Judgment of 30 May 1994

XX Y.B. Comm. Arb. 745 (1995)

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

Judgment of 30 May 1994

Tokyo High Court
XX Y.B. Comm. Arb. 745 (1995)

Facts

The Japanese Education Corporation (JEC) (plaintiff) and Ringling Bros. (Ringling) (defendant) entered an agreement for Ringling to organize circus performances in Japan. The agreement contained an arbitration clause referring all disputes to International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration in either New York or Tokyo. The arbitration agreement also provided that the place of arbitration would be the country of the party against which arbitration is initiated. The parties later had a dispute, and JEC sought damages in the District Court of Tokyo. JEC alleged the Ringling representative deceived JEC as to certain financial matters contained in the parties’ contract. In November 1990, Ringling obtained an injunction order from the U.S. District Court, enjoining JEC from proceeding with the lawsuit in Tokyo District Court. The U.S. District Court also ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration under the ICC Rules in Japan as dictated by the arbitration clause. JEC did not participate in the proceedings in the American courts and continued its suit in the Tokyo District Court. The Tokyo District Court ordered the parties to begin arbitration. JEC appealed to the High Court of Tokyo, arguing that the arbitration clause was null and void because it failed to indicate the competent arbitral institution in Japan. Ringling argued that the existence of the arbitration agreement barred any court proceedings in either America or Japan under the American Federal Arbitration Act and the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure.

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