About 100 abstracts of international arbitral awards issued in the field of distribution, by national and international arbitral institutions are available in this section.
A detailed keyword search tool will help you go through the uploaded documents.
Users without a membership can only view Case No. 2626/1977.
If you would like to sign in please click here.
|Case No. 2626 - Date 1977|
|Institution/Seat||ICC Arbitration (seat Essen - Germany)|
An agency agreement was signed by a German Principal and an Italian Agent, a company which, at the time of conclusion of the contract, was a limited liability company and was then changed into a stock company.
laimant initiated the arbitral procedures against the stock company, which objected that the arbitration clause had been accepted by an entity (the limited liability company) different from the present defendant in the arbitration procedure. The arbitrator stated that there was a juridical succession between the two companies, meaning that the stock company had to be considered as the successor of the limited liability company and therefore the arbitration clause was exceptionable towards the defendant.
he second issue concerned jurisdiction. The parties, in the arbitration clause, decided to submit the dispute to the ICC in Geneva, but they chose Essen, in Germany, as seat of arbitration; since the seat of the ICC is in Paris, Respondent alleged that the parties did not reach any agreement over the competence of the ICC. The arbitrator stated that the uncorrected choice of the seat of arbitration did not modify the will of the parties, who clearly expressed the intention to submit the dispute to an ICC arbitration, whatever was the seat of it.
he last issue examined by the arbitrator was the admissibility of the Claimant's claims (the Respondent alleged that they were late) and of the counterclaims of the Respondent (they were presented after the beginning of the arbitral proceedings). Regarding the claims, the arbitrator stated that no time limit is set by the ICC Rules and therefore they were admissible. Regarding the counterclaims the decision was against their admissibility because they were not presented in the terms of reference and were therefore considered too late to be taken into consideration in the procedure.
|Parties||German Principal (Claimant) v. Italian Agent (Respondent)|
|Applicable laws||German Law|