SELECTED CASES BY TYPE OF CONTRACT INVOLVED
SELECTED CASES BY NATIONALITY OF THE PARTIES
SELECTED CASES BY DOMESTIC LAW INVOLVED
| KEYWORD | Count of Cases |
|---|---|
| ALGERIAN LAW | 1 |
| ARGENTINIAN LAW | 9 |
| AUSTRALIAN LAW | 14 |
| AUSTRIAN LAW | 3 |
| BELORUSSIAN LAW | 6 |
| BRAZILIAN LAW | 4 |
| CHINESE LAW | 17 |
| COLOMBIAN LAW | 8 |
| COSTA RICAN LAW | 4 |
| CYPRIOT LAW | 1 |
| CZECH LAW | 1 |
| DANISH LAW | 1 |
| DUTCH CARRIBEAN LAW | 1 |
| DUTCH LAW | 8 |
| ECUADORIAN LAW | 2 |
| EGYPTIAN LAW | 1 |
| ENGLISH LAW | 23 |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 11869 00-00-0000 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN AUSTRALIAN SELLER AND BUYER OF UNKNOWN NATIONALITY - PARTIES' CHOICE OF ENGLISH LAW AS APPLICABLE LAW ARBITRATION AGREEMENT PROVIDING “FOR ARBITRATION IN VIENNA, AUSTRIA, IN ACCORDANCE TO THE RULES OF ARBITRATION” - TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS REFERENCE TO ARBITRATION TO BE HELD IN VIENNA IN ACCORDANCE WITH ICC RULES OF ARBITRATION - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO PRINCIPLES OF “IN FAVOREM VALIDITATIS” AND “CONTRA PROFERENTEM” UNDER ENGLISH LAW AND TO PROVISIONS ON INTERPRETATION IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES WHICH ACCORDING TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL “THOUGH […] TO A LARGE EXTENT IDENTICAL TO THE ENGLISH CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION […] INCLUDE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL OR BROADER RULES THAT SUPPLEMENT THE ENGLISH PRINCIPLES TO AVOID THAT THE BAD DRAFTING LEADS TO THE UNCERTAINTY OF A CONTRACT” | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 20103 00-00-0000 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - JOINT-VENTURE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN THREE COMPANIES OF THREE DIFFERENT STATES- ENGLISH LAW APPLICABLE INTEREST - RIGHT TO INTEREST - APPLIED AS REQUESTED BY THE PARTY REFERRING TO ART. 7.4.9(2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 9594 00-03-1999 CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY - BETWEEN A SPANISH COMPANY AND AN INDIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF A SOLUTION ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ENGLISH LAW) DUTY TO MITIGATE LOSSES (ARTICLE 7.4.8 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES). | |
|
Arbitral Award Arbitration Court of the Lausanne Chamber of Commerce and Industry 17-05-2002 SATELLITE CONTRACT - PLURALITY OF PARTIES OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES (TURKISH, WEST INDIAN, PHILIPPINE) - CONTRACT CONTAINING CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW (ENGLISH LAW OR SWISS LAW) - AT BEGINNING OF ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS PARTIES AGREED ON APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES. NON-PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - DUTY TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH - DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY - CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ARTICLES 1.7, 2.16 AND 4.6 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES. RIGHT TO DAMAGES - COMPENSATION FOR HARM SUSTAINED BY AGGRIEVED PARTY AS A RESULT OF NON-PERFORMANCE - NON-PERFORMING PARTY LIABLE ONLY FOR FORESEEABLE HARM - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ARTICLES 7.4.1, 7.4.2 AND 7.4.4 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES. | |
|
Arbitral Award Arbitration Court of the Lausanne Chamber of Commerce and Industry 31-01-2003 SATELLITE CONTRACT - PLURALITY OF PARTIES OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES (TURKISH, WEST INDIAN, PHILIPPINE) - CONTRACT CONTAINING CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AS THE THE APPLICABLE LAW (ENGLISH LAW OR SWISS LAW) - AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS PARTIES AGREED ON APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES. RIGHT TO DAMAGES FOR NON-PERFORMANCE - COMPENSATION DUE FOR HARM CAUSED BY NON-PERFORMANCE - AMOUNT OF COMPENSABLE HARM TO BE REDUCED IF HARM IN PART DUE TO AGGRIEVED PARTY (ARTICLES 7.4.2 AND 7.4.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES). RIGHT TO INTEREST (7.4.9 AND 7.4.10 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES). | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 04-10-2010 CURRENCY SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CYPRIOT COMPANY AND A MARSHALLESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ENGLISH LAW) CURRENCY SALES CONTRACT BETWEEN CYPRIOT COMPANY AND COMPANY FROM THE MARSHALL ISLANDS - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL APPLIED ENGLISH LAW - REFERENCE ALSO TO ARTICLES 1.7 AND 5.1.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration ICC-FA-2020-004 00-00-2011 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ASIAN PARTY AND A NORTH AMERICAN PARTY - PARTIES' CHOICE OF ENGLISH LAW AND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE CONTRACT IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS - ARISING UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW (UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004) - OBLIGATION OF REASONABLE CARE AND SKILL AND OBLIGATION TO SUPPLY GOODS OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND FIT FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE KNOWN BY BOTH PARTIES - ALL ARISING FROM ART. 5.1.