Judgment of 30 December 1994

13 ASA Bull. 217 (1995)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Judgment of 30 December 1994

Switzerland Federal Tribunal
13 ASA Bull. 217 (1995)

Facts

W (defendant), a Panamanian company controlled by nationals of State K, entered into a contract with F and U (plaintiffs), companies incorporated in State Y. Under the contract, W would assist F and U in obtaining orders from State K for deliveries of M-84 tanks from the State U defense industry. In return, F committed to pay for W’s services under a guarantee from U. The contract between W and the individuals from State Y contained an arbitration clause, pursuant to the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). F and the Minister of Defense of State K subsequently entered into an agreement for the delivery of a number of M-84 tanks for a set price. F terminated the contract with W, claiming it was contrary to the mandatory laws of State K and State Y. F and the Minister of Defense of State K also entered into a new agreement regarding construction of training facilities for M-84 tanks at a set price. Citing these agreements between F and the Minister of Defense, W claimed payment of its fees from F. F refused to pay W. W referred the dispute about payment to arbitration, seeking fees due under the fee agreement. In the briefs, however, W sought payment only from F and compensatory damages from U. The arbitral tribunal entered an award in favor of W. F and U filed suit in the Swiss courts, challenging the arbitral award under Article 190 of the Swiss Law on Private International Law (SLPIL). U specifically sought an annulment of the arbitral award, arguing the tribunal exceeded its authority by accepting a modification of W’s claim in breach of the ICC Rules. F and U jointly argued that the fee agreement failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the laws of State K and required F to pay W bribes in contravention of Swiss law.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership