSUES RAISED
ISSUES RAISED
I. WHETHER THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE PROVISIONS U /ART. 30 OF THE ICC

ARBITRATION RULES ARE APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING
OUT OF THE CLAIM ?
II. WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF MR. ANTONY MARTYR SHOULD BE RECORDED IN
THIS CASE ?
III. WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS LEGALLY AVOIDED THE CONTRACT?

IV. WHETHER RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ?
V. WHETHER STORAGE COSTS ARE RECOVERABLE FROM C LAIMANT PURSUANT TO
DEMAND RAISED BY THE RACONIAN CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES?
Page | XVI
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. The Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 of the ICC Arbitration Rules

are not applicable in the facts and circumstances arising out of the claim
Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 shall not be applied in the present case, as the
Parties could not have intended to be governed by the same as they were not even in
existence at the time of conclusion of Contract. Thus, applying the same would violate
the autonomy of the Parties. Further, as Art. 30 is substantially different from the
expedited procedure intended by the party under the 2012 Rules, it cannot be applied
without the consent of the Parties. Also, the mandatory applicability conditions of Art.
30 are not fulfilled, as the amount in dispute exceeds US$ 2 million, and the Parties have
not agreed to its application. Thus, Art. 30 cannot be applied in the present case.
II. The testimony of Mr. Antony Martyr should be recorded in this case
The Tribunal has the discretion to record the testimony of Mr. Antony Martyr as per the
provisions of the ICC Rules and the Model Law. However, as there is no specific
procedure for the taking of evidence, the Tribunal may use the IBA Rules on Taking
Evidence, 2010 as guidelines. The testimony would prove the prior knowledge of
CLAIMANT and would be relevant in understanding the relevant circumstances of the
case. Thus, the testimony of Mr. Martyr should be recorded in the present case, as it
satisfies the test of prima facie relevance to the case, and materiality to its outcome.
Further, exclusion of testimony would violate RESPONDENT‟S right to be heard, and may
render the award unenforceable.
III. RESPONDENT has legally avoided the Contract
RESPONDENT has legally avoided the Contract u/Art. 49(1) (a) of the Convention as
CLAIMANT breached its obligation of reasonably assisting RESPONDENT during delivery.
This led to substantial deprivation of RESPONDENT‟S expectation under the Contract,
which was reasonably foreseeable to the C LAIMANT. Further, the breach is attributable
only to C LAIMANT as R ESPONDENT had fulfilled all its obligations under the Contract and
the Convention. R ESPONDENT had no obligation to double-check the exporter certificate
filed by the C LAIMANT as it could have reasonably expected that C LAIMANT would have
filed the correct certificate after the Customs Notifications being communicated to it.
Page | XVII
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Further, RESPONDENT informed C LAIMANT about the avoidance of the Contract as soon
as it came to know about the breach.
IV. Respondent is entitled for compensatory damages
RESPONDENT is entitled for compensatory damages u/Art. 74 of the CISG, as there has
been a breach of obligation by C LAIMANT, which has caused loss to RESPONDENT. Due to
confiscation of the goods by the Customs Authorities, RESPONDENT had to purchase low
quality goods from another manufacturer at a short notice. This lead to delay in
performance of its contract with the Government and caused irreparable loss to
RESPONDENT. Further, such loss was reasonably foreseeable to the C LAIMANT, and hence
can be recovered u/Art. 74.
V. Storage costs are recoverable from the CLAIMANT pursuant to demand raised
by the Raconian Customs Authorities
Storage costs are recoverable from C LAIMANT as RESPONDENT is released of all its
obligations under the Contract and the Convention, after avoidance of the Contract. Further,
since CLAIMANT failed to make a complete delivery, no obligation arose on RESPONDENT for
the preservation or restitution of the goods. Thus, even though R ESPONDENT paid the storage
costs to the Customs Authorities in good faith, it can now recover the costs from CLAIMANT.
Additionally, the costs are recoverable as consequential damages u/Art. 74 of the Convention,
as the costs have arisen due to breach of obligation by C LAIMANT, and such costs were
foreseeable to C LAIMANT.
Page | XVIII
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: EXPEDITED PROCEDURE PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY
1. RESPONDENT humbly submits that the Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 of the
ICC Arbitration Rules as amended in 2017 [“Amended Rules”] are not applicable to the
facts and circumstances arising out of this Claim. Application of the Expedited Procedure
Provisions will violate party autonomy [A]. Further, Art. 30 of the Amended Rules should
not be applied in the absence of consent of the Parties [B]. Furthermore, the present case
does not fulfill the conditions for the application of Expedited Procedure Provisions
u/Art. 30 [C].
A. APPLICATION OF THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE PROVISIONS U/ART. 30 WILL

VIOLATE PARTY AUTONOMY
2. Application of Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 will violate the Parties‟

autonomy. The principle of party autonomy,1 which forms the basic pillar of international
commercial arbitration, allows the parties to choose the procedure applicable to their
disputes.2 This principle is also recognized u/Art. V (1) (d) of the New York Convention,3
and is also enshrined under UNCITRAL Model Law and the ICC Rules of Arbitration.4
3. RESPONDENT humbly submits that the Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 should
not be applied in the present case, as; the Parties at the time of conclusion of the Contract,
had no intention to be governed by the same [I], and the Parties only intended to use the
Expedited Procedure under the ICC Arbitration Rules, 2012 [II].
I. The Parties had no intention to be governed by the Expedited Procedure

Provisions u/Art. 30
4. The Parties had no intention to be governed by the Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art.
30. To comply with the principle of party autonomy, the procedure shall be decided by
interpreting the contract in a way that determines the real intention of the Parties.5 Such
1
JEFFREY WAINCYMER, PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 182 (2012)
[“WAINCYMER”].
2
HOWARD M. HOLTZMANN & JOSEPH E. NEUHAUS, A GUIDE TO UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMENTARY 120 (1989).
3
Albert Jan van den Berg, The New York Convention of 1958: An Overview, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, (January 27, 2018, 12:16 PM), http://www.arbitration-
icca.org/media/0/12125884227980/new_york_convention_of_1958_overview.pdf.
4
HERMAN VERBIST ET AL., ICC ARBITRATION IN PRACTICE 105 (2d ed. 2015).
5
Principal v. Distributor, Final Award, ICC Case.No. 6379, (1990) XVII YBCA 212.
Page | 1
intention is derived by interpreting the contract according to the general principles of

interpretation of arbitration agreements.6
5. According to the general principles, a tribunal must ascertain the real intention of the
parties at the time of concluding the Contract.7 It should interpret the provisions of the
contract according to the meaning that reasonable parties, i.e. parties acting in good faith,
would have given to them8 based on their knowledge under those circumstances.9 In the
present case, the Contract was concluded on July 20, 2016. The Expedited Procedure
u/Art. 30 did not even exist at that time,10 and was first announced only in November
2016.11 Hence, the Parties did not have any knowledge of the same at the time of
conclusion of the Contract.
6. Thus, in absence of any knowledge, neither the Parties nor a reasonable person of the
same kind could have had the intention to apply the Expedited Procedure u/Art. 30. Since
the Parties had no intention to be governed by the Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art.
30, applying the Expedited Procedure would violate the autonomy of the Parties.12
II. The Parties only intended to expedite the procedure u/Art. 38 of the ICC
Arbitration Rules, 2012
7. The Parties only intended to expedite the procedure under Art. 38 of the ICC Arbitration
Rules, 2012 which were in force at the time of conclusion of the Contract [“ICC Rules
2012”]. The Tribunal has a duty to find the proper meaning of the words used in a
particular context13 in the Contract. In the present case, even the proper meaning of the
terminology used in the Contract nowhere shows that Parties had an intention to
incorporate Art. 30 into the Contract.
6
WAINCYMER, supra note 1, at 75.
7
Manufacturer Y SA v. Distributor X GmBH, Final Award, ICC Case No. 6850, (1992) XXIII YBCA 37 .
8
NATHALIE VOSER, THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 164 (Stavros L.
Brekoulakis et al., eds., 2016).
9
A._ v. World Anti Doping Agency (WADA), 4A_358/2009, First Civil Law Court, November 6, 2009,
(Switzerland).
10
Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim, ¶1.
11
Lucja Nowak & Nata Ghibradze, The ICC Expedited Procedure Rules- Strengthening the Court’s Power,
KLUWER ARBITRATION BLOG, December 13, 2016,
http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2016/12/13/reserved-for-13-december-the-icc-expedited-procedure-
rules-strengthening-the-courts-powers/ [“Nowak & Ghibradze”].
12
Sunday A. Fagbemi, The Doctrine of Party Autonomy in International Commercial Arbitration: Myth or
Reality?, 6 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY 222, 224, (2015).
13
Hong-Lin Yu, Amiable Composition- A Learning Curve, 17 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
ARBITRATION 79, 94, (2000).
Page | 2
8. In the present case, the Parties used the phrase „subject to application of Expedited
Procedure Provisions‟ in the arbitration clause of their Contract.14 At the time of
conclusion of Contract, the arbitration procedure could be expedited u/Art. 38, which
granted the parties the opportunity to shorten time limits.15 Thus, the use of the specific
words when Art. 30 did not even exist merely shows the intention of the Parties to use a
flexible procedure to maintain appropriate control of time for issues capable of being
resolved in such a manner having regard to the complexity and value of the dispute.16
9. The same provision for modifying the time limits exists u/Art. 39 of the Amended Rules.
Since the provision by which the Parties intended to govern themselves at the time of
conclusion of the Contract, is still available to be used, it cannot be assumed that the
Parties would have agreed at that time to subject its disputes to any new provisions.
Hence, by incorporating the term „expedited procedure‟, the Parties merely intended to
use the provisions under the ICC Rules 2012.
B. ART. 30 OF THE AMENDED RULES SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THE ABSENCE OF