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS - STEMMING FROM THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE CONTRACT, GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALINGS AND REASONABLENESS (ART. 5.1.2 letters a) c) d) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 30-08-2012 LOAN AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A CYPRIOT COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - CONTRACT SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL APPLIED ENGLISH LAW TOGETHER WITH THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES FREEDOM OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
France Cour d'Appel de Paris 23-06-2020 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - FRANCHISE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A LEBANESE COMPANY AND A KUWAITI COMPANY - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF ENGLISH LAW - ARBITRATION CLAUSE REFERRING TO "PRINCIPLES OF LAW GENERALLY RECOGNIZED IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS" - APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED AS AN EXPRESSION OF THOSE PRINCIPLES - NO VIOLATION OF THE ARBITRATION MANDATE | |
|
New Zealand Court of Appeal of New Zealand 27-11-2000 SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION AND A JAPANESE BUSINESSMAN - GOVERNED BY A PARTICULAR DOMESTIC LAW (NEW ZEALAND LAW) - REFERENCE TO CISG AND THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DESCRIBED AS A "RESTATEMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL CONTRACT LAW OF THE WORLD [WHICH] REFINES AND EXPANDS THE PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN [CISG]” CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - LIBERAL INTERPRETATION (ART. 8 CISG; ARTS. 4.1-4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - PERMISSIBLE UNDER NEW ZEALAND LAW BUT NOT ENGLISH LAW | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Moscow 13-12-2010 REFERENCE TO UNIDROITB PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ENGLISH LAW) ASSIGNMENT OF FUTURE RIGHTS - IN PRINCIPLE VALID - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 9.1.4 AND 9.1.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
United Kingdom Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 17-02-2006 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO ENGLISH COMPANIES - CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW - WRITTEN CONTRACT CONTAINING A MERGER CLAUSE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND IN PARTICULAR OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 4.1-4.3) AND CISG (ART. 8) | |
|
United Kingdom High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court 13-07-2006 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SATELLITE CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND A NIGERIAN COMPANY - STATING THAT IT WAS GOVERNED BY ENGLISH LAW AND TO BE INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO THE EXTENT THEY WERE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE FORMER CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - COURT HELD THAT CONTRACT "BE CONSTRUED USING THE CONVENTIONAL CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS" WITHOUT EXPRESSLY REFERRING TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
United Kingdom Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 18-12-2006 SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO ENGLISH COMPANIES - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND IN PARTICULAR OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERPRETATION OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 4.1-4.3) AND CISG (ART. 8) | |
|
United Kingdom High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court 22-05-2007 SHARE OPTION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO ENGLISH COMPANIES - CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW - INTERPRETATION OF AN OPTION DEED - REFERENCE BY PARTY TO PROFORCE RECRUIT V THE RUGBY GROUP CONTAINING A REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 4.1-4.3) IN SUPPORT OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS - ARGUMENT REJECTED BY COURT | |
|
United Kingdom Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 12-03-2008 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO ENGLISH COMPANIES - CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW - TRADITIONAL RULE THAT EVIDENCE OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS TO INTERPRET CONTRACT CLAUSE INADMISSIBLE - TO BE APPLIED WITH FLEXIBILITY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ART. 4.3) AND CISG (ART. 8) | |
|
United Kingdom House of Lords 01-07-2009 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO ENGLISH COMPANIES - CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW - TRADITIONAL RULE THAT EVIDENCE OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS TO INTERPRET CONTRACT CLAUSE INADMISSIBLE CONFIRMED - DIFFERENT APPROACH INSPIRED BY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AND CISG REFLECTING FRENCH PHILOSOPHY OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - AS SUCH INCOMPATIBLE WITH ENGLISH LAW | |
