英文版仲裁协议常用条款

AWARD OF ARBITRATION OF CONTRACT DISPUTE

日期：The date of

双方当事人：Parties：

申诉方/反诉被诉方：卖方Claimant/counter-defendant： Seller

被诉方/反诉申诉方：买方Defendant/Counter-claimant： Buyer

仲裁地： Place of arbitration：

事实 FACTS

1994年，双方当事人根据某种协议规格规定签署了3份买卖一种产品的合同。在收到

货运单据后，买方即按合同规定，支付了全部合同价的90%.

In 1994, the parties concluded three contracts for the sale of a product according to certain

contract specifications. The buyer paid 90% of the price payable under each of the contracts

upon prentation of the shipping documents, as contractually agreed.

按第一和第三份合同提供的产品符合协议规格，第二批货物的规格在装运前就有过争

议。产品抵达目的地后重新检验，发现其不符合协议规格。为便于脱手，经过某种处

理，最终买方将产品卖给了第三方，损失惨重。

The product delivered pursuant to the first and third contracts met the contract specifications.

The conformity of the cond consignment was dispute prior to its shipment. When the

product was again inspected upon arrival, it was found that it did not meet the contract

The ller initiated arbitration proceedings to recover the 10% balance remaining due under

the contracts. The buyer filed a counterclaim alleging that the ller's claim should be t off

against the amounts which the buyer estimates to be payable to the buyer by the ller, i.e.,

the direct loss, financing costs, lost profits and interest.

一、适用的法律 APPLICABLE LAW

（1）鉴于合同未含有关实体法的任何条款，故法律问题应根据国际商会仲裁规则第

13条第3款决定。根据该条规则，仲裁员们应适用它们认为适合的法律冲突规则所规

定的准据法则。

The contract contains no provisions regarding the substantive law. Accordingly that law has

to be determined by the Arbitrators in accordance with Art. 13（3） of the ICC rules. Under

that article, the Arbitrators will apply the law designated as the proper law by the rule of

conflicts which they deem appropriate.

（2）这是一个由不同国际的卖方和买方签署的在第三国交货的合同。买卖规定为船上

交货，故风险在卖方所在国便转给了卖方。由此，卖方所在国似乎就成为与买卖关系

最近的管辖地。

The contract is between a Seller and a Buyer （of different nationalities） for delivery （in a

third country）. The sale b. so that the transfer of risks to the Buyer took place

in （the country of Seller）. （The country of Seller） accordingly appears as being the

jurisdiction to which the sale is most cloly related.

（3） 有关国际货物买卖适用法律的1995年6月15日《海牙公约》在涉及销售合同

时，将卖方现行居住地法律视为占支配地位的法律。买方所在国加入了《海牙公

约》，卖方所在国则没有。尽管如此，法律冲突法的总趋势却是适用合同主要业务的

债务人现行所在地的国内法。在销售合同中，此债务人为卖方。基于这些因素，卖方

所在国的法律似乎便成了规定买卖双方之间合同的准据法。

The Hague Convention on the law applicable to international sales of goods dated 15 June

1995 （Art. 3） regarding sales contracts, refers as governing law to the law of the Seller's

current residence. （The country of the Buyer） has adhered to the Hague convention,

not （the country of the Seller）. However, the general trend in conflicts of law is to apply

the domestic law of the current residence of the debtor of the esntial undertaking arising

under the contract. That debtor in a sales contract is the Seller. Bad on tho combined

findings, （the law of the country of the Seller） appears to be the proper law governing the

Contract between the Seller and the Buyer.

2

（4）至于卖方所在国法律的适用规则，仲裁员们依据的是双方当事人各自陈述的理

由，以及仲裁员们从一位独立咨询人处所得的信息。根据国际商会仲裁规则第13条最

后一段之规定，仲裁员们也将考虑相关的贸易惯例。

As regards the applicable rules of （the law of the country of the Seller）, the Arbitrators

have relied on the Parties' respective statements on the subject and on the information

obtained by the Arbitration from an independent consultant. The Arbitrators, in accordance

with the last paragraph of Art. 13 of the ICC rules, will also take into account the relevant

trade usage.

二、反诉的可受理性 ADMISSIBILITY OF THE COUNTERCLAIM

（5） 仲裁庭认为，1980年4月11日的《关于国际货物销售的联合国公约》（通称

《维也纳公约》）是现行贸易惯例的最好渊源，即使买卖双方所在国均不是公约的成

员国，倘若买卖双方所在国均为公约成员国，在本案中，该公约不仅可考虑作为贸易

惯例适用，而且还可作为法律适用

The Tribunal finds that there is no better source to determine the prevailing trade usage than

terms of the United Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980, usually

called the Vienna Convention. This is also even though neither （the country of the

Buyer） nor （the country of the Seller） are parties to that Convention. If they were, the

Convention might be applicable to this ca as a matter of law and not only as reflecting the

trade usage.

