日期：The date of 雙方當事人：Parties： 申訴方/反訴被訴方：賣方Claimant/counter-defendant：Seller 被訴方/反訴申訴方：買方Defendant/Counter-claimant：Buyer 仲裁地： Place of arbitration： 事實 FACTS 1994年，雙方當事人根據某種協議規格規定簽
日期：The date of
雙方當事人：Parties：
申訴方/反訴被訴方：賣方Claimant/counter-defendant： Seller
被(bei)訴方(fang)/反訴申(shen)訴方(fang)：買方(fang)Defendant/Counter-claimant： Buyer
仲裁(cai)地： Place of arbitration：
事實(shi) FACTS
1994年，雙方(fang)(fang)當(dang)事人根據某種協議規(gui)(gui)格(ge)規(gui)(gui)定簽署了3份(fen)買(mai)賣一種產品的合(he)同(tong)。在收到(dao)貨運(yun)單據后，買(mai)方(fang)(fang)即(ji)按合(he)同(tong)規(gui)(gui)定，支付了全部合(he)同(tong)價的90%.
In 1994, the parties concluded three contracts for the sale of a product
according to certain contract specifications. The buyer paid 90% of the price
payable under each of the contracts upon presentation of the shipping documents,
as contractually agreed.
按第一和第三(san)份合同提供的產(chan)(chan)品符合協議規格，第二批(pi)貨物的規格在裝運前就有(you)過(guo)爭議。產(chan)(chan)品抵達(da)目(mu)的地后(hou)重(zhong)新檢(jian)驗，發(fa)現其不符合協議規格。為便(bian)于(yu)脫手，經過(guo)某種處理，最終買方將產(chan)(chan)品賣給(gei)了第三(san)方，損失慘重(zhong)。
The product delivered pursuant to the first and third contracts met the
contract specifications. The conformity of the second consignment was dispute
prior to its shipment. When the product was again inspected upon arrival, it was
found that it did not meet the contract specifications. The product was
eventually sold by the buyer to third parties at considerable loss, after having
undergone a certain treatment to make it more saleable.
賣方(fang)提(ti)請仲裁，要求收回(hui)10%的合同余款(kuan)。買(mai)方(fang)提(ti)起反訴(su)，聲稱應(ying)從(cong)賣方(fang)所索費(fei)用中扣除買(mai)方(fang)估計應(ying)由賣方(fang)賠償買(mai)方(fang)的一筆費(fei)用，即：直接損失費(fei)、財務成本費(fei)、所損失的利潤及利息(xi)費(fei)。
The seller initiated arbitration proceedings to recover the 10% balance
remaining due under the contracts. The buyer filed a counterclaim alleging that
the seller's claim should be set off against the amounts which the buyer
estimates to be payable to the buyer by the seller, i.e., the direct losses,
financing costs, lost profits and interest.
一、適用的法律 APPLICABLE LAW
（1）鑒于合(he)同未含(han)有關實(shi)體法的任何條(tiao)款，故法律問題應根(gen)據國際(ji)商(shang)會(hui)仲裁(cai)規則(ze)第13條(tiao)第3款決定(ding)。根(gen)據該條(tiao)規則(ze)，仲裁(cai)員們(men)應適(shi)用它(ta)們(men)認為適(shi)合(he)的法律沖突(tu)規則(ze)所規定(ding)的準據法則(ze)。
The contract contains no provisions regarding the substantive law.
Accordingly that law has to be determined by the Arbitrators in accordance with
Art. 13（3） of the ICC rules. Under that article, the Arbitrators will apply the
law designated as the proper law by the rule of conflicts which they deem
appropriate.
（2）這是一個由不(bu)同國際的賣(mai)方(fang)和(he)買方(fang)簽署的在(zai)第(di)三國交(jiao)貨的合同。買賣(mai)規定為船上交(jiao)貨，故風險在(zai)賣(mai)方(fang)所(suo)在(zai)國便轉給了賣(mai)方(fang)。由此，賣(mai)方(fang)所(suo)在(zai)國似乎(hu)就成為與(yu)買賣(mai)關系最近的管轄地。
The contract is between a Seller and a Buyer （of different nationalities）
for delivery （in a third country）. The sale was f.o.b. so that the transfer of
risks to the Buyer took place in （the country of Seller）. （The country of
Seller） accordingly appears as being the jurisdiction to which the sale is most
closely related.