|
United Kingdom Supreme Court 05-11-2015 SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN LEBANESE INDIVIDUALS AND DUTCH COMPANY - GOVERNED BY ENGLISH LAW - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM SOLUTION PROVIDED BY APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW CONSUMER CONTRACT - BETWEEN ENGLISH PARTIES- GOVERNED BY ENGLISH LAW - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM SOLUTION PROVIDED BY APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW PENALTY CLAUSES VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE UNDER ENGLISH LAW - REFERENCE TO OTHER DOMESTIC LAWS ADOPTING A SIMILAR RULE AS WELL AS TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTICLE 7.4.13) AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL SOFT LAW INSTRUMENTS SUCH AS UNCITRAL UNIFORM RULES ON CONTRACT CLAUSES FOR AN AGREED SUM DUE UPON FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE (ARTICLE 6) | |
|
United Kingdom Supreme Court 16-05-2018 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LICENSING AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO ENGLISH COMPANIES - FOR THE USE OF OFFICE SPACE IN LONDON - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS FOR INTERPRETING THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ENGLISH LAW) NO ORAL MODIFICATION CLAUSE IN WRITTEN CONTRACT - QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT PREVENTS PARTIES FROM VALIDLY AGREEING ORALLY ON ANY MODIFICATION OF THE CONTRACT CONTROVERSIAL UNDER ENGLISH LAW - BINDING FORCE NO ORAL MODIFICATION CLAUSE AFFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT WITH REFERENCE, AMONG OTHERS, TO INTERNATIONAL SOURCES SUCH AS THE CISG AND THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
United Kingdom Court of Appeal 20-01-2020 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - FRANCHISE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A LEBANESE COMPANY AND A KUWAITI COMPANY - ARBITRATION CLAUSE REFERRING TO "PRINCIPLES OF LAW GENERALLY RECOGNIZED IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS" - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF ENGLISH LAW - APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED AS AN EXPRESSION OF THESE PRINCIPLES - USE OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ENGLISH LAW) NO ORAL MODIFICATION CLAUSE IN WRITTEN CONTRACT - QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT PREVENTS PARTIES FROM VALIDLY AGREEING ORALLY A MODIFICATION OF THE CONTRACT (I.E. ADDING ANOTHER PARTY TO A CONTRACT) - CONTROVERSIAL UNDER ENGLISH LAW - REFERENCE BY THE COURT TO ART. 2.1.18 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES WHICH EXPRESSES A PRINCIPLE OF LAW SIMILAR TO THAT EXPRESSED BY ENGLISH LAW NO ORAL MODIFICATION CLAUSE IN WRITTEN CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ART. 2.1.18 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES BY ONE OF THE PARTIES - CANNOT CONTRADICT THE EXPRESS PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT | |
|
United Kingdom Supreme Court 27-10-2021 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - FRANCHISE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A LEBANESE COMPANY AND A KUWAITI COMPANY - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF ENGLISH LAW - ARBITRATION CLAUSE REFERRING ALSO TO "PRINCIPLES OF LAW GENERALLY RECOGNIZED IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS" REFERENCE BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES VALIDITY OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT - APPLICABLE LAW - REFERENCE TO ENGLISH LAW TOGETHER WITH UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE - CANNOT LEAD TO THE APPLICATION OF FRENCH LAW UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS TO SUPPLEMENT NATIONAL APPLICABLE LAW - CANNOT SUBSTITUTE PARTIES' CLEAR CHOICE IN FAVOUR OF THE LATTER | |
|
United Kingdom High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) 30-03-2022 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - JOINT-VENTURE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH GROUP OF COMPANIES AND A US GROUP OF COMPANIES - FOR THE DESIGN, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ORIGINAL ENGINE CONTROLS EQUIPMENT - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS FOR INTERPRETING THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ENGLISH LAW) NOVATION BY CONDUCT OF A CALL OPTION IN FAVOUR OF ONE OF THE PARTIES - COUNTERPARTY ESTOPPED FROM CONTENDING THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH NOVATION - CLAIMANT QUOTING UK COURTS' PRECEDENTS REFERRING TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO SANCTION INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOR - COURT AGREEING WITH ITS REASONING | |
|
United Kingdom High Court of Justice, Chancery Division 12-04-2022 SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN SOME ENGLISH INDIVIDUALS AND AN ENGLISH PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS FOR INTERPRETING THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ENGLISH LAW) NO ORAL MODIFICATION CLAUSE IN WRITTEN CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ART. 2.1.18 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - NOT APPLICABLE IN TEH ABSENCE OF A VALID REPRESENTATION | |
