Award in VIAC Case No. SCH-4366 of 15 June 1994 [Claimant (Austria) v. Respondent (Germany)]
Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, International Arbitral Tribunal
2 Unilex, E. 199414, p.331 (1994)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Over a three-month period, the claimant (plaintiff) and the respondent (defendant) made three agreements for the sale of sheet metal by the claimant to the respondent. The terms of the contractual agreements, which were essentially identical, were written only in the order acknowledgments sent to the respondent by the claimant. Each contract contained an arbitration clause, also written only in the acknowledgment of orders, that stated unsettled disputes were to be arbitrated according to the Arbitral Rules of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber. The respondent never signed the acknowledgments containing the arbitration clause. However, a letter sent from the respondent to the claimant in January 1993 made express references to the contracts containing the arbitration clauses that were included in the acknowledgments. When a dispute arose from one of the contracts, the respondent followed the terms of the arbitration clause included in the acknowledgment and completed arbitration at the specified Austrian arbitral center. In March 1993, the claimant filed a request for arbitration related to respondent’s failure to accept and pay for the goods ordered in the remaining two contracts. The respondent challenged the validity of the arbitration clause.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