CONSENT OF THE PARTIES
10. Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 of the Amended Rules should not be applied in
the absence of consent of the Parties. Where, there is a fundamental, substantial and
unexpected modification in the arbitration rules to which the Parties agreed at the time of
conclusion of the Contract, application of the modified rules without the consent of the
Parties violates the principle of party autonomy.17
11. Thus, Art. 30 should not be applied in the present case, since; there are substantial
changes in the expedited procedure [I]. Further, changes in the expedited procedure were
not foreseeable [II]. Furthermore, the changes in the expedited procedure will affect the
rights of RESPONDENT [III].
I. There are substantial changes in the expedited procedure
12. There are substantial changes in the expedited procedure. The introduction of the
Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 is an entirely new concept18 which substantially
14
Request for Arbitration and Statement of Claim, ¶12.
15
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ICC COMMISSION REPORT CONTROLLING TIME AND COSTS IN
ARBITRATION 7 (2d ed. 2012) [“ICC Commission Report”].
16
Id.
17
X AG v. Y AS, (2010) XXXVI YBCA 340 [“X AG v. Y AS”].
18
Jose Ricardo Feris, The 2017 ICC Rules of Arbitration and the New ICC Expedited Procedure Provisions, 1
ICC DISPUTE RESOLUTION BULLETIN 66, (2017) [“Feris”].
Page | 3
changes the expedited procedure under the ICC Rules 2012. Under these Rules, the
proceedings before the tribunal, including scope of written submissions and deciding the
time and manner of hearings were determined by agreement between the parties19 and the
tribunal was not permitted to adopt contrary procedural measures.20
13. This position has been substantially changed u/Art. 30, as it grants a broad discretion to
the tribunal to decide the procedure to be adopted in the arbitration proceedings. 21 This
includes the discretion of the tribunal to decide the case based on documents only, or to
limit the number, length and scope of written submissions and witness evidence.22
Further, the provisions of Art. 30 and Appendix VI take precedence over any contrary
terms of the arbitration agreement.23 Hence, there has been a substantial change in the
expedited procedure.
II. Changes in the expedited procedure were not foreseeable
14. The introduction of Art. 30 was not foreseeable, since the ICC had previously refrained
from adopting specific provisions for expedited procedure.24 The ICC commented on the
same stating that the nature of a dispute cannot be known at the time of conclusion of the
contract, and hence, it is not possible to introduce a strict procedure for resolution of
disputes.25 Instead of adopting a formal procedure, the ICC adopted the practice of
issuing guidelines to assist the parties to reduce time and costs of international
commercial arbitrations.26 Thus, neither of the Parties could have foreseen the
introduction of specific Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30.
III. Changes in the expedited procedure will affect the rights of RESPONDENT
15. RESPONDENT‟S rights under the ICC Rules 2012 have been adversely affected by the
Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 of the Amended Rules.27 U/Art. 30, the rights
19
JASON FRY ET AL., THE SECRETARIAT‟S GUIDE TO ICC ARBITRATION 210 (2012) [“FRY”].
20
Id. at 234.
21
Julianne Hughes et al., New ICC Expedited Rules: Big Change for Small Claims?, THOMSON REUTERS
PRACTICAL LAW, (January 28, 2018, 10:45 AM), https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-639-
3106?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 [“Hughes”].
22
International Chamber of Commerce, Expedited Procedure Provisions, INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, (January 31, 2018, 07:04 AM), https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-
services/arbitration/expedited-procedure-provisions/.
23
Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration,
(International Chamber of Commerce), October 2017 at 11.
24
Hughes, supra note 21.
25
FRY, supra note 19, at 416.
26
Nowak & Ghibradze, supra note 11.
27
X AG v. Y AS, supra note 17.
Page | 4
of RESPONDENT to decide the arbitration procedure, including the right to modify the
time limits, has been reduced.28 Further, the tribunal has been given a broad discretion to
adopt the procedure it deems fit,29 and the procedural time table is decided by the arbitral
tribunal itself.30
16. Also, by giving the tribunal discretion to decide the case based on documents only,31 the
Parties‟ right to be heard32 is also affected. Thus, as changes in the expedited procedure
are structurally different and affect the rights of RESPONDENT, the expedited procedure
under the ICC Rules 2012 will take precedence over the expedited procedure under the
Amended Rules.33
17. In light of the central role which the consent of parties plays in international arbitration, a
different standard should apply where the subsequent change is so substantial that party
consent to such a change cannot reasonably be imputed.34 Thus, RESPONDENT cannot be
compelled to accept the substantial changes affecting its rights, without a reasonably
express consent to apply the Amended Rules. Such consent can arise only after the
Amended Rules come into force.35 However, looking at the nature of changes,
RESPONDENT would have neither agreed to such a changed arbitration,36 nor has it
consented to its application.
C. THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION OF THE
EXPEDITED PROCEDURE PROVISIONS U/ART. 30
18. The present case does not fulfill the conditions for application of Expedited Procedure
Provisions u/Art. 30, since, the conditions of applicability under Art. 30(2) are not
fulfilled [I]. Further, the Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 cannot be applied
retrospectively [II], and it is inappropriate in these circumstances to apply the Expedited
Procedure Provisions [III].
28
ICC Rules of Arbitration, (January 2012), Art. 38(1).
29
ICC Rules of Arbitration, (March 2017), Appendix VI, Art. 3(4) [“2017 Rules”].
30
Michael Buhler & Pierre Heitzmann, The 2017 ICC Expedited Rules: From Softball to Hardball?, 34
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 121, 141, (2017).
31
2017 Rules, supra note 29, Appendix VI, Art. 3(5).
32
International Chamber of Commerce, Procedure, INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
(January 31, 2018, 07:10 PM), https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/procedure/.
33
Komplex v. Voest Alpine Stahl, 12 ASA BULLETIN 226, (1994).
34
Elizabeth Shackelford, Party Autonomy and Regional Harmonization of Rules in International Commercial
Arbitration, 67 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW 897, 907, (2006).
35
JAN PAULSSON & GEORGIOS PETROCHILOS, UNCITRAL ARBITRATION 403 (2017).
36
Alan Uzelac, Succession of Arbitral Institutions, 3 CROATIAN ARBITRATION YEARBOOK 71, 89,
(1996).
Page | 5
I. The conditions for application of Art. 30(2) are not fulfilled
19. The present case does not fulfill the conditions for application of Art. 30(2). Art. 30(2) (a)
provides that the Expedited Procedure Provisions apply to all disputes where the amount
in dispute does not exceed US$ 2 million.37 The claim amount in the present dispute is
clearly more than the prescribed limit.
20. Further, Art. 30(2) (b) provides that the Expedited Procedure Provisions apply
irrespective of the amount in dispute, if the parties agree to its application.38 Such
agreement can be concluded at any time,39 after the Rules came into force, either at the
time of commencement of the arbitration or thereafter. However, RESPONDENT has not
opted for the application of the Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30, since at no
point of time has it agreed for those provisions to apply.40 Thus, the present case does not
fulfill the mandatory applicability conditions u/Art. 30.
II. The Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 cannot be applied retrospectively
21. The Expedited Procedure Provisions cannot be applied retrospectively in the present case,
as Art. 30(3) (a) provides that the Expedited Procedure Provisions shall not apply in cases
where contracts have been concluded before March 1, 2017.41 Also, the Expedited
Procedure Provisions are not applied retrospectively,42 as an arbitration agreement
entered into prior to March 1, 2017 cannot be deemed to incorporate a provision that did
not exist at the time of the Parties‟ agreement.43 Thus, as the Contract was concluded
before March 1, 2017, the Expedited Procedure Provisions cannot apply. 44
22. Further, Art. 6(1) of the ICC Rules 2012 is not applicable to the present case because Art.
30(3) (a) specifically excludes the retrospective application of the Expedited Procedure
Provisions for agreements concluded before March 1, 2017.45 Accordingly, the special
provision u/Art. 30(3) (a) prevails over the general provision u/Art. 6(1).46 The ICC has
37
2017 Rules, supra note 29, Art. 30(2) (a).
38
Id. Art. 30(2) (b).
39
International Chamber of Commerce, supra note 19.
40
41
42
Feris, supra note 18, at 63.
43
ERIC A. SCHWARTZ & YVES DERAINS, GUIDE TO THE ICC RULES OF ARBITRATION 76 (2d ed. 2005).
44
CLAIMANT‟S Exhibit No. 3.
45
46
Seller v. Buyer, Final Award, ICC Case No. 5946, (1990) XVI YBCA 97.
Page | 6
itself stated that users should be allowed to learn about the modifications u/Art. 30 before
deciding whether to subject their disputes to it.47
23. Thus, the retrospective application of Art. 30 has been clearly excluded, and the same
cannot be applied to the present case.
III. It is inappropriate in these circumstances to apply the Expedited Procedure