| FRENCH LAW | 11 |
| GERMAN LAW | 6 |
| GREEK LAW | 1 |
| INDIAN LAW | 2 |
| IRANIAN LAW | 1 |
| IRISH LAW | 1 |
| ISRAELI LAW | 1 |
| ITALIAN LAW | 32 |
| IVORIAN LAW | 1 |
| JAPANESE LAW | 1 |
| KAZAKH LAW | 1 |
| KUWAITI LAW | 1 |
| LAW OF A EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY | 1 |
| LAW OF A NORDIC COUNTRY | 1 |
| LAW OF THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC | 1 |
| LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | 2 |
| LEBANESE LAW | 2 |
| LIBYAN LAW | 1 |
| LITHUANIAN LAW | 16 |
| MEXICAN LAW | 3 |
| NEW ZEALAND LAW | 5 |
| NORWEGIAN LAW | 2 |
| PAKISTANI LAW | 1 |
| PAKISTANI LAW | 1 |
| PARAGUAYAN LAW | 30 |
| POLISH LAW | 6 |
| PORTUGUESE LAW | 3 |
| QUEBEC LAW | 4 |
| ROMANIAN LAW | 6 |
| RUSSIAN LAW | 79 |
| SAUDI LAW | 1 |
| SCOTTISH LAW | 1 |
| SERBIAN LAW | 1 |
| SINGAPOREAN LAW | 3 |
| SPANISH LAW | 30 |
| SWEDISH LAW | 5 |
| SWISS LAW | 14 |
| TURKISH LAW | 1 |
| TURKMEN LAW | 1 |
| UKRAINIAN LAW | 20 |
| URUGUAYAN LAW | 3 |
BY INTERNATIONAL LAW INVOLVED
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 7365/FMS 05-05-1997 STATE CONTRACTS - CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (IRANIAN LAW) - AGREEMENT BY PARTIES AS TO COMPLEMENTARY AND SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TRADE USAGES - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO DETERMINE CONTENT OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES HARDSHIP - RIGHT TO DEMAND TERMINATION OR ADAPTATION OF CONTRACT (ART. 6.2.3(4) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS - GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (ARTS. 5.1 AND 5.2 [ARTS. 5.1.1 AND 5.1.2 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) TERMINATION - RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (ART. 7.3.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) INTEREST - RIGHT TO INTEREST INDEPENDENT OF A FORMAL REQUEST BY AGGRIEVED PARTY (ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - DOUBTFUL WHETHER THIS PROVISION CORRESPONDS TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 12111 06-01-2003 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUMANIAN COMPANY AND AN ENGLISH COMPANY - REFERRING TO "INTERNATIONAL LAW" AS THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND THE LEX MERCATORIA - APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE PREAMBLE OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW - ACADEMIC EXERCISE PRELIMINARY TO A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE - AS SUCH NOT YET APPLICABLE TO INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS |
|
Arbitral Award Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce 29-03-2005 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A GIBRALTAR COMPANY AND A KYRGYZ STATE OWNED COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS A RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BUYER'S FAILURE TO PAY THE PRICE DUE TO INSOLVENCY CAUSED BY INTERFERENCE BY ITS COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT - GOVERNMENT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES VIS-A-VIS SELLER INTEREST - TO BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL RULES - APPLICATION OF ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL "TO BE AN APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE INTEREST" |
|
Arbitral Award Ad hoc Arbitration, Brussels 19-08-2005 STATE CONTRACTS - SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A DUTCH COMPANY AND THE POLISH GOVERNMENT - TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE BILATERAL TREATY FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AND "THE UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW" - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 14581 00-06-2007 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR LEASING EQUIPMENT AND LICENSING TECHNOLOGY - BETWEEN TWO MINISTRIES OF STATE X AND A COMPANY OF STATE Y - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS AN "EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES" ARBITRATION CLAUSE PROVIDING THAT DISPUTES TO BE DECIDED BY "THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION COURT IN SWITZERLAND" AND "IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW" - INTERPRETATION OF AMBIGUOUS CLAUSE ACCORDING TO SWISS LAW AS LAW OF SEAT OF ARBITRATION AND ACCORDING TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INVOKED BY PARTES AS "EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES", TOGETHER WITH EUROPEAN PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT LAW AND CISG - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SIMILAR PROVISION IN SWISS LAW |
|
Arbitral Award Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission 17-08-2009 ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION - DAMAGES CLAIMS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION FOR UNCERTAIN LOSSES - ASSESSMENT AT DISCRETION OF ADJUDICATING BODY - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