（3） 有(you)關國際貨物買賣適(shi)用(yong)法(fa)律的(de)1995年6月(yue)15日《海牙公約(yue)》在(zai)涉及銷售合(he)同(tong)(tong)時，將賣方(fang)現行居住地(di)法(fa)律視(shi)為占支配(pei)地(di)位的(de)法(fa)律。買方(fang)所(suo)(suo)在(zai)國加入(ru)了《海牙公約(yue)》，賣方(fang)所(suo)(suo)在(zai)國則沒有(you)。盡管如此，法(fa)律沖突法(fa)的(de)總(zong)趨勢卻是(shi)適(shi)用(yong)合(he)同(tong)(tong)主要(yao)業務(wu)的(de)債務(wu)人現行所(suo)(suo)在(zai)地(di)的(de)國內法(fa)。在(zai)銷售合(he)同(tong)(tong)中，此債務(wu)人為賣方(fang)。基于這些因素，賣方(fang)所(suo)(suo)在(zai)國的(de)法(fa)律似乎(hu)便成了規定買賣雙(shuang)方(fang)之間合(he)同(tong)(tong)的(de)準據法(fa)。
The Hague Convention on the law applicable to international sales of goods
dated 15 June 1995 （Art. 3） regarding sales contracts, refers as governing law
to the law of the Seller's current residence. （The country of the Buyer） has
adhered to the Hague convention, not （the country of the Seller）. However, the
general trend in conflicts of law is to apply the domestic law of the current
residence of the debtor of the essential undertaking arising under the contract.
That debtor in a sales contract is the Seller. Based on those combined findings,
（the law of the country of the Seller） appears to be the proper law governing
the Contract between the Seller and the Buyer.
（4）至于賣方所在國(guo)法律的(de)適用規(gui)則(ze)，仲(zhong)裁(cai)員(yuan)們(men)依(yi)據的(de)是雙方當(dang)事人(ren)各自(zi)陳述的(de)理由(you)，以及仲(zhong)裁(cai)員(yuan)們(men)從一位獨(du)立咨詢人(ren)處所得(de)的(de)信息。根(gen)據國(guo)際商會仲(zhong)裁(cai)規(gui)則(ze)第13條最后一段之(zhi)規(gui)定(ding)，仲(zhong)裁(cai)員(yuan)們(men)也將考慮相關(guan)的(de)貿易慣例(li)。
As regards the applicable rules of （the law of the country of the Seller）, the
Arbitrators have relied on the Parties' respective statements on the subject and
on the information obtained by the Arbitration from an independent consultant.
The Arbitrators, in accordance with the last paragraph of Art. 13 of the ICC
rules, will also take into account the relevant trade u
sage.
二、反訴的可受理性 ADMISSIBILITY OF THE COUNTERCLAIM
（5） 仲裁庭認為(wei)，1980年4月11日的(de)(de)《關于國(guo)(guo)(guo)際(ji)貨物銷(xiao)售的(de)(de)聯合國(guo)(guo)(guo)公約(yue)(yue)(yue)(yue)》（通稱(cheng)《維也納公約(yue)(yue)(yue)(yue)》）是(shi)現行貿(mao)易(yi)慣例的(de)(de)最好淵源，即使買賣(mai)雙方所(suo)在(zai)(zai)國(guo)(guo)(guo)均(jun)不是(shi)公約(yue)(yue)(yue)(yue)的(de)(de)成員(yuan)國(guo)(guo)(guo)，倘若買賣(mai)雙方所(suo)在(zai)(zai)國(guo)(guo)(guo)均(jun)為(wei)公約(yue)(yue)(yue)(yue)成員(yuan)國(guo)(guo)(guo)，在(zai)(zai)本(ben)案中(zhong)，該公約(yue)(yue)(yue)(yue)不僅(jin)可(ke)考慮作(zuo)為(wei)貿(mao)易(yi)慣例適用(yong)，而且還可(ke)作(zuo)為(wei)法律適用(yong)
The Tribunal finds that there is no better source to determine the
prevailing trade usage than terms of the United Convention on the International
Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980, usually called the Vienna Convention. This is
also even though neither （the country of the Buyer） nor （the country of the
Seller） are parties to that Convention. If they were, the Convention might be
applicable to this case as a matter of law and not only as reflecting the trade
usage.