Provisions
24. It is inappropriate in the circumstances of the present case to apply the Expedited
Procedure Provisions. The tribunal, u/Art. 30, can, taking into account the complexity and
relevant circumstances of a case, decide against the applicability of the Expedited
Procedure Provisions.
25. For deciding the applicability of the Expedited Procedure Provisions, the tribunal
considers factors such as the amount in dispute48 and the factual and legal complexity of
the case.49 The present dispute involves claims of large amounts, and the facts involve
complex legal matters as to the interpretation of the provisions of the CISG
[“Convention”]. Further, due to numerous claims made by both Parties, the Tribunal
would have to decide on multiple issues.50 Also, presentation of such claims would
require more time for the written submissions as well.51
26. The Tribunal should also consider the needs of the parties to effectively present their
claims and defenses.52 In the present case, detailed oral submissions would be required
for the Parties to be able to effectively present their claims, including the oral testimony
of Mr. Antony Martyr, which is particularly important53 to the facts of the present case.
27. Further, the timing and management of the case by the tribunal becomes even more of the
essence in expedited proceedings.54 Thus, the Tribunal would not be able to give
47
Feris, supra note 18, at 66.
48
Richard Chernick & Barbara Reeves Neal, Expediting Arbitration, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,
(January 28, 2018, 11:20 AM),
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/dispute_resolution_magazine/March_2012_Chernic
k_Reeves_March_7.authcheckdam.pdf [“Chernick & Neal”].
49
TOBIAS ZUBERBUHLER ET AL., SWISS RULES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: COMMENTARY 359 (2005).
50
Nathalie Voser, Overview of the Most Important Changes in the Revised ICC Arbitration Rules, 29 ASA
BULLETIN 783, (2011).
51
WAINCYMER, supra note 1, at 480.
52
Chernick & Neal, supra note 48.
53
Howard M. Holtzmann & Giorgio Bernini, Hypothetical Case for use in a Comparative Study of Arbitration
Practice in Various Legal Systems, 3 COMPARATIVE ARBITRATION PRACTICE AND PUBLIC POLICY
IN ARBITRATION 19, 121, (1987).
54
PHILIPP A. HABEGGER & ANNA VON MUHLENDAHL, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND INTERNATIONAL
COMMERCIAL LAW: SYNERGY, CONVERGENCE AND EVOLUTION 214 (Stefan Michael Kroll et al. eds., 2011).
Page | 7
sufficient attention to the complexity of the issues, if the Expedited Procedure Provisions
are applied in this case.55 Hence, looking at the peculiarities of the dispute, it would be
difficult to meet the deadlines of the Expedited Procedure Provisions and accord due
process to the Parties at the same time.56 Therefore, RESPONDENT submits that the case is
inappropriate for the application of the Expedited Procedure Provisions.
CONCLUSION OF ISSUE 1
Application of the Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 would be against the intention of
the Parties, as they cannot be deemed to have intended for something which did not exist at
the time of conclusion of the Contract. Further, the Amended Rules cannot be applied without
the consent of the Parties, as there is a substantial change in the Rules which was
unforeseeable to the Parties at the time of conclusion of the Contract. Thus, application of
Art. 30, in the absence of any intention and without the consent of the Parties, would violate
the central element of international commercial arbitration namely party autonomy.
Moreover, the applicability conditions of Art. 30 are also not fulfilled in the present case.
ISSUE 2: TESTIMONY OF MR. ANTONY MARTYR SHOULD BE RECORDED
28. RESPONDENT submits that the testimony of Mr. Antony Martyr should be recorded in the
present case, as; the Tribunal has the discretion to record the evidence [A]. Further, the
testimony of Mr. Antony Martyr is admissible in the present case [B], and exclusion of
the testimony would violate the RESPONDENT‟S right to be heard [C].
A. THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE DISCRETION TO RECORD THE EVIDENCE
29. RESPONDENT submits that the Tribunal has discretion to record evidence as it has a
general discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence [I], and the IBA Rules on
Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, 2010 [“IBA Rules”] can be applied in the
present case [II].
I. The Tribunal has a general discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence
30. The Tribunal has a general discretion to determine the admissibility of the evidence. The
freedom of the arbitrators to determine the admissibility of proffered evidence and to
55
Andrew de Lotbiniere Mcdougall et al., Mandatory Time Limit for Rendering Awards Under Indian Law:
How Good Intentions can Lead to Bad Outcomes, 5 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ARBITRATION LAW 188, 192,
(2016).
56
Pierre Yves Tschanz, The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Geneva’s Arbitration Rules and their
Expedited Procedure, 10 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIOANAL ARBITRATON 51, 56, (1993).
Page | 8
weigh its probative value in the light of the circumstances of the case and arguments of
the parties has been generally recognized.57 The UNCITRAL Model Law [“Model Law”],
which is the law of the seat in the present arbitration, gives power to the tribunal to
determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence. 58
31. Additionally, Art. 25(3) of the ICC Rules 2012 specifically allows the tribunal to decide
to hear witnesses.59 The Expedited Procedure Rules under Appendix VI of the Amended
Rules also confer considerable discretion on the sole arbitrator to adopt such procedural
measures as considered appropriate,60 including holding a witness hearing. Thus,
RESPONDENT submits that even if the Expedited Procedure Provisions are applied to the
present case, the discretion to record the evidence remains with the Tribunal.
II. The IBA Rules can be applied in the present case
32. The IBA Rules can be applied in the present case. The ICC Rules or Model Law does not
provide any guidance concerning the procedure of taking evidence. 61 Further, the practice
of international arbitration being devoid of any binding set of rules governing evidence,62
and the Parties having not chosen any specific rules for governing the evidentiary
procedure, the Tribunal may use the IBA Rules as non-binding guidelines.63
33. The IBA Rules are utilized by arbitrators with a wide variety of legal backgrounds and
designed to supplement the legal provisions and the institutional, ad hoc or other rules
that apply to the conduct of the arbitration.64 They are considered to be an internationally
applicable standard for an effective and relatively economical evidence production
regime,65 when no specific Rules for governing evidence has been provided by the parties
in their agreement. Thus, IBA Rules can be applicable to the present case.
B. THE TESTIMONY OF MR. ANTONY MARTYR IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE PRESENT CASE
34. The testimony of Mr. Antony Martyr is admissible in the present case. According to Art.
9(1) of the IBA Rules, when a request for evidence is made, the tribunal decides the
57
NATHAN D. O‟MALLEY, RULES OF EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: AN ANNOTATED GUIDE 193
(2012) [“O‟MALLEY”].
58
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, (June 1985), Art. 19(2).
59
2017 Rules, supra note 29, Art. 25(3).
60
Id. Appendix VI, Art. 3(4).
61
O‟MALLEY, supra note 57, at 1.
62
Id. at 2.
63
Id. at 6.
64
IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, (May 2010), Preamble 1 [“IBA Rules”].
65
NIGEL BLACKABY ET AL., REDFERN AND HUNTER ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 358 (6th ed. 2015)
[“BLACKABY”].
Page | 9
request on the basis of the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of evidence.66
In the present case, the Tribunal should record the testimony of Mr. Martyr, as it is
relevant to the case [I] and also material to the outcome of the case [II].
I. The testimony of Mr. Martyr is relevant
35. The testimony of Mr. Antony Martyr is relevant to the case. In determining a request for
evidence, the tribunal considers whether the evidence is relevant to the case.67 However,
at the beginning of a case itself, the tribunal is not in a position to make any ruling on the
ultimate relevance of the requested evidence to the final determination. 68 Thus, it decides
on the basis of prima facie relevance of the evidence, having regard to the factual
allegations made by the parties.69
36. Relevant evidence includes not only evidence that is reasonably necessary for a party to
have in order to meet its burden of proof.70 A tribunal also records evidence, if the
requesting party shows that the evidence is likely to be relevant, 71 either in the support,
contradiction, or weakening of an important contention of fact in the proceeding. 72 In the
present case, RESPONDENT shall be relying on the testimony of Mr. Martyr to show that
CLAIMANT had prior knowledge of the exporter certificate compliance. RESPONDENT
contends that this prior knowledge brings to light relevant prior conduct of CLAIMANT
which is relevant to the circumstances of this case.73
37. Art. 8(3) of the Convention provides that conduct of a party is to be interpreted according
to the relevant circumstances of the case.74 RESPONDENT submits that the prior
knowledge of CLAIMANT would be an important aspect required to understand the entire
circumstances of the case,75 and interpret the conduct of the C LAIMANT. Further, the
foreseeability test u/Art. 25 also considers the knowledge of the breaching party and
66
IBA Rules, supra note 64, Art. 9(1).
67
68
Virginia Hamilton, Document Production in ICC Arbitration, Spcl. Suppl. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 63, (2006).
69
Id.
70
71
Procedural Order No. 1 in ICSID Case No. ARB/10/5, Tidewater Inc. v. The Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, 2011 [“Tidewater Case”].
72
H Patrick Glenn, ALI / UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, 4 UNIFORM LAW
REVIEW 758, 788, (2004).
73
74
United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods, (January 1988), Art. 8(3) [“CISG”].
75
Procedural Order in ICC Case No. 5542, in O‟MALLEY, supra note 57, at 56.
Page | 10
circumstances of the case, to determine the foreseeability of consequences of breach.76 It

