ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION COURT OF ATHENS

CASE CONCERNING SUPREME MANUFACTURING, LTD.

(APPLICANT)
VS
PETERSON POWER BACKUP GENERATOR CO.
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL OF APPLICANT
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of
Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

List of Sources/Authorities……………………………………………………………………………….. 5

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………………… 6

Statement of Relevant Facts……………………………………………………………………………. 7

Questions presented……………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Summary of Arguments ………………………………………………………………………………….. 9

Arguments……………………………………………………………………………………………..11-15

1.Whether there is a breach of contract by Peterson…………………………………………………..11-12

1.1.Peterson did not maintain their obligation……………………………………….………………11

1.2. Peterson has breached the contract………………………………………………………………12

2. Whether Peterson is liable to pay Supreme $100000 due for the model 100 KVA unit with
interest…………………………………………….……………………………………………………….13

2.1.Obligation of the Peterson as buyer…………………………………………….…………….13

2.2.Peterson is legally bound to give interest…………………………………………………… 13

3. Whether Peterson is liable to pay Supreme $100000 in damages to purchase the remaining five
models……………………………………………………………………………………………………14

3.1.Peterson should pay for the breach of contract……………………………………..…………...14

3.2.Peterson is bound to give the damages…………………………………….……………………14

4. Whether Peterson is bound to pay the arbitration cost including lawyer's fee…………………….…15

4.1.Peterson have to bear arbitration cost with others………………………………………..…….15

Prayer……………………………………………………………………………………………...……16
LIST OF ABBREVIATION

Art Article
UNCISG United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International
Sale of Goods
Peterson PETERSON Power Backup Generator Co.

Supreme SUPREME Manufacturing Ltd.

UNICITRAL United Nations Commission of International Trade Law

ROAA Rules of the American Arbitration

 LIST OF SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES

1.United Nations Convention On Contracts

For the Internal Sale of Goods,Art20(1),30…………………………………………………………… 11

2. United Nations Convention On Contracts

For the Internal Sale of Goods,Art26,…………………………..……………………………………….
…………………………11
3. United Nations Convention On Contracts
For the Internal Sale of Goods,Art71(1),(3)………………….………….…………………………… ……...…..12

4. Rules of the American Arbitration,art23(2)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….12

5. United Nations Convention On Contracts

For the Internal Sale of
Goods,Art53,54…………………………………………………………………………..………………..13
5. United Nations Convention On Contracts
For the Internal Sale of
Goods,Art66,78……………………………………………………………………………………………13
6. United Nations Convention On Contracts
For the Internal Sale of Goods,Art53,54…………………………………………………………………...
……………………….14
7.United Nations Commission of International Trade Law………………………………………….…....14
8. United Nations Convention On Contracts
For the Internal Sale of
Goods,Art,59………………………………………………………………………………………………14
CASES:
1. Tessile 21 S.r.l. v. Ixela S.A., http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html...................................12

2. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/901221g1.html, GERMANY Amtsgericht Ludwigsburg 21

December1990 (Clothes case)…………………………………………………………………………...12
3. CLOUT case no 104………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
4. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html, Al Palazzo S.r.l v. Bernardaud di Limoges S.A…..14
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Supreme Manufacturing LTD. has the right and jurisdiction to file the suit before the international
arbitration court because in article 1 of United Nations Convention on contracts for the international sale
of goods there exist the matter of contracting states, so for the contract there has a deal and has the right
to sue. Art 1 says that, (1) This Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose
places of business are in different States: (a) when the States are Contracting States; or(b) when the rules
of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State.(2) The fact that the
parties have their places of business in different States is to be disregarded whenever this fact does not
appear either from the contract or from any dealings between, or from information disclosed by, the
parties at any time before or at the conclusion of the contract.(3) Neither the nationality of the parties nor
the civil or commercial character of the parties or of the contract is to be taken into consideration in
determining the application of this Convention .Art 4 says that,” This Convention governs only the
formation of the contract of sale and the rights and obligations of the seller and the buyer arising from
such a contract. In particular, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Convention, it is not
concerned with: (a) the validity of the contract or of any of its provisions or of any usage; (b) the effect
which the contract may have on the property in the goods sold. So the jurisdiction exist in here. 1

1
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Sale of Goods,art1,4
 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

Supreme Manufacturing Ltd (Monsantanean) and Peterson Backup Power Generator Co. (Atlantanean)
Concluded 23 contracts together. In a contract of Model 100KVA Backup Power Generator Unit on 2015
Peterson gave mail to Supreme after getting their product that those were not working properly and the
alternator system did not function properly, so they requested to repair that. Supreme replied that sending
their Alternators would be so expensive, so told them to replace the Alternator system. Then Peterson did
not pay the due of that contract and had been in contract with Northeast Manufactures Inc. Peterson gave
reply to Supreme to cancel the contract, opposite reply to supreme of their mail to get their mail to get
their due. Peterson repaired that with extra money, so they cancelled the contract and Supreme claimed it
as breach of contract and filed a suit.

