Summary of "XI Souto Correa Pre-Moot – Final Round - LIVE THIS SUNDAY at 3 p.m. (BRT)"
The XI Souto Correa Pre-Moot Final Round showcased a mock arbitration competition where various teams presented their arguments regarding a dispute involving a Purchase and Service Agreement (PSA) between Clayman and Ecuadorian Grand Power. The event highlighted the complexities of international arbitration, particularly regarding jurisdiction and the applicability of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).
Key Points:
- Acknowledgments: The event began with gratitude expressed to the organizing committee, participating teams, and arbitrators. Special thanks were given to Rafael Alvis and Professor Paulo Silva for presiding over the final.
- Jurisdictional Issues: The dispute centered on whether the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the case, with both parties presenting arguments about the applicability of the CISG. Claimant Clayman argued that the CISG was applicable due to the international nature of the contract, while the respondent, Ecuadorian Grand Power, contested this by asserting that the PSA was primarily a service agreement and thus excluded from the CISG.
-
Arguments from Claimant:
- Clayman maintained that the contract was international and mixed, with a predominant delivery aspect, making the CISG applicable.
- They argued that the agreement was not a sale made by auction, which would exclude it from the CISG, but rather a reverse auction process that allowed for international participation.
- Clayman asserted that the parties had not validly excluded the CISG, as there was no clear agreement to do so, and emphasized that the arbitration agreement met all necessary requirements for validity.
-
Arguments from Respondent:
- Ecuadorian Grand Power argued that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the mediation clause in the agreement was a condition precedent to arbitration, which Clayman had ignored.
- They contended that the contract was primarily for services, thus making the CISG inapplicable, and provided evidence that the PSA was a domestic contract, as both parties had business operations in Ecuador.
- The respondent also argued that the parties had implicitly excluded the CISG through their negotiations and the wording of the PSA.
-
Discussion of Evidence:
- Both sides presented evidence regarding the nature of the contract, including financial calculations and statements from involved parties, to support their claims about the applicability of the CISG and the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
- The admissibility of certain documents (exhibits) was contested, with Clayman seeking to exclude documents claimed by the respondent to be protected under attorney-client privilege.
- Final Decision: The tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of one of the teams, concluding the event with recognition of the participants' efforts and the quality of their arguments.
Contributors:
- Professor Paulo Silva
- Rafael Alvis
- Members of the tribunal and various teams involved in the mock arbitration.
Category
News and Commentary