also inevitably entails a reference to a certain degree of negligence77 in performance of
duties under the contract.78
38. Thus, testimony of Mr. Martyr would particularly be necessary to show that the
consequences of breach of its obligation were foreseeable to C LAIMANT. Hence, the
Tribunal should record the testimony irrespective of reservations it may have over its
usefulness,79 as the testimony of Mr. Martyr is relevant to the case.
II. The testimony of Mr. Martyr is material to the outcome of the case
39. The testimony of Mr. Martyr is material to the outcome of the case. The notion of
materiality of evidence is closely related to relevance, but refers to the importance of
evidence to the outcome of the case.80 In dealing with such requests, the tribunal takes
into account the likely81 or prima facie materiality of evidence.82 The term materiality
means that the tribunal must deem it necessary that the evidence is needed as an element
to allow complete consideration whether a factual allegation is true or not, 83 and whether
the evidence will assist it in determining the final outcome of the case.84
40. The outcome of the present case pertains to the avoidance of the Contract by
RESPONDENT due to fundamental breach of obligation by CLAIMANT. RESPONDENT
submits that as shown above, the testimony would be relevant in determining
fundamental nature of the breach and thus decide the legality of the avoidance. Further,
the prior knowledge of CLAIMANT cannot be proven by the already existing evidence,85
and can only be proved by Mr. Antony Martyr, who could be the best informed person
76
UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, UNCITRAL DIGEST OF CASE LAW ON THE
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS 233 (2016)
[“UNCITRAL DIGEST”].
77
Ignacio Corbera Dale, Fundamental Breach of Contract under the CISG, UNION INTERNATIONALE DES
AVOCATS, (January 28, 2018, 02:17 PM), www.uianet.org/sites/.../CORBERA%20DALE,%20Ignacio%20-
%20Presentation.pdf.
78
Pamesa Ceramica v. Yisrael Mendelson Engg Technical Supply Ltd., Supreme Court, March 17, 2009,
(Israel).
79
80
MAARTEN DRAYE, ARBITRATION IN BELGIUM 303 (Niuscha Bassiri & Maarten Draye eds., 2016)
[“DRAYE”].
81
Glamis Gold, Ltd., v. United States, Award, (2009).
82
DRAYE, supra note 80, at 304.
83
RETO MARGHITOLA, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 52 (2015).
84
Tidewater Case, supra note 64.
85
Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft X. AG v. Versicherungs Gesellschaft Y., Iere Courcivile, 4P.23/2006, 27
March 2006, in 25 ASA BULLETIN 528, (2007).
Page | 11
regarding the transaction under consideration86 as he was regularly appointed by

CLAIMANT for clearance of goods into Raconia.87
41. Therefore, the testimony of Mr. Martyr should be recorded as it would be material in
assisting the Tribunal to determine the outcome of the case.
C. EXCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY WOULD VIOLATE RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO BE

HEARD
42. Exclusion of the testimony would violate RESPONDENT‟s right to be heard. The principle
of due process in international arbitration which includes a party‟s right to equal
treatment and an opportunity to be heard is also the fundamental rule in the taking of
evidence.88 This right to be heard includes each party‟s right to propose evidence on
pertinent facts89 and dismissal of evidence which is material to the outcome of the case
impairs the parties‟ procedural right to a fair trial.90 The tribunal should be sensitive to
this principle even while performing its obligation of conducting the arbitration in an
expeditious and cost-effective manner.91
43. Since the testimony of Mr. Martyr is required to establish the relevant facts of the case, its
exclusion will result in a violation of RESPONDENT‟S right to be heard.92 The testimony is
an important piece of evidence in the favor of RESPONDENT, and with this testimony,
RESPONDENT will be able to prove its claim in such a manner that the Tribunal can render
an award which takes all decisive facts into account. Thus, the Tribunal‟s determination
to exclude evidence will severely and unfairly impair the ability of RESPONDENT to
present its case,93 and would violate due process.
44. Further, the tribunal also has an obligation to render an enforceable final award by
observing certain minimum procedural standards, and lack of due process and violation of
the parties‟ right to be heard, may lead to an unenforceable award.94 Hence, RESPONDENT
submits that keeping in mind its obligation to render an enforceable award, the testimony
86
Daniel Dillon (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, in 4 REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL
AWARDS 368, (1928).
87
Procedural Order No. 2, ¶15.
88
89
X._ v. Federation A._, 4A_600/2010, Swiss First Civil Law Court, March 17, 2011, (Switzerland).
90
X._ v. Y._, 4A_669/2012, Swiss First Civil Law Court, April 17, 2013, (Switzerland). (Nickel Products
Case).
91
FRY, supra note 19, at 237.
92
Id. at 238.
93
94
BLACKABY, supra note 65, at 588.
Page | 12
of Mr. Martyr should be recorded by the Tribunal, as its exclusion would violate
RESPONDENT‟S right to be heard.
RESPONDENT submits that the Tribunal has discretion to record the testimony of Mr. Antony
Martyr. Since the testimony is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, and its
exclusion would violate the RESPONDENT‟S right to be heard, the Tribunal should record the
testimony of Mr. Martyr in the present case.
ISSUE 3: RESPONDENT HAS LEGALLY AVOIDED THE CONTRACT
45. RESPONDENT submits that the Contract has been legally avoided by it u/Art. 49(1) (a) of
the Convention since; CLAIMANT has breached its obligation of handing over required
documents [A] and the breach by CLAIMANT amounts to fundamental breach [B]. Further,
RESPONDENT has fulfilled its obligations under the Contract and the Convention [C].
A. CLAIMANT HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION OF HANDING OVER REQUIRED