7
 QUESTION PRESENTED

1)Whether there is a breach of contract by Peterson?

2) Whether Peterson is liable to pay Supreme $100000 due for the model 100 KVA unit
with interest?

3) Whether Peterson is liable to pay Supreme $100000 in damages to purchase the

remaining five models?

4) Whether Peterson is bound to pay the arbitration cost including lawyer's fee?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1:
Peterson power backup generator Co. has done the breach of contract against supreme manufacturing Ltd.
Because they did not pay the due of product which was a deal or contract between them. But Peterson
power backup generator did not fulfill the condition. According to 20(1) of UNCISG A period of time for
acceptance fixed by the offer or in a telegram or a letter begins to run from the moment the telegram is
handed in for dispatch or from the date shown on the letter or, if no such date is shown, from the date
shown on the envelope. A period of time for acceptance fixed by the offer or by telephone, telex or other
means of instantaneous communication, begins to run from the moment that the offer reaches the offeree.
According to this supreme manufacturing Ltd communicate with themselves by mail but they also avoid
that so breach of contract exist in here.

Issue 2:
Peterson is liable to pay supreme 100000 due for the model 100 KVA unit with interest. Because they
were in a contract that after getting product they will fulfill the due but Peterson didn`t pay the due.
SUPREME shipped the first model 100KVA Backup Power Generator unit within the period of time
specified in the contract. PETERSON lost any right it may have had to rely on a lack of conformity of the
unit by not giving notice specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after
PETERSON discovered it or ought to have discovered it. Even though SUPREME had no further
obligations in regard to the model 100KVA Backup Power Generator unit shipped since adequate notice
of the defect was not given within the required time, SUPREME rectified the defect by furnishing
replacement parts to PETERSON’s to install at SUPREME's cost. This action on the part of SUPREME
fulfilled any obligation that SUPREME might have had under the contract and the Convention to repair
the defective unit. According to Art78 of UNCIS If a party fails to pay the price or any other sum that is
in arrears, the other party is entitled to interest on it, without prejudice to any claim for damages
recoverable. So, for the failure of their Act Peterson is liable to pay supreme 100000 due for the model
100 KVA unit with interest.

Issue 3:
Peterson is liable to pay supreme 100000 in damages to purchase the remaining five models. Because
according to their contract they were in a deal to purchase the specific models but suddenly within the
contract they cancelled to deal with them. According to Art 53,54 The buyer must pay the price for the
goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract and this Convention. The buyer’s obligation
to pay the price includes taking such steps and complying with such formalities as may be required under
the contract or any laws and regulations to enable payment to be made. The other five models of supreme
can be damaged or wasted, So it is clearly say that Peterson is liable to pay supreme 100000 in damagesto
purchase the remaining five models.

9
Issue 4:
Peterson is bound to pay the arbitration cost including lawyer`s fee. Peterson has breach the contract, for
their fault this mess has created and all the expenses has arisen, Supreme is not liable to bear that. So
because of the fault of the Peterson they are bound to pay the arbitration cost including lawyer`s fee.

10
 ARGUMENTS

1.Whether there is a breach of contract by Peterson.

