Judgment of 19 July 2000
Almelo Court of First Instance
XXVI Y.B. Comm. Arb. 827 (2001)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Société d’Etudes et de Commerce SA (SEC) (plaintiff) entered a charter-party contract with Weyl Beef Products BV (Weyl) (defendant). Husson Huijsman Reefer BV (HHR) signed the charter-party contract on behalf of Weyl. The charter-party contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration before a tribunal seated in London. A dispute arose between the parties, and the parties referred the dispute to arbitration before a sole arbitrator in London. During the arbitration, Weyl disputed the jurisdiction as HHR lacked the authority to enter the contract and its arbitration agreement on behalf of Weyl. The English arbitrator held HHR did have the authority to bind Weyl and found the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction. The arbitrator entered a Final Award on October 19, 1999, and an Award of Costs on February 7, 2000, in favor of SEC. SEC then sought enforcement of the awards under the New York Convention in a lawsuit filed in the Netherlands. Weyl objected to the enforcement of the awards. Weyl again argued that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over the dispute as HHR lacked the authority to enter the charter-party contract on behalf of Weyl. Weyl asserted that because HHR lacked the authority to enter the charter-party contract, no valid arbitration agreement existed between SEC and Weyl.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.