DOCUMENTS
46. CLAIMANT has breached its obligations of handing over required documents. According
to Art. 34 of the Convention, CLAIMANT was bound to hand over any documents relating
to the delivery of the goods which RESPONDENT demanded.95 Such documents which are
essential to the buyer in taking delivery must be handed over so that the buyer can clear
such goods from the custom authorities and take possession of them.96 What documents
are necessary are generally provided in the contract, or if the delivery is being made as
per Incoterms, then under Incoterms.97
47. Delivery in the present case was being made under the CFR Incoterm.98 Under A10 of the
CFR Incoterm, the seller has a duty to render assistance to the buyer in obtaining any
documents which may be required for import clearance of the goods at destination.99
Also, Clause 14(b) of the Contract specifically prescribed that the seller must reasonably
assist the buyer in completing all the procedural formalities during delivery.100
95
DR. PETER SCHLECHTRIEM, UNIFORM SALES LAW: THE UN-CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS 66 (1986) [“SCHLECHTRIEM”].
96
OLE LANDO, Article 34, in BIANCA-BONELL COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW 265, 266
(Cesare Massimo Bianca & Michael Joachim Bonell eds., 1987).
97
UNCITRAL DIGEST, supra note 76, at 136.
98
C LAIMANT‟S Exhibit No. 3.
99
JAN RAMBURG, ICC GUIDE TO INCOTERMS 2010 191 (2011).
100
Page | 13
48. In the present case, the notification presented by RESPONDENT explicitly mentioned that
the signature of the manager was required on the exporter certificate in order to take
delivery of the goods.101 However, C LAIMANT filed a non-conforming exporter
certificate, despite the fact that the notification was duly conveyed to it.102 Also, the
essential nature of the notification was known to CLAIMANT that if the documents are not
filed duly then RESPONDENT would not be able to take over the goods.103
49. Thus, RESPONDENT submits that CLAIMANT breached its obligation under the Contract,
the Convention, as well as the Incoterms, of providing the necessary documents to take
over the goods and reasonably assist RESPONDENT in completion of procedural
formalities during import.
B. BREACH BY CLAIMANT AMOUNTS TO FUNDAMENTAL BREACH
50. The breach by CLAIMANT amounts to fundamental breach u/Art. 25 of the Convention.
The basic criterion for a breach to be fundamental is that it results in such substantial
detriment to the injured party, which the party in breach or any reasonable person could
foresee.104 In the present case, breach by CLAIMANT amounts to fundamental breach
since; the breach has caused substantial deprivation to RESPONDENT [I] and, the
substantial deprivation caused by the breach of CLAIMANT was foreseeable [II].
I. Breach by CLAIMANT has caused substantial deprivation to RESPONDENT
51. Breach of obligation by CLAIMANT has caused substantial deprivation to RESPONDENT.

U/Art. 25, a breach of contract is fundamental when it results in such detriment which
substantially deprives a party of its expectations under the contract. Expectations under
the contract refer to express or implied terms of the contract,105 the extent of which can be
found in the contract or through the circumstances surrounding the contractual
relationship.106
101
102
Id.
103
Id.
104
CISG, supra note 74, Art. 25.
105
Chengwei Liu, The Concept of Fundamental Breach: Perspectives from the CISG, UNIDROIT Principles
and PECL and Case Law, INSTITUTE OF INTENATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW, (January 31, 2018, 10:54
PM), http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/liu8.html.
106
Andrew Babiak, Defining Fundamental Breach under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods, 6 TEMPLE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL 113,
120, (1992).
Page | 14
52. Further, where the buyer makes known to the seller about the significance of a particular
expectation, his non-performance with respect to that expectation cannot be excused.107 In
the present case, due to the civil unrest prevailing in RESPONDENT‟S country, a large
order for ballistic garments was placed by the government. Owing to these circumstances,
timely delivery of goods was the essence of the Contract.108
53. This particular expectation of RESPONDENT was clear from the terms of the Contract,
which provided specific dates for the delivery of the goods109 as well as from the
numerous communications to CLAIMANT.110 Also, any reasonable man of that trade
having the requisite knowledge about these peculiar circumstances would have known the
expectation of the buyer from the Contract.111 Thus, CLAIMANT cannot escape liability as
the expectations of RESPONDENT were known to it.
54. Further, due to submission of the non-conforming exporter certificate, the goods could
not get processed by the Customs in the country of destination112 and were confiscated.
This prevented RESPONDENT from taking the delivery113 and it was unable to use the
goods as intended.114 Thus, the object of the Contract to take timely delivery of the raw
materials and subsequently supply the goods to the government 115 was not fulfilled. Thus,
confiscation of the goods lead to substantial deprivation to the expectations of
RESPONDENT under the Contract.
II. The substantial deprivation caused by the breach of CLAIMANT was foreseeable
55. The substantial deprivation caused by the breach was foreseeable. A breach is
fundamental where any reasonable person could foresee that the consequence of the
breach would be that the other party would be deprived of what he is entitled to receive
and expect under the contract.116 However, the point of foreseeability u/Art. 25 remains
107
INGEBORG SCHWENZER, COMMENTARY ON THE UN CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS
(CISG) 414 (3d ed. 2010) [“SCHWENZER”]; See also RJ & AM Smallmon v. Transport Sales Limited and
Grant Alan Miller, Court of Appeal, July 22, 2011, (New Zealand).
108
109
110
CLAIMANT‟S Exhibit Nos. 1, 4, 6.
111
Babiak, supra note 106, at 123.
112
UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, COMMENTARY ON THE DRAFT CONVENTION
ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS PREPARED BY THE SECRETARIAT 31 (1978)
[“COMMENTARY ON DRAFT CISG”].
113
ROBERT KOCH, REVIEW OF THE CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS
(CISG) 220 (Pace International Law Review ed., 1998).
114
SCHWENZER, supra note 107, at 431.
115
116
Delchi Carrier, S.p.A. v. Rotorex Corp., Federal District Court, September 9, 1994, (United States) [“Delchi
Carrier”].
Page | 15
uncertain regarding whether it relates to time at the conclusion of the contract 117 or even
in subsequent information.118
56. CLAIMANT had a duty to reasonably assist RESPONDENT in procedural requirements

