Seller (Denmark) v. Buyer (Germany)
Germany Court of Appeal
21 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 535 (1996)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
A seller from Denmark (plaintiff) and a buyer from Germany (defendant) entered into a contract that contained a term submitting disputes between the buyer and seller arising under the contract to arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). A dispute was referred to the ICC for arbitration conducted by a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator decided, over the objections of the buyer, to conduct the arbitration proceedings in English. The buyer submitted a memo to the arbitrator making certain claims about the dispute. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of the seller. The buyer appealed, arguing that the award should not be enforced. The buyer asserted that due process and public policy were violated because it was a Dutch-language party and had objected to the use of English in conducting the proceedings. The buyer also alleged that because of the choice of language, the arbitrator did not properly understand the memo the buyer submitted, which resulted in an improper award. The buyer offered no specific evidence of occasions in which it could not understand the arbitration proceedings because the proceedings were conducted in English. The buyer also provided no proof to support its claim that the arbitrator misunderstood the contents of the memo.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.