There is a breach of contract by Peterson against Supreme .
1.1.Peterson didn`t maintain their obligations
In every contract there exist some obligations for both parties as like that here the Peterson had also some
obligations to fulfill the contract but Peterson did not maintain the obligations .Not only lacking of
performance but also avoidance came from Peterson.
According to art 26 of UNCISG,” a declaration of avoidance of the contract is effective only if made by
notice to the other party.” Here Supreme also gave them notice by mail to fulfill their contract but after
getting that Peterson still avoid that so it is not effective and it is also breaking rules.
According to art 20(1) of UNCISG,” a period of time for acceptance fixed by the offeror in a telegram or
a letter begins to run from the moment the telegram is handed in for dispatch
or from the date shown on the letter or, if no such date is shown, from the date shown on the envelope. A
period of time for acceptance fixed by the offeror by telephone, telex or other means of instantaneous -
communication, begins to run from the moment that the offer reaches the offeree.” Here Supreme has
done their task by giving the mail but Peterson has shown their lacking.
Art 30 says that,” The seller must deliver the goods, hand over any documents relating to them and
transfer the property in the goods, as required by the contract and this Convention.” According to this
Supreme fulfill their task but Peterson didn’t do their arrear task that’s why their lacking of maintain
obligation has come.

2
UNCISG,art26,20(1),30

11
1.2.Peterson has breached the contract

If a party breaks a condition of a contract then that’s the breach of contract. In here Peterson didn’t fulfill
the conditions of the contract properly so there exist the breach of contract by Peterson. In art 1 and 4 of
UNCISG said about the contract between company of different states. As like that they involve with the
contract but after that the breach has come.
Art 71(1) says that” A party may suspend the performance of his obligations if, after
the conclusion of the contract, it becomes apparent that the other party will
not perform a substantial part of his obligations”.

Art 71(3) says that,” A party suspending performance, whether before or after dispatch
of the goods, must immediately give notice of the suspension to the other
party and must continue with performance if the other party provides adequate
assurance of his performance.” Suddenly within the contract Peterson wanted to cancel the contract but
from both of these art we can say that to cancel any contract there needs the adequate assurance of both
party’s performance but here Peterson didn’t continue with performance, they suddenly canceled it
without proper assurance so the suspend of the performance in here has breached the contract.
So in this case we can say that there is a breach of contract by Peterson. 3

Art 23(2) of ROAA says that, “If a party, duly notified under these rules, fails to appear at a hearing
without showing sufficient cause for such failure, as determined by the tribunal, the tribunal may proceed
with the arbitration.”4
Here they also raised their sufficient cause against Peterson so they have breached the contract and
obviously they are liable.
In the case named, “ Tessile 21 S.r.l. v. Ixela S.A.” 5here said about contractual matter that is if they
involve with contract that after delivery of product other party should pay money then they will bound to
do that as like that because Peterson did not give the contractual money that’s why Peterson breached the
contract.

In another case named, “ GERMANY Amtsgericht Ludwigsburg 21 December 1990 (Clothes case)”

6
here seller filed the sue because the buyer didn’t give the full payment and said that they had given notice
before to conclude the contract but seller didn’t get that and then because of delivering the product the
buyer accepted the product at a low rate. Then the court gave the decision against the buyer.
Like this because in this case Peterson was in contract so they have to give the proper payment and they
breached the contract.

3
UNCISG,art71(1),71(3)

4
ROAA,art23(2)

5
Tessile 21 S.r.l. v. Ixela S.A., http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html

6
http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/901221g1.html, GERMANY Amtsgericht Ludwigsburg 21 December 1990
(Clothes case)

12
2.Whether Peterson is liable to pay Supreme 100000 due for the model 100 KVA unit with
interest
Peterson is liable to pay Supreme 100000 due for the model 100 KVA unit with interest.

2.1.Obligations of the Peterson as buyer

Every buyer has obligations to buy anything and there exist a contract between themselves. As like this
Peterson had also some obligations that they have to pay the due of the model after getting the product but
after the other party’s task they didn’t pay the due.
Art 53 says that,” The buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them
as required by the contract and this Convention.” But Peterson breach the law and went away from their
obligations.
Art 54 says that,” The buyer’s obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and
complying with such formalities as may be required under the contract or any laws and regulations to
enable payment to be made.” Here also exist the matter of pay the payment but Peterson didn’t clear their
due.
In CLOUT case no 104 there exist a matter that contracting to pay the money after getting product, one
party didn’t pay the money. They have to pay the contractual money according to judgement. So Peterson
is also bound to pay the due to Supreme.

