A (South Africa) v. B (U.S.A.)
Swiss Federal Supreme Court
Case No. 4A 240/2009 [Arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce Rules with seat in Zurich] (2009)
Company A (plaintiff) was a chemical company from South Africa. Company B (defendant) was a chemical company from the United States. Company A and company B contracted for company A to sell chemicals to company B. The contract contained an arbitration provision. The contract required company B to submit data for pricing purposes and permitted either party to terminate the agreement if the other party was in material breach of the agreement. The contract also contained a choice-of-law clause stating that the contract should be construed according to Swiss law “as applied between domestic parties.” Company A terminated the agreement after several years, alleging company B materially breached the contract by failing to make all payments and provide necessary data. Company B denied company A’s claims and initiated arbitration proceedings against company A. The arbitral tribunal found that company B did not fully perform its obligations under the contract, but it also found that company A could not terminate the contract, because company B’s conduct did not constitute a material breach. The concept of material breach did not exist under Swiss law, so the arbitral tribunal interpreted the term according to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (the UNIDROIT Principles) published by the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT). The CISG and UNIDROIT Principles were both commonly used, widely known instruments addressing international contracts. Company A applied to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the arbitral award. Company A argued that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority by applying the CISG and UNIDROIT Principles because the parties explicitly chose the domestic laws of Switzerland to govern the contract.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 710,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.