which may arise during delivery.119 This obligation of C LAIMANT was a part of the
standard terms of the business between the Parties.120 It is pertinent to note that in like
cases, the assumption of risk is broadly defined for the main reason that the parties
assume that things will change subsequent to the conclusion of the contract.121 Thus, the
information of the requirement was a continuation of the duty which was already a part of
the Contract and consequences from non-performance of such duty were clearly
foreseeable.
57. Further, C LAIMANT was informed about the requirement of the certificate in the
communication dated February 15, 2017 by RESPONDENT which stated that if the exporter
certificate is not filed within fifteen days from the date of delivery, the goods would be
confiscated and would be of no use to RESPONDENT. 122 Fifteen days was a sufficient time
for the performance of the obligation. Thus, even if the information was given subsequent
to the conclusion of the Contract; any reasonable man of that trade could have foreseen
the consequences of a breach.
58. Further, CLAIMANT had already contracted with, and exported goods to other private
contractors in Raconia after this notification was issued.123 This will be demonstrated by
the oral testimony of Mr. Antony Martyr, the authorized representative of CLAIMANT in
Raconia.124 Hence, owing to the prior knowledge of CLAIMANT or subsequent information
regarding the notification, it was foreseeable to it that filing of non-conforming exporter
certificate would lead to the confiscation of the goods, thus depriving RESPONDENT of its
expectation under the Contract.
C. RESPONDENT HAS FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT AND THE
CONVENTION
117
118
JOHN HONNOLD, UNIFORM LAW FOR INTERNATIONAL SALES UNDER THE 1980 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION
257 (2d ed. 1991).
119
120
121
DJAKHONGIR SAIDOV, THE LAW OF DAMAGES IN INTERNATIONAL SALES 120 (2008) [“SAIDOV”].
122
123
RESPONDENT‟S Exhibit No. 1.
124
Statement of Defense and Counter-Claim, ¶5.
Page | 16
59. RESPONDENT has fulfilled all its obligations under the Contract and the Convention and
thus, has legally avoided the Contract. RESPONDENT has avoided the Contract due to the
fundamental breach of obligation by CLAIMANT. In addition to this, it has also fulfilled all
its obligations as a buyer under the Convention, as RESPONDENT only had the obligation
to inform about the assistance required from CLAIMANT [I] and, RESPONDENT notified
CLAIMANT about the avoidance [II].
I. RESPONDENT only had the obligation to inform about the assistance required
from CLAIMANT
60. RESPONDENT only had the obligation to inform about the assistance required from
CLAIMANT. Under the Convention, the terms of the contract must be read as a whole125
and in the light of the interests of the parties.126 Individual terms of the contract must not
be read in remoteness, but as a vital part of the contract and in the context of the whole
contract,127 keeping in mind its purpose.128
61. In the present case, as per the Contract terms, the obligation on RESPONDENT was to
complete all the procedural formalities at the port of import and CLAIMANT was bound to
reasonably assist RESPONDENT in completing such formalities which might arise during
delivery.129 This responsibility of RESPONDENT to complete the procedural formalities
would be restricted by CLAIMANT‟S duty to assist under the Contract when such
requirements may arise.
62. The notification which stated that the exporter certificate must be signed by the manager
was attached to the communication in which RESPONDENT informed C LAIMANT of this
requirement.130 In these particular circumstances, any reasonable person of that trade
would assert that such parties to an international trade would be vary of the necessity of
the requirement and would file the correct exporter certificate.
63. Further, as C LAIMANT had already filed the exporter certificate with the Customs
Authorities itself,131 the responsibility of R ESPONDENT did not extend to double-checking
the document filed. The duty to examine the certificate would have arisen, if the
125
The International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Case No. 95/2004, May 27, 2005, (Russian Federation).
126
Oberlandesgericht [Provincial Court of Appeal], Case No. 2 U 2723/99, December 27, 1999, (Germany)
(Chemical Products Case).
127
UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, (May 2016), Art. 4.4.
128
Id. Art. 4.3(d).
129
130
131
Page | 17
certificate would have been submitted to RESPONDENT for filing it with the Customs
Authorities. CLAIMANT had breached its obligation of providing the documents even
when RESPONDENT informed it regarding the same,132 and thus RESPONDENT‟S duly
performed its obligation under the Contract.
II. RESPONDENT notified CLAIMANT about the avoidance
64. RESPONDENT notified CLAIMANT about the avoidance as soon as it became aware of the
breach. A fundamental breach of contract by one party entitles the other to get rid of the
contract133 automatically134 after it declares the contract avoided by notice.135 This
avoidance must represent the clear intention of the party to avoid the contract.136 As per
Art. 26 of the Convention, the notice of avoidance must be communicated to the party in
breach137 by suitable means of communication.138
65. Avoidance of the Contract by RESPONDENT was valid since it avoided the Contract to
CLAIMANT as soon as it got the knowledge that the goods were confiscated as a result of
the non-acceptance of the exporter certificate.139 As the confiscation of the goods caused
substantial deprivation to RESPONDENT, the breach of obligation by C LAIMANT amounted
to fundamental breach. Hence, as RESPONDENT duly notified avoidance of the Contract on
the same day when the breach came to the knowledge of RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT has legally avoided the Contract u/Art. 49(1) (a) as C LAIMANT breached its
obligation under the Contract which caused substantial deprivation to RESPONDENT. The
breach thus amounted to fundamental breach. Further, Respondent submits that it has fulfilled
all its obligations under the Contract and has thus legally avoided the Contract.
ISSUE 4: RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
132
China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Case No, CISG/1996/53, November 18,
1996, (China) (Steel Channels Case).
133
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Case No. 3 U 83/98, January 13, 1999, (Germany) (Fabric Case).
134
Jabsheh Trading Est. v. Iberconsa, Audiencias Provinciales [Court of Appeal], October 3, 2002, (Spain).
135
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Case No. 1 U 486/07, November 21, 2007, (Germany) (Shoes Case)
[“Shoes Case”].
136
Amtsgericht [Lower Court], Case No. 1 C 216/92, October 14, 1992, (Germany).
137
Shoes Case, supra note 135.
138
Ulrich Magnus, The Remedy of Avoidance of Contract under CISG—General Remarks and Special Cases, 25
JOURNAL OF LAW AND COMMERCE 423, 426 (2005-06) [“Magnus”].
139
Page | 18
66. A declaration of avoidance ends the contract and the non-breaching party automatically
becomes entitled to damages suffered by the breach of contract,140 in accordance with
Art. 81(1) and Art. 74 of the Convention. Further, u/Art. 45(2) of the Convention, buyer
is not deprived of any right it may have to claim damages by declaring the avoidance of
the contract.141
67. Damages can be claimed u/Art. 74, the purpose of which is to place the aggrieved party in
the same position it would have been in, economically, if the contract had been
performed.142 It applies where the contract has been avoided due to breach by the other
party and such damages are caused by that breach143 which cannot be calculated u/Art. 75
or 76.144
68. In the present case, damages can be claimed u/Art. 74 since, CLAIMANT breached its
obligations under the Contract and the Convention [A] and the breach by C LAIMANT
caused loss to RESPONDENT [B]. Further, the loss was foreseeable by C LAIMANT [C].
Additionally, loss has been proved with reasonable certainty [D].
A. CLAIMANT BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT AND THE

CONVENTION
69. CLAIMANT breached its obligation under the Contract and the Convention. Pursuant to
Art. 45(1) (b) of the Convention, RESPONDENT may claim damages as provided u/Art. 74,
since CLAIMANT failed to perform its obligations under the Contract.145 A breach of
contract is a term used to describe a party‟s non-performance of an obligation under a
contract,146 which also includes inadequate performance of the obligation.147 Under the
Convention, it is understood to mean every form of objective failure to perform a
contractual obligation148 even if the breaching party is not at fault in breaching.
70. CLAIMANT, under Clause 14(b) of the Contract,149 as well as u/Art. 34 of the Convention,
had the duty to reasonably assist the buyer during delivery, which includes handing over
140
Supplier v. Buyer, Interim Award, ICC Case No. 7645, (1995) XXVI YBCA 130.
141
Landgericht [Regional Court], Case No. 54 O 644/94, April 5, 1995, (Germany) (Sport Clothing Case).
142
COMMENTARY ON DRAFT CISG, supra note 112, at 59.
143
ALBERT H. KRITZER & SIEG EISELEN, INTERNATIONAL CONTRACT MANUAL 93-50 (2012).
144
Harry M. Flechtner, Remedies under the New International Sales Convention: The perspective from Article 2
of the U.C.C., 8 JOURNAL OF LAW AND COMMERCE 53, 102, (1998).
145
CISG, supra note 74, Art. 45(1) (b).
146
ALLISON E. BUTLER, A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE CISG: NEGOTIATIONS THROUGH LITIGATION 1 (2007)
[“BUTLER”].
147
148
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Case No. 6 U 32/93, February 10, 1994, (Germany) (Shirts Case).
149
Page | 19
of all documents related to the goods.150 CLAIMANT performed its obligation inadequately
as it filed a non-conforming exporter certificate which was signed by the authorized
signatory,151 even when the Customs Notification clearly mentioned the need to file a
certificate signed by the manager of the exporting firm.152 Thus, CLAIMANT clearly
breached its obligations.
B. BREACH BY CLAIMANT CAUSED LOSS TO RESPONDENT
71. Breach of obligations by CLAIMANT has caused loss to RESPONDENT. Damages u/Art. 74
of the Convention are claimed for losses which were caused by the breach of contract, i.e.
where there is casual connection between the breach and the loss. To determine whether
the breach was the cause of the loss, the „but for‟ test is applied.153 According to this test,
a factual cause of an event is the one without which the event would not have occurred.154
In other words, the breach must be the pre-condition for the occurrence of the
detriment.155
72. In the present case, RESPONDENT suffered loss as delivery of the contract goods was not
completed and RESPONDENT had to arrange low-quality goods from other manufacturers
at a short notice. This loss would not have occurred, but for the breach of its contractual
obligation by CLAIMANT. CLAIMANT filed a non-conforming exporter certificate signed
by the authorized representative, due to which the goods were confiscated, and
RESPONDENT could not get their possession. Therefore, claim of RESPONDENT has to be
considered u/Art. 74, since the cause of the loss was the non-performance of obligation by
the CLAIMANT.156
C. THE LOSS WAS FORESEEABLE BY CLAIMANT
73. The loss was foreseeable by CLAIMANT. The aggrieved party can recover damages u/Art.
74 of the Convention arising out of consequences of breach, which the breaching party
foresaw or ought to have foreseen at the time the contract was concluded.157 This
foreseeability test u/Art. 74 of the Convention also take into account the circumstances in
150
SCHLECHTRIEM, supra note 95, at 6-7.
151
152
153
SAIDOV, supra note 121, at 80.
154
Id. at 81.
155
156
Final Award in Case No. 9187, 11 ICC INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION BULLETIN 93,
(2000).
157
Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court], Case No. 7 Ob 301/01t, January 14, 2002, (Austria) (Cooling Systems
Case).
Page | 20
which the contract was concluded, and the purpose of the contract,158 and the breaching
party can be held liable for damages where its liability is within the scope of the
contract.159
74. In the present case, CLAIMANT had the obligation under Clause 14(c) of the Contract to
reasonably assist the Buyer in regard to any procedural requirement that may arise during
the delivery of the goods.160 As CLAIMANT‟S assumption of risk under this clause was
broadly defined, CLAIMANT can be assumed to understand that things will change
throughout the life of the Contract.161 Thus, it is clear that CLAIMANT could foresee the
nature of its obligation and that the consequence of any non-performance would result in
losses to RESPONDENT.
75. Further, in light of CLAIMANT‟S own business experience, C LAIMANT ought to have the
knowledge of consequence of filing of non-conforming documents.162 Also, the present
Contract was concluded at a time when Raconia was under civil unrest,163 and CLAIMANT
was aware of the purpose for which the goods were being bought. Thus, RESPONDENT
submits that a reasonable person in the shoes of CLAIMANT164 could have easily foreseen
that the obvious consequence165 of a breach of obligation would be that RESPONDENT
would suffer loss.
D. LOSS HAS BEEN PROVED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY
76. The loss has been proved with reasonable certainty. Absolute certainty in proving the loss
suffered is not required u/Art. 74 of the Convention as it recognizes the fact that
presenting evidence to prove exact loss for certain nature of losses would not be
possible.166 Thus, the standard of reasonable certainty is based on the idea that the
innocent party must prove its loss only with such a degree of precision which can be
reasonably expected of it in those circumstances.167 It is sufficient that for a claim of
158
159
160
161
Adam Kramer, Remoteness: New Problems with the Old Test, 3 VERULAM BUILDINGS, (January 28,
2018, 05:07 PM), http://www.3vb.com/images/uploads/vcards/AK_new_remoteness_test1.pdf.
162
163
164
165
166
Id. at 154.
167
Id.
Page | 21
damages the innocent party establishes the fact of loss without proving its mathematical
precision.168
77. Further, Art. 74 does not set forth any specific rules for determining the loss and loss
must be calculated in a manner which is best suited to the circumstances.169 In the present
case, RESPONDENT could not get immediate delivery of the goods and had to arrange for it
from other manufacturers at a short notice.170 Such replacement goods would take a
reasonable amount of time to be delivered, and the quality of the goods had to also be
compromised.171 Thus it can be reasonably presumed that due to the low quality goods,
RESPONDENT will suffer losses172 in the nature of loss of reputation and liability for late
delivery, among others. Thus, RESPONDENT has sufficiently proven the fact of loss.
RESPONDENT is entitled to compensatory damages u/Art. 74 as CLAIMANT breached its