（6） 《維也納公約》已在17個國家生(sheng)效，考慮用(yong)(yong)它(ta)適用(yong)(yong)于國際貨物(wu)銷(xiao)售中的(de)(de)不符(fu)規格(ge)事項有通用(yong)(yong)慣例，應屬合情合理。《維也納公約》第38條第1款(kuan)規定(ding)買方負有“當(dang)場檢(jian)(jian)查或叫人(ren)檢(jian)(jian)查貨物(wu)”的(de)(de)責任(ren)。買方應在注(zhu)意或應當(dang)注(zhu)意到(dao)瑕疵后的(de)(de)合理期限內通知(zhi)賣方貨物(wu)不符(fu)合合同的(de)(de)規格(ge)；否則，他將喪失就上(shang)述不符(fu)規格(ge)而提起索賠的(de)(de)權(quan)利。第39條第1款(kuan)具體規定(ding)道(dao)：
“如買方在(zai)交貨后(hou)兩(liang)年之內(nei)沒有通知賣方，無論如何，買方都將喪失在(zai)貨物不(bu)符規格問(wen)題上的(de)申訴權(quan)利，除(chu)非此種不(bu)符規格構(gou)成了對長期擔保的(de)違背”。
The Vienna Convention, which has been given effect to in 17 countries, may
be fairly taken to reflect the generally recognized usage regarding the matter
of the non-conformity of goods on international sales. Art. 38（1）of the
Convention puts the onus on the Buyer to “examine the goods or cause them to be
examined promptly”. The buyer should then notify the Seller of the nonconformity
of the goods within a reasonable period as of the moment he noticed or should
have noticed the defect； otherwise he forfeits his right to raise a claim based
on the said non-conformity. Art. 39（1） specifies in the respect that： “In any
event the buyer shall lose the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the
goods if he has not given notice thereof to the seller within a period of two
years from the date on which the goods were handed over, unless the lack of
conformity constituted a breach of guarantee covering a longer period.”
（7）本(ben)案中，買方在合理的(de)期(qi)限內已對貨運作過檢查，因(yin)為在貨物抵達(da)之前(qian)，一位專家曾被(bei)請去(qu)檢查過裝船。買方也應被(bei)認定在合理的(de)期(qi)限內，即在專家報(bao)告公布后的(de)8天(tian)內，就產品(pin)瑕疵作過通報(bao)。
In the circumstances, the Buyer had the shipment examined within a
reasonable time-span since （an expert） was requested to inspect the shipment
even before the goods had arrived. The Buyer should also be deemed to have given
notice of the defects within a reasonable period, that is eight days after the
expert's report had been published.
（8）仲裁(cai)庭認為，就本案情況(kuang)而(er)言，買方(fang)(fang)遵守了上述《維也納公約》的(de)(de)要件規定(ding)。這些要件要比賣(mai)方(fang)(fang)所在國的(de)(de)法(fa)律(lv)(lv)的(de)(de)規定(ding)靈(ling)活許多。賣(mai)方(fang)(fang)所在國法(fa)律(lv)(lv)所規定(ding)的(de)(de)買方(fang)(fang)通(tong)(tong)知賣(mai)方(fang)(fang)的(de)(de)時限特別(bie)短，特別(bie)具體(ti)，在這點(dian)上，似乎是通(tong)(tong)用的(de)(de)貿易慣例的(de)(de)一種例外。
The Tribunal finds that, in the circumstances of the case, the Buyer has
complied with the above-mentioned requirements of the Vienna Convention. These
requirements are considerably more flexible than those provided under （the law
of the country of the Seller）. This law, by imposing extremely short and
specific time requirements in respect of the giving of the notice of defects by
the Buyer to the Seller appears to be an exception on this point to the
generally accepted trade usage.