Arbitral Award Ad hoc Arbitration, The Hague 30-03-2010 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO UNITED STATES COMPANIES AND THE ECUADORIAN GOVERNMENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW AS WELL AS ECUADORIAN LAW) LOSS OF A CHANCE – CRITERION FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IN CASE OF BREACH OF THE BIT DUE TO DENIAL OF JUSTICE – REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(2) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES – ACCORDING TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ONLY ADMISSIBLE WHERE AMOUNT OF LOSS NOT DETERMINABLE – REFERENCE TO COMMENT 2 TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES FORCE MAJEURE – HARDSHIP – DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN A JUST AND EQUITABLE MANNER OF THE LOSSES AND GAINS RESULTING FROM UNFORESEEABLE EVENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (COMMENT ARTICLES 7.1.7 AND TO ARTICLES 6.2.2 – 6.2.3(2)) AND TO PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW (ARTICLE 6:111(3)(B)) AS A MEANS TO INTERPRET ECUADORIAN LAW (ARTICLE 1563 ECUADORIAN CIVIL CODE) |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 17146 00-00-2013 INTERNATIONAL CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSNATIONAL RULES AND TRADE USAGES) ARBITRATION CLAUSE - INTERPRETATION - ACCORDING TO PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH, OF EFFECTIVE INTERPRETATION AND OF CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE - REFERENCE TO ART. 4.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
Arbitral Award Permanent Court of Arbitration 04-06-2014 DISPUTE BETWEEN AN AUSTRIAN COMPANY AND THE SLOVAKIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE LATTER NEGATIVELY AFFECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE SECTOR - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY SLOVAKIA OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) JURISDICTION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT CLAIMANT INITIATED COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC THAT WERE PREDICATED ON THE SAME FACTS AND LEGAL BASIS AND SOUGHT THE SAME RELIEF AS IN THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDING IMPLIED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN THE NATIONAL COURTS, NOT IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS – REFERENCE BY BOTH PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.11, 3.2.12, 4.1 AND 4.2) – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AGREES WITH CLAIMANT THAT NO SUCH AGREEMENT WAS CONCLUDED WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATE – REFERENCE BY BOTH PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONFIRMS THAT CLAIMANT HAS WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE SINCE THE PROCEEDING BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 03-04-2018 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN BUYER AND A UKRAINIAN SELLER - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE REFERRING TO "INTERNATIONAL LAW" - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY CISG AND, FOR QUESTIONS NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE CISG, THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES SINCE THE PARTIES EXPRESS THEIR INTENTION TO EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF ANY NATIONAL LAW RIGHT TO INTEREST - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE INTEREST RATE |
|
Arbitral Award Permanent Court of Arbitration 10-01-2019 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN UNITED STATES INVESTORS AND THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT – BREACH OF THE LATTER OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE NORTH AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF A CHANCE - RIGHT TO COMPENSATION - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DAMAGES – COMPENSATION FOR FUTURE HARM DUE WHEN THERE IS A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS – REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 04-06-2004 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - BUILD-OPERATE-TRANSFER (BOT) CONTRACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICITY PLANT IN TURKEY - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES-TURKISH CONSORTIUM AND THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) CONTRACT WITH ESSENTIAL TERMS DELIBERATELY LEFT OPEN AND TO BE AGREED UPON AT LATER DATE - CONTRACT VALID IF PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE BY CLAIMANT TO ART. 2.14 (NOW 2.1.14) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES- ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 19-01-2007 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES-TURKISH CONSORTIUM AND THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) CONCESSION CONTRACT CONCLUDED WITH TERMS LEFT OPEN - ONE PARTY ARGUED THAT NEVERTHELESS CONTRACT HAD BEEN VALIDLY CONCLUDED INVOKING ARTICLE 2.1.14 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASICALLY CONFIRMS ONE PARTY ARGUED THAT DUTY TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT ENTAIL OBLIGATION TO REACH AGREEMENT INVOKING ARTICLE 2.1.15 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASICALLY CONFIRMS |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 01-09-2009 APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OF AN ICSID AWARD RENDERED BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF COURTS WHERE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - REFERENCE BY CLAIMANT TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 (3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - STANDARD OF COMPENSATION CONFIRMED BY BOTH ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AND AD HOC COMMITTEE |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 14-01-2010 STATE CONTRACTS – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT - REFERRING TO ARTICLE 54 OF THE ICSID ADDITIONAL FACILITY ARBITRATION RULES RECORDED AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW - APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "A PRIVATE CODIFICATION OF CIVIL LAW, APPROVED BY AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTION WHICH ARE NEITHER TREATY, NOR COMPILATION OF USAGES, NOR STANDARD TERMS OF CONTRACT BUT IN FACT ARE A MANIFESTATION OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - ACCORDING TO COMMON INTENTION OF PARTIES - RELEVANCE OF PRELIMINARY NEGOTIATIONS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 4.1 AND 4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES MERGER CLAUSE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 2.1.17 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DUTY TO USE BEST EFFORTS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 5.1.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 03-03-2010 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION AGREEMENT -BETWEEN GREEK AND ISRAELI INVESTORS AND THE GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF OIL PIPELINES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES AS TO SCOPE OF THE CONCESSION - WHETHER EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUING THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF ADMISSIBILITY - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, THOUGH WITHOUT EXPRESSLY REFERRING TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, BASICALLY CONCURRED |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 16-06-2010 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN FRENCH AND ARGENTINIAN COMPANIES AND THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT – BIT AND GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW APPLICABLE - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW DAMAGES – COMPENSATION DUE ONLY FOR HARM, INCLUDING FUTURE HARM, ESTABLISHED WITH REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY – REFERENCE TO ART. 36 ILC DRAFT ARTICLES ON RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS OF 2001 AND TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 28-03-2011 STATE CONTRACTS – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "A PRIVATE CODIFICATION OF CIVIL LAW, APPROVED BY AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTION WHICH ARE NEITHER TREATY, NOR COMPILATION OF USAGES, NOR STANDARD TERMS OF CONTRACT BUT IN FACT ARE A MANIFESTATION OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS - TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM DAMAGES FOR SIMPLE LOSS OF A CHANCE - REFERENCE TO THE EXAMPLE IN COMMENT 2 TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 12-05-2011 DISPUTE BETWEEN A SWISS COMPANY AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC - CONCERNING MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE LATTER NEGATIVELY AFFECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN THE TOBACCO SECTOR - ICSID ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT) CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT AGREEMENT CONTAINING THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE WAS NULL AND VOID - LACK OF PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE - RESPONDENT CANNOT INVOKE THE VIOLATION OF ITS LOCAL LAW TO CONSIDER ITS CONSENT TO ARBITRATION VITIATED OR NULL SEVERABILITY OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE - CLAIMANT INVOKING ART. 3.16 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ON PARTIAL AVOIDANCE [NOW ART. 3.2.13] - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONCURS |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 31-10-2011 DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES INVESTOR AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY (BIT) - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY THE BIT AND "INTERNATIONAL LAW, WHEN APPLICABLE" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES "A SORT OF INTERNATIONAL RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS REFLECTING RULES AND PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY THE MAJORITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS". DEFENDANT INVOKING FORCE MAJEURE AS EXCUSE FOR VIOLATION OF BIT - OBJECTION REJECTED ON GROUND OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF "PRECLUSION OF WRONGFULNESS" - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 6.2.2, 7.1.6 AND 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 01-06-2012 DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND THE SALVADORAN GOVERNMENT OVER THE LATTER'S ARBITRARY REFUSAL TO GRANT THE FORMER A MINING EXPLOITATION CONCESSION - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE HAD ARISEN