International Standard Electric Corp. v. Bridas Sapic
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
745 F. Supp. 172 (1990)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
A dispute between International Standard Electric Corporation (ISEC) (plaintiff) and Bridas Sapic (defendant) was arbitrated by a panel of arbitrators in the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The place of arbitration was selected by the ICC court pursuant to the procedural rules agreed to by the parties. The parties selected the law of New York as the applicable substantive law, and Mexico City was the selected place of arbitration. The ICC panel unanimously issued Bridas Sapic a large award. ISEC petitioned the federal district court in the Southern District of New York to vacate the award. ISEC argued that under the New York Convention (the convention), the courts of the place of arbitration and the courts of the place whose substantive law applied to the arbitration had jurisdiction to set aside the award. Bridas Sapic asked the district court to dismiss ISEC’s petition on the ground that the convention did not give the district court jurisdiction to set aside the award. Bridas argued that under the convention, only the courts of the place of arbitration—in this case, Mexico—had jurisdiction to set aside an arbitration award.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Conboy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
