- 19 diciembre, 2020
- Posted by: admin-fenocol
The disputes between the complainant, Caravel Shipping and the respondent Premier Sea Foods stem from a lattes law. The First Sea was called “Consignor/Shipper” in the Bill of Lading. The terms of the car letter expressly state that both parties are required, upon the enactment of the Lading Act, to all conditions, clauses and exceptions, whether typed, printed or not. In addition, section 25, “Jurisdiction/Arbitration” of the Bill of Lading, which was a printed condition attached to Lading`s bill, contained the compromise clause. Article 13 of Swiss Bond Law (…) stipulates that a contract prescribed by law must be signed by all persons to whom it imposes obligations. In this case, neither the proposed framework contract nor the arbitration agreement was signed.16 On September 8, 2012, Mr. .B sent an e-mail to Z.________ D.________, to which he added a fourth version of the framework contract, citing a counter-proposal containing a number of amendments made by X.________, but leaving the compromise clause of Article 14 unchanged. The compromise clause inserted in the draft framework contract would apply only to disputes relating to the non-existence or nullity of the aforementioned contract or the pre-contract liability of the parties, according to the applicant. As a result, the arbitration agreement for section 14 of the draft framework contract could not be invoked by the respondent, who asked the arbitrator to rule on the dispute related to the may 16, 2012 co-sale contract, namely a separate contract entered into prior to the proposed framework contract.
According to the complainant, the arbitrator`s jurisdiction would therefore have necessitated the conclusion of an ad hoc arbitration agreement. On a formal level, the arbitration agreement is valid if it is concluded in writing, telegram, telex, fax or any other means of communication that can prove it by a text (Article 178, paragraph 1, PILA). The particular form prescribed by this provision is a condition of the validity of the arbitration agreement. It aims to avoid any uncertainty as to the choice of parties, to opt for this type of private settlement of disputes and to any ridiculous waiver of the natural forum and insider courts that consist of public judicial proceedings (Pierre-Yves Tchanz, Romand, Lugano Convention International Law Act, 2011, ns. 25/26 ad art. 178 PILA). “… provides clear evidence of mutual intent and consent to conciliation” (N.
148); “… the “conciliation agreement for contracting parties” under Article 1 CO was “perfected” until 8 September 2012… (n.