Judgment of 12 January 2005
Switzerland Federal Tribunal
DFT 131 III 164 (2005)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Company A (defendant) and Company B (plaintiff) entered a contract with an arbitration agreement. A dispute arose between the parties, and the parties referred the dispute to the arbitral tribunal under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). In March 2004, the three arbitrators on the arbitral tribunal unanimously entered a partial award in favor of Company B. The partial award fixed the price of the 49 shares of company C to a set amount and ordered A to pay B a certain amount as compensation. In April 2004, Company B entered a request for amendment of the partial award to the ICC. In August 2004, the arbitral tribunal entered a corrective addendum to the partial award, fixing certain operative parts of the partial award. To justify the amendment, the arbitrators conceded certain mistakes in the tribunal’s initial partial award. In October 2004, Company A entered an appeal against the initial award entered in March 2004, and the Swiss Federal Tribunal rejected the initial award. Following the appeal on the March 2004 award, Company A applied to annul the updated partial award and the addendum issued in August 2004, citing Articles 190(2)(a), (d), and (e) of the Swiss Law on Private International Law (SLPIL). Company A did not specify why the case fell under Articles 190(2)(a), (d), and (e) of the SLPIL.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
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. 46,500 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.