contractual obligation of reasonably assisting R ESPONDENT during delivery. Further, this
breach of obligation by CLAIMANT has caused irreparable loss to RESPONDENT as it had to
purchase low quality goods from other manufacturers at a short notice. Such purchase would
also take some time to be delivered, and thus it also led to delayed delivery to the
Government of Raconia. Additionally, this loss was foreseeable to C LAIMANT, and thus, as
all conditions for a claim of damages u/Art. 74 are fulfilled; RESPONDENT is entitled to
compensatory damages.
ISSUE 5: RESPONDENT CAN RECOVER STORGAE COSTS FROM CLAIMANT
78. RESPONDENT submits that it can recover the storage costs from CLAIMANT pursuant to the
demand of the Customs Authorities since RESPONDENT is not bound to pay the storage
cost after avoiding the Contract [A]. Additionally, the storage costs can be recovered as
damages [B].
A. RESPONDENT IS NOT BOUND TO PAY THE STORAGE COST AFTER AVOIDING THE
CONTRACT
168
CISG Advisory Council Opinion No. 6: Calculation of Damages under CISG Article 74, ¶2 [“Opinion No.
6”].
169
COMMENTARY ON DRAFT CISG, supra note 112, at 59.
170
171
Procedural Order No. 2, ¶38.
172
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court], Case No. VIII ZR 100/11, September 26, 2012, (Germany)
(Clay Case).
Page | 22
79. RESPONDENT is not bound to pay the storage cost. Since the Contract has been legally
avoided due to the fundamental breach of Contract by CLAIMANT, the risk of the goods
remained with C LAIMANT by virtue of Art. 70 of the Convention.173 Thus, in no
circumstances is RESPONDENT under an obligation to pay the storage cost, which has
arisen due to storage of the goods in customs warehouse since the goods had been
abandoned by RESPONDENT.174
80. Therefore, RESPONDENT is entitled to recover the cost from C LAIMANT, since
RESPONDENT is released from all its obligations under the Contract and the Convention
[I] and RESPONDENT had no obligation under the Convention after avoidance [II].
I. RESPONDENT is released from all its obligations under the Contract and the
Convention
81. RESPONDENT is released from all its obligations u/Art. 81(1) of the Convention, which
stipulates that parties are released175 from their primary obligations which are rendered
unproductive due to the avoidance of the contract.176 The primary obligations of the buyer
included contractual obligations, and the obligation of taking delivery u/Art. 53 of the
Convention.177 Since RESPONDENT has legally avoided the Contract, it was released from
its primary obligation of taking delivery and completing all procedural requirements at
the port of import in accordance with Clause13(c) of the Contract.178
82. Therefore, even though RESPONDENT paid the storage costs to the Customs Authorities in
good faith, it is entitled to recover the cost from CLAIMANT, since it was not legally
obliged to pay such costs after being discharged of its duties179 due to avoidance of the
Contract.
II. RESPONDENT had no obligations under the Convention after avoidance
83. RESPONDENT had no obligations under the Convention after avoidance. The Convention,
at the point of avoidance, introduces new rights and duties to give effect to avoidance by
transforming the original contractual relationship into a winding-up or restitutionary
173
174
175
High Commercial Court [Second Instance Court], Case No. Pz. 10784/2010, July 6, 2011, (Serbia)
(Automatic Machine for Production of Fax, adding and Thermo Rolls Case).
176
Amir Al-Hajaj, The Concept of Fundamental Breach and Avoidance under CISG, BRUNEL UNIVERSITY
LONDON, (January 30, 2018, 07:13 PM), http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/12043/1/FulltextThesis.pdf.
177
Id.
178
179
Beziksgericht [District Court], Case No. T 171/95, February 20, 1997, (Switzerland) (Spirits Case).
Page | 23
relationship.180 It provides for restitution of what has already been performed, and a duty
to preserve the goods, as consequences of a valid avoidance.181 RESPONDENT had no
obligations to preserve the goods after avoidance of the Contract (i). Further,
RESPONDENT had no obligation to restitute the goods (ii).
i. RESPONDENT had no obligation to preserve the goods
84. RESPONDENT had no obligation to preserve the goods u/Art. 86 the Convention, according
to which a buyer is obligated to preserve the goods if he intends to reject them. However,
for preservation, goods must be in his possession182 or at his disposal. RESPONDENT
submits that it did not receive the goods within the meaning of Art. 86(1), since the goods
had been confiscated by the Customs Authorities and hence RESPONDENT did not have
possession of them. Further, if a buyer has not “received” the goods u/Art. 86(1), but the
goods have reached their destination and placed at the buyer‟s disposal, he must take
possession of the goods u/Art. 86(2), after which he must preserve them u/Art. 86(1).183
85. Even though the goods had reached their destination;184 they were not placed at the
disposal of RESPONDENT at the time it rejected them. Under the Convention, placing the
goods at the buyer‟s disposal means that the seller has done all that which is necessary for
the buyer to be able to take possession.185 However, in the present case, the goods had
been confiscated by the Customs Authorities due to filing of the non-conforming exporter
certificate by CLAIMANT. Thus, as RESPONDENT could not take control of either before or
at the time it avoided the Contract, the goods cannot be said to be at the disposal of
RESPONDENT.186
86. Additionally, the buyer should be able to take possession of the goods without any
unreasonable problems i.e. unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable costs. These
questions can be decided only on a case to case basis.187 In the present case, to take
possession of the goods, RESPONDENT had to file an appeal for clearance of the goods
from customs along with payment of customs duties.188 This was unreasonably
180
Landgericht [Regional Court], Case No. 2 O 506/94, October 11, 1995, (Germany) (Generator plus Spare
Parts Case).
181
Magnus, supra note 138, at 431.
182
183
UNICTRAL DIGEST, supra note 76, at 406.
184
185
UNCITRAL DISGEST, supra note 87, at 133.
186
187
188
Page | 24
inconvenient for RESPONDENT and hence, RESPONDENT had no obligation to preserve the
goods.
ii. RESPONDENT had no obligation to restitute the goods
87. RESPONDENT had no obligation to restitute the goods. Where a contract is avoided, Art.
81(2) of the Convention authorizes the party who has performed the contract in whole or
in part, to claim restitution from the other party.189 This puts the other party under an
obligation to return whatever it has received under the contract. 190 However, in the
present case, RESPONDENT did not receive anything under the Contract, as CLAIMANT
failed to perform its obligation of delivering the goods. Thus, RESPONDENT was under no
obligation to restitute the goods which were confiscated by the Customs Authorities at the
port of destination.
88. It is pertinent to note that delivery relates to all acts done by the seller to perform its
obligations under the contract,191 in order to give the buyer possession of the goods.192
Since CLAIMANT provided a non-conforming exporter certificate, the goods were
confiscated by the Customs Authority and RESPONDENT could not get their possession.
Hence, CLAIMANT failed in performing its central obligation under the Contract, of
delivering goods to RESPONDENT. Therefore, since restitution is meant to reverse gain193
and RESPONDENT did not receive or gain anything under the Contract, RESPONDENT is not
under any obligation to restitute the goods.
B. ADDITIONALLY, THE STORAGE COSTS CAN BE RECOVERED AS DAMAGES
89. RESPONDENT is entitled to recover the storage cost u/Art. 74 which reflects the general
principle of full compensation194 and recognizes that damages recoverable for breach of a
contract extend to consequential losses in the form of additional costs as a result of the
breach.195 These breach induced costs, like expenses incurred in storing the goods196 at
189
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Case No. 20 U 76/94, May 24, 1995, (Germany) (Used Printing Press
Case).
190
Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court], Case No. 1 Ob 74/99k, June 29, 1999, (Austria) (Dividing Wall
Panels Case).
191
192
Id. at 490.
193
CISG Advisory Council Opinion No. 9: Consequences of Avoidance of the Contract, ¶3.8.
194
Opinion No. 6, supra note 168, ¶1.
195
Castel Electronics Pty Ltd. v. Toshiba Singapore Pte Ltd., [2011] FCAFC 55, April 20, 2011 (Australia).
196
Delchi Carrier, supra note 117.
Page | 25
the port,197 or pecuniary losses resulting from claims by third parties as a result of the
breach of the contract198 are included in the calculation of damages u/Art. 74.199
90. RESPONDENT can recover the storage costs u/Art. 74, as CLAIMANT breached its
obligation [I] and breach of obligation by CLAIMANT has caused loss to RESPONDENT [II].
Further, storage cost was foreseeable by CLAIMANT [III].
I. CLAIMANT breached its obligation
91. CLAIMANT has breached its obligation under the Contract. Breach of contract under the
Convention is a term used to describe a party‟s non-performance of obligation under the
contract.200 CLAIMANT, in the present case, has breached its contractual obligation of
reasonably assisting RESPONDENT in the procedural formalities201 by filing the wrong
exporter certificate.
II. Breach of obligation by CLAIMANT has caused loss to RESPONDENT
92. Breach of obligation by CLAIMANT caused loss to RESPONDENT. U/Art. 74, all kinds of
loss suffered by the aggrieved party and caused by the breach are recoverable.202 In the
present case, the storage cost is payable as the goods had been stored in the customs
warehouse after confiscation by the Customs Authorities,203 due to filing of non-
conforming exporter certificate by CLAIMANT. Thus, there is causation between the cost
and the breach since the costs would not have arisen but for the breach of contractual
obligation by CLAIMANT.
III. The storage cost was foreseeable by CLAIMANT
93. The storage cost was foreseeable by CLAIMANT. According to Art. 74, a breaching party is
liable for loss which he or any reasonable person in his position could have foreseen.204
The obligation of CLAIMANT under the Contract consisted in assisting RESPONDENT for
procedural requirements that may arise during delivery.205 CLAIMANT will be presumed to
know of the facts and matters which will enable it to foresee the consequences of the
197
Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce, Case
No. 375/93, September 9, 1994, (Russian Federation).
198
Opinion No. 6, supra note 168, ¶6.
199
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Case No. 2 U 27/99, October 28, 1999, (Germany) (Frozen Meat
Case).
200
BUTLER, supra note 146.
201
202
203
204
205
Page | 26
breach, as such knowledge can be expected of it taking into consideration its commercial
experience.206
94. Thus, CLAIMANT or any reasonable person in the position of CLAIMANT, could have
foreseen at the time of conclusion of the Contract, that any breach of obligation pertaining
to assistance in procedural requirements at the port of import, could result in the
confiscation of the goods, leading to storage costs in the Customs warehouse.
RESPONDENT submits that as it had legally avoided the Contract, it was released of all its
obligations under the Contract and the Convention. Thus, even though it paid the storage
costs to the Customs Authorities in good faith, the same shall be recoverable from
CLAIMANT. Further, even if the Tribunal considers that the avoidance of the Contract was not
legal, the costs can be recovered as consequential damages u/Art. 74, as it was caused due to
breach of obligation by CLAIMANT, and was reasonably foreseeable to it.
206
VICTOR KNAPP, Article 74, in BIANCA-BONELL COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW 538, 542
(Cesare Massimo Bianca & Michael Joachim Bonell eds., 1987).
Page | 27
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT PRAYER
PRAYER
On the basis of prior and foregoing written submissions, RESPONDENT respectfully requests this
Tribunal, to FIND and DECLARE that-
1. The Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 of the Amended Rules are not applicable
in the facts and circumstances arising out of the claim;
2. The testimony of Mr. Antony Martyr should be recorded in this case;
3. RESPONDENT has legally avoided the Contract;
4. RESPONDENT is entitled for compensatory damages;
5. Storage costs are recoverable from C LAIMANT pursuant to demand raised by the
Raconian Customs Authorities.
And to ORDER CLAIMANT to-
1. Grant compensatory damages to the tune of US$150,000;