2.2.Peterson is legally bound to give interest

Peterson has breached the contract and didn’t pay the due so Peterson is legally bound to give the interest.
Art 78 says that,” If a party fails to pay the price or any other sum that is in arrears, the
other party is entitled to interest on it, without prejudice to any claim for damages recoverable.” In the art
there says about the giving interest to other party if any breach of contract happened. Here Peterson has
taken the product after that they were wanting to cancel the contract without taking the other products ,so
surely they are breaching the contract so Peterson is legally bound to give the interest of due to Supreme.
Art 66 says that,” Loss of or damage to the goods after the risk has passed to the buyer does not discharge
him from his obligation to pay the price, unless the loss or damage is due to an act or omission
of the seller.” This art is also binding parties and saying that to pay the payment and they will be liable for
keeping this due.
So Peterson is legally bound to give the interest of their due to the Supreme according to these art. 7 8

7
UNCISG,art53,54,66,78
8
CLOUT case no 104, https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/CISG25/Gabriel.pdf

13
3.Whether Peterson is liable to pay Supreme $100000 in damages to purchase the
remaining five models.
Peterson is liable to pay Supreme $100000 in damages to purchase the remaining five models.

3.1.Peterson should pay for the breach of contract

Peterson had a contract with Supreme to pay money after delivery of products but after taking one
products they had canceled the contract and didn`t take other five models. Not purchasing the other five
models they had breached the contract.
Art 53 says that, “The buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the
contract and this Convention.”
In the case named, “Al Palazzo S.r.l v. Bernardaud di Limoges S.A.”9 here the product of seller had
defect but after that for the contract the buyer is bound to pay the payment according to court because in
this case Supreme had delivered their product in reasonable time so Peterson is bound to pay the money
and liable for that.
Art 19 of UNICITRAL says that, “(1) Subject to the provisions of this Law, the parties are free to agree
on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the proceedings.
(2) Failing such agreement, the arbitral tribunal may, subject to the provisions of this Law, conduct the
arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate. The power conferred upon the arbitral tribunal
includes the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence.” 10
Here said about to determine whole sight and take the evidence of both sides so because the evidence is
going against them and that should be consider then have to determine the judgement.
So they need to pay for the remaining five models.

3.2.Peterson is bound to give the damages

Art 54 says that, “The buyer’s obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and complying with
such formalities as may be required under the contract or any laws and regulations to enable payment to
be made.”
Art 59 says that, “The buyer must pay the price on the date fixed by or determinable from the contract and
this Convention without the need for any request or compliance with any formality on the part of the
seller”. By these art we can see that buyer is bound to pay back for product which they has taken but
Peterson didn’t give the due even if they didn’t take the other five models and breach the contract .Those
are also under the due because that was also in the contract that can be go for the loss or waste for the
Supreme . Because those were also under contract and Peterson breached that so that is also under the
breach of contract. And for breach of contract there has a matter of remedy according to the art 74.

9
http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html, Al Palazzo S.r.l v. Bernardaud di Limoges S.A
10
UNICITRAL,art19

14
Art 74 says that,” Damages for breach of contract by one party consist of a sum equal to the loss,
including loss of profit, suffered by the other party as a consequence of the breach. Such damages may
not exceed the loss which the party in breach foresaw or ought to have foreseen at the time of the
conclusion of the contract, in the light of the facts and matters of which he then knew or ought to have
known, as a possible consequence of the breach of contract.” So for the breaching of contract by Peterson
which we’ve got, for this Peterson is bound to give the damages to the Supreme. 11

4.Whether Peterson is bound to pay the arbitration cost including lawyer`s fee.

Peterson is bound to pay the arbitration cost including lawyer`s fee.

4.1.Peterson have to bear arbitration cost with others
Peterson has breached the contract, so fault and lack of obligation has done by the Peterson that’s why
Supreme is not bound to give the arbitration cost with including lawyer’s fee because they has done their
obligation properly by delivering the product to reasonable time and place but according to contract
Peterson didn’t fulfill their obligations by not giving the due and cancelling the contract by not taking the
other products. The fault is under the Peterson so they are liable to bear arbitration cost including
lawyer’s fee because all the matter has arisen only for their own fault.

PRAYER

11
UNCISG,art53,54,59,74

15
In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited, the applicant most humbly and respectfully
request this Honorable court to adjudge and declare that:
1.There is a breach of contract by Peterson
2.Peterson is liable to pay Supreme 100000 due for the model 100 KVA unit with interest
3.Peterson is liable to pay Supreme 100000 in damages to purchase the remaining five models
4.Peterson is bound to pay the arbitration cost including lawyer’s fee.

On behalf of the applicant, for this kind consideration, the Agents shall every pray
All of which respectfully submitted.

16