WHEN CLAIMANT WAS NOT YET A UNITED STATES COMPANY BREACH OF AN OBLIGATION UNDER INVESTMENT TREATY BY OMISSION - EXPLICIT REFUSAL TO GRANT CONCESSION NOT NECESSARY - MERE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO APPLICATION SUFFICIENT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.1 UNDIROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 18-04-2017 STATE CONTRACTS – SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO ITALIAN NATIONALS AND THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY - CAN BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF COURTS WHERE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - IN CASE OF LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY MUST BE TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION THE PROBABILITY OF THE CHANCE COMING TO FRUITION - REFERENCE TO THE EXAMPLE IN COMMENT 2 TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 30-10-2017 STATE CONTRACTS – LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO SWISS COMPANIES AND THE VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISSENTING OPINION OF ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - COMPENSATION ONLY FOR FORESEEABLE HARM - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 74 CISG DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISSENTING OPINION OF ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - LOSS OF PROFITS CALCULATED AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE PRICE PAID BY THE BUYER FOR REPLACEMENT GOODS OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE MARKET PRICE AT THE TIME DELIVERIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IF REPLACEMENT GOODS ARE NOT PURCHASED - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 7.4.5-7.4.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 75-76 CISG |
|
Iranian-U.S. Arbitral Tribunal Iranian-U.S. Arbitral Tribunal (Full Tribunal) 02-07-2014 DISPUTE BETWEEN IRAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONCERNING ALLEGED BREACH BY UNITED STATES OF ITS OBLIGATION UNDER ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE 1981 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION ESTABLISHING THE IRAN-UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – ACCORDING TO ARTICLE V OF THE 1981 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION TRIBUNAL BOUND TO “DECIDE ALL CASES ON THE BASIS OF RESPECT FOR LAW, APPLYING SUCH CHOICE OF LAW RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINES TO BE APPLICABLE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT USAGES OF TRADE, CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES” UNITED STATES ORDERED TO PAY IRAN DAMAGES PLUS INTEREST – INTEREST CALCULATED “AT AN ANNUAL RATE EQUAL TO THE AVERAGE PRIME BANK LENDING RATE IN THE UNITED STATES” – TRIBUNAL SO DECIDED “[…] ALSO MINDFUL OF ARTICLE 7.4.9 (2) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2010” |
|
Netherlands Gerechtshof Den Haag 11-09-2013 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE OF ARBITRAL AWARDS APPLYING THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS RULES OF LAW GOVERNING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DISPUTE - REQUEST REJECTED BY COURT (DUTCH COURT) APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ON ITS OWN MOTION OF ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - OBJECTION THAT ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HAD EXCEEDED ITS MANDATE - REJECTED LIMITATION PERIODS - A PARTY'S OBJECTION THAT OTHER PARTY'S CLAIMS WERE TIME-BARRED REJECTED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AS THE 1994 EDITION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE LIMITATION PERIODS - ARGUMENT THAT THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT 2004 EDITION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES REJECTED - RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT EDITIONS OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DENIED |
|
Venezuela Civil Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court 02-12-2014 CONTRACT BETWEEN A VENEZUELAN COMPANY AND A DUTCH COMPANY - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - CONTRACT GOVERNED BY THE LAW WITH WHICH IT IS MOST DIRECTLY CONNECTED - TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS, AMONG OTHERS, OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (ART. 30 VENEZUELAN ACT ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW) - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO AS AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES |
|
Venezuela Civil Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court 17-03-2023 BILL OF EXCHANGE - SIGNED BY VENEZUELAN INDIVIDUALS IN CURAÇAO – APPLICABLE LAW IN THE ABSENCE OF A CHOICE OF THE PARTIES – REFERENCE TO LEX MERCATORIA CONTAINED IN THE NATIONAL PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE LEX MERCATORIA LAW APPLICABLE TO A BILL OF EXCHANGE - MONETARY OBLIGATION FOR WHICH THE PARTIES DID NOT CHOOSE THE APPLICABLE LAW - OBLIGATION SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE - OBLIGEE’S PLACE OF BUSINESS” AS THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE (ART. 6.1.6[1][a] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES). |