2. Grant storage costs to the tune of US$5000.
Respectfully submitted by the Counsels for RESPONDENT.
Page | XIX

14 Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: 14R

THE 3RD NLIU-JUSTICE R.K. TANKHA MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AT

ANTARIA INTERNATIONAL INC.

RACONIAN DEFENCE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ VI

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................. XII

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ XIII

ISSUES RAISED................................................................................................................ XVI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................... XVII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1

ISSUE 1: EXPEDITED PROCEDURE PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY .................... 1

A. APPLICATION OF THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE PROVISIONS U/ART. 30 WILL

VIOLATE PARTY AUTONOMY ............................................................................................. 1

I. The Parties had no intention to be governed by the Expedited Procedure

B. ART. 30 OF THE AMENDED RULES SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THE ABSENCE OF

CONSENT OF THE PARTIES................................................................................................. 3

I. There are substantial changes in the expedited procedure ....................................... 3

II. Changes in the expedited procedure were not foreseeable ...................................... 4

THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE PROVISIONS U/ART. 30 ..................................................... 5

II. The Expedited Procedure Provisions u/Art. 30 cannot be applied retrospectively.. 6

III. It is inappropriate in these circumstances to apply the Expedited Procedure

ISSUE 2: TESTIMONY OF MR. ANTONY MARTYR SHOULD BE RECORDED.. 8

A. THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE DISCRETION TO RECORD THE EVIDENCE .......................... 8

I. The Tribunal has a general discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence .. 8

B. THE TESTIMONY OF MR. ANTONY MARTYR IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE PRESENT

I. The testimony of Mr. Martyr is relevant ................................................................ 10

C. EXCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY WOULD VIOLATE RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO BE

ISSUE 3: RESPONDENT HAS LEGALLY AVOIDED THE CONTRACT .............. 13

A. CLAIMANT HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION OF HANDING OVER REQUIRED

B. BREACH BY CLAIMANT AMOUNTS TO FUNDAMENTAL BREACH ............................. 14

I. Breach by CLAIMANT has caused substantial deprivation to RESPONDENT ........... 14

II. RESPONDENT notified CLAIMANT about the avoidance .......................................... 18

ISSUE 4: RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES..... 18

A. CLAIMANT BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT AND THE

B. BREACH BY CLAIMANT CAUSED LOSS TO RESPONDENT ........................................ 20

C. THE LOSS WAS FORESEEABLE BY CLAIMANT ......................................................... 20

D. LOSS HAS BEEN PROVED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY ...................................... 21

ISSUE 5: RESPONDENT CAN RECOVER STORGAE COSTS FROM CLAIMANT

i. RESPONDENT had no obligation to preserve the goods ...................................... 24

ii. RESPONDENT had no obligation to restitute the goods ................................... 25

B. ADDITIONALLY, THE STORAGE COSTS CAN BE RECOVERED AS DAMAGES............. 25

I. CLAIMANT breached its obligation ......................................................................... 26

II. Breach of obligation by CLAIMANT has caused loss to RESPONDENT ................... 26

III. The storage cost was foreseeable by CLAIMANT.................................................... 26

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................. XIX

ALI American Law Institute

ASA Swiss Arbitration Association

CFR Cost and Freight

United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of

et al. and others

FCA Federal Court of Australia

IBA International Bar Association

ICC International Chamber of Commerce

ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

Incoterms International Commercial Terms

ITA International Trade Association

PECL Principles of European Contract Law

Pte Ltd. Private Limited Company

Pty Ltd. Proprietary Company

U.C.C. Uniform Commercial Code