From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co., Ltd.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
241 F.3d 135 (2001)

Written by David Bloom, JD

Facts

U.S. Titan, Inc. (Titan) (plaintiff), a company with a New York principal place of business, negotiated a charter-party agreement with Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co., Ltd. (Zhen Hua) (defendant), a company owned by the Chinese government. Titan and Zhen Hua negotiated through written communications exchanged between their respective brokers that evidenced Zhen Hua’s consent to be bound by charter-party agreement. The charter-party agreement contained an arbitration clause. Titan accused Zhen Hua of breaching the charter-party agreement. Zhen Hua denied that a valid charter-party agreement existed. Titan filed suit against Zhen Hua in a federal district court, seeking a determination that the charter-party agreement was valid, and moved to compel arbitration. Zhen Hua argued that it had agreed to arbitrate only the issue of whether a valid charter-party agreement had been formed, not to arbitrate all disputes arising from the charter-party agreement. Zhen Hua moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court found that a valid charter-party agreement had been formed, granted Titan’s motion to compel arbitration, and denied Zhen Hua’s motion to dismiss. Zhen Hua appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
The procedural disposition (e.g., reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

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 791,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.
Unlock this case brief Read our student testimonials
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.
Learn about our approach Read more about Quimbee

Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.