Hoogovens Ijmuiden Verkoopkantoor Bv v. MV Sea Cattleya
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
852 F. Supp. 6 (1994)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Van Ommeren (defendant) agreed to ship steel coils to the company that owned the MV Sea Cattleya (the company) (plaintiff) from the Netherlands. In January 1989, the parties entered a written contract in Ijmuiden, Netherlands, agreeing to ship the steel coils to Bridgeport, Connecticut. The written agreement contained Clause 2 stating “general average and arbitration [was] to be settled in the Netherlands.” The company discovered the steel coils were damaged during the shipping to the United States, and a dispute arose between the parties about the damage, culminating in the company initiating an admiralty action. Van Ommeren sought a stay of the proceedings pursuant to the New York Convention and to compel arbitration between the parties in the Netherlands. Van Ommeren further argued that under Oriental Commercial & Shipping Co. v. Rosseel NV, the parties must submit all disputes arising in connection with the written agreement to arbitration due to the terms of Clause 2 of the agreement from January 1989. The company countered that the clause only states the location for any arbitration that the parties voluntarily decide to enter or for any arbitration required by another contract clause. The company alternatively argued that Clause 2 only requires arbitration in the Netherlands for general average claims and that Van Ommeren is not making such claims here.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Whitman Knapp, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.