（9） 無(wu)論如何，也應當認(ren)定(ding)賣方已經喪失了援引《維也納》第(di)38和第(di)39條有(you)關產(chan)品不符(fu)規(gui)(gui)(gui)格(ge)的(de)任何規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)的(de)權(quan)利，因為第(di)40條規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)：“只有(you)賣方知(zhi)(zhi)道，或(huo)(huo)他(ta)(ta)不可(ke)能(neng)不知(zhi)(zhi)道，或(huo)(huo)他(ta)(ta)沒(mei)有(you)透露有(you)關的(de)不符(fu)規(gui)(gui)(gui)格(ge)的(de)事實(shi)(shi)，他(ta)(ta)便不能(neng)適(shi)用第(di)38和第(di)39條規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)”。實(shi)(shi)際看來這也是事實(shi)(shi)，因為書證(zheng)和口證(zheng)都(dou)清楚(chu)表明賣方知(zhi)(zhi)道且不可(ke)能(neng)不知(zhi)(zhi)道提交的(de)貨物不符(fu)合同規(gui)(gui)(gui)格(ge)規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)。
In any case, the Seller should be regarded as having forfeited its right
to invoke any non-compliance with the requirements of Art. 38 and 39 of the
Vienna Convention since Art. 40 states that the Seller cannot rely on Arts. 38
and 39, if the lack of conformity relates to facts of which he knew, or of which
he could not have been unware, and which he did not disclose. Indeed, this
appears to be the case, since it clearly transpires from the file and evidence
that the Seller knew and could not be unaware （of the non-conformity of the
consignment to ） contract specification.
（10）就是假定該條款可(ke)適用于本(ben)(ben)案(an)，它無論如何也(ye)沒有(you)規定本(ben)(ben)仲(zhong)裁庭(ting)(ting)應(ying)駁回反(fan)訴(su)，即(ji)使(shi)對反(fan)訴(su)的(de)審理(li)會耽誤對主(zhu)訴(su)的(de)審查。按其規定，要(yao)求(qiu)抵(di)消的(de)反(fan)訴(su)一(yi)般都(dou)應(ying)接受(shou)，除非仲(zhong)裁庭(ting)(ting)認(ren)(ren)為同時審理(li)反(fan)訴(su)會過分耽誤對事實的(de)判(pan)決(jue)，因而認(ren)(ren)為把反(fan)訴(su)同主(zhu)訴(su)分開比較恰當。在(zai)本(ben)(ben)案(an)中(zhong)，按規定說明，主(zhu)訴(su)和反(fan)訴(su)已(yi)經進(jin)行(xing)共同審理(li)，成(cheng)為一(yi)次性裁決(jue)事項，故沒有(you)理(li)由在(zai)將它們分割開。
This provision, even assuming that it may apply in the circumstances,
does not
in any way require the tribunal to reject the counterclaim if its examination
might delay that of the main claim. It simply states that the counterclaim for
setting off is always admissible except only that the tribunal may find it
appropriate to serve the counterclaim from the main claim lest a concurrent
examination of counterclaim should excessively delay the judgment on the merits.
In the present case, the main Claim and the counterclaim, in accordance with the
Terms of Reference, have been examined together so as to be the subject of a
single award, and there is no reason to separate them.
（11）仲裁庭裁決如下：賣方(fang)應獲得其全部所主張的金額，扣(kou)除(chu)買方(fang)在反訴中提出的抵消部分數額。
The Tribunal awarded the Seller the full amount of its claim and set it
off against part of the counterclaim filed by the Buyer
仲裁員(yuan) （簽字） :
Arbitrator (signature)