（6） 《维也纳公约》已在17个国家生效，考虑用它适用于国际货物销售中的不符规

格事项有通用惯例，应属合情合理。《维也纳公约》第38条第1款规定买方负有“当

场检查或叫人检查货物”的责任。买方应在注意或应当注意到瑕疵后的合理期限内通知

卖方货物不符合合同的规格；否则，他将丧失就上述不符规格而提起索赔的权利。第

39条第1款具体规定道：

“如买方在交货后两年之内没有通知卖方，无论如何，买方都将丧失在货物不符规格

问题上的申诉权利，除非此种不符规格构成了对长期担保的违背”。

The Vienna Convention, which has been given effect to in 17 countries, may be fairly taken

to reflect the generally recognized usage regarding the matter of the non-conformity of goods

on international sales. Art. 38（1）of the Convention puts the onus on the Buyer to “examine

the goods or cau them to be examined promptly”. The buyer should then notify the Seller

of the nonconformity of the goods within a reasonable period as of the moment he noticed or

should have noticed the defect； otherwi he forfeits his right to rai a claim bad on the

said non-conformity. Art. 39（1） specifies in the respect that： “In any event the buyer

shall lo the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he has not given notice

thereof to the ller within a period of two years from the date on which the goods were

3

handed over, unless the lack of conformity constituted a breach of guarantee covering a

longer period.”

（7）本案中，买方在合理的期限内已对货运作过检查，因为在货物抵达之前，一位专

家曾被请去检查过装船。买方也应被认定在合理的期限内，即在专家报告公布后的8

天内，就产品瑕疵作过通报。

In the circumstances, the Buyer had the shipment examined within a reasonable time-span

since （an expert） was requested to inspect the shipment even before the goods had arrived.

The Buyer should also be deemed to have given notice of the defects within a reasonable

period, that is eight days after the expert's report had been published.

（8）仲裁庭认为，就本案情况而言，买方遵守了上述《维也纳公约》的要件规定。这

些要件要比卖方所在国的法律的规定灵活许多。卖方所在国法律所规定的买方通知卖

方的时限特别短，特别具体，在这点上，似乎是通用的贸易惯例的一种例外。

The Tribunal finds that, in the circumstances of the ca, the Buyer has complied with the

above-mentioned requirements of the Vienna Convention. The requirements are

considerably more flexible than tho provided under （the law of the country of the

Seller）. This law, by imposing extremely short and specific time requirements in respect of

the giving of the notice of defects by the Buyer to the Seller appears to be an exception on

this point to the generally accepted trade usage.

（9） 无论如何，也应当认定卖方已经丧失了援引《维也纳》第38和第39条有关产

品不符规格的任何规定的权利，因为第40条规定：“只有卖方知道，或他不可能不知

道，或他没有透露有关的不符规格的事实，他便不能适用第38和第39条规定”。实际

看来这也是事实，因为书证和口证都清楚表明卖方知道且不可能不知道提交的货物不

符合同规格规定。

In any ca, the Seller should be regarded as having forfeited its right to invoke any non-

compliance with the requirements of Art. 38 and 39 of the Vienna Convention since Art. 40

states that the Seller cannot rely on Arts. 38 and 39, if the lack of conformity relates to facts

of which he knew, or of which he could not have been unware, and which he did not disclo.

Indeed, this appears to be the ca, since it clearly transpires from the file and evidence that

the Seller knew and could not be unaware （of the non-conformity of the consignment

to ） contract specification.

（10）就是假定该条款可适用于本案，它无论如何也没有规定本仲裁庭应驳回反诉，

即使对反诉的审理会耽误对主诉的审查。按其规定，要求抵消的反诉一般都应接受，

除非仲裁庭认为同时审理反诉会过分耽误对事实的判决，因而认为把反诉同主诉分开

4

比较恰当。在本案中，按规定说明，主诉和反诉已经进行共同审理，成为一次性裁决

事项，故没有理由在将它们分割开。

This provision, even assuming that it may apply in the circumstances, does not in any way

require the tribunal to reject the counterclaim if its examination might delay that of the main

claim. It simply states that the counterclaim for tting off is always admissible except only

that the tribunal may find it appropriate to rve the counterclaim from the main claim lest a

concurrent examination of counterclaim should excessively delay the judgment on the merits.

In the prent ca, the main Claim and the counterclaim, in accordance with the Terms of

Reference, have been examined together so as to be the subject of a single award, and there is