目录

1、新加坡中华环保科技集团有限公司与大拇指环保科技集团（福建）有限公司股东出资纠纷案

2、德国蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司与中化国际（新加坡）有限公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案

3、哈池曼海运公司与上海申福化工有限公司、日本德宝海运株式会社海上货物运输合同货损赔偿纠纷案

4、塞拉利昂籍“LEDOR”轮遭阿尔巴尼亚船东基恩毕船务有限公司弃船所引发系列纠纷案

5、朗力（武汉）注塑系统有限公司与天地国际运输代理（中国）有限公司武汉分公司航空货物运输合同纠纷案

6、浙江逸盛石化有限公司与卢森堡英威达技术有限公司申请确认仲裁条款效力案

7、江苏太湖锅炉股份有限公司与卡拉卡托工程有限公司、中国银行股份有限公司无锡分行保函欺诈纠纷案

8、波兰弗里古波尔股份有限公司申请承认和执行波兰共和国法院判决案

案例1

公正高效司法  平等保护中外投资者合法权益

——新加坡中华环保科技集团有限公司与大拇指环保科技集团（福建）有限公司股东出资纠纷案

一、基本案情

大拇指公司是新加坡环保公司在中国设立的外商独资企业，2008年6月30日，大拇指公司经批准注册资本增至人民币3.8亿元。大拇指公司于2012年4月27日以新加坡环保公司未足额缴纳出资为由提起诉讼，请求判令新加坡环保公司履行股东出资义务，缴付增资款4500万元。

福建省高级人民法院一审认为，新加坡环保公司未履行股东足额缴纳出资的法定义务，侵害了大拇指公司的法人财产权，大拇指公司有权要求新加坡环保公司履行出资义务，补足出资。据此，判令新加坡环保公司向大拇指公司缴纳出资款4500万元。新加坡环保公司向最高人民法院提出上诉。

二、裁判结果

2014年6月11日，最高人民法院公开开庭审理该案并作出当庭宣判。最高人民法院二审审理认为，按照《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十四条第一款的规定，我国外商投资企业与其外国投资者之间的出资义务等事项，应当适用我国法律；外国投资者的司法管理人和清盘人的民事权利能力及民事行为能力等事项，应当适用该外国投资者登记地的法律。根据新加坡公司法的规定，在司法管理期间，公司董事基于公司法及公司章程而获得的权力及职责均由司法管理人行使及履行。因此新加坡环保公司司法管理人作出的变更大拇指公司董事及法定代表人的任免决议有效。由于大拇指公司董事会未执行唯一股东环保公司的决议，造成了工商登记的法定代表人与股东任命的法定代表人不一致的情形，进而引发了争议。根据《中华人民共和国公司法》的规定，工商登记的法定代表人对外具有公示效力，如涉及公司以外的第三人因公司代表权而产生的外部争议，应以工商登记为准；而对于公司与股东之间因法定代表人任免产生的内部争议，则应以有效的股东会任免决议为准，并在公司内部产生法定代表人变更的法律效果。本案起诉不能代表大拇指公司的真实意思，裁定撤销原判，驳回大拇指公司的起诉。

三、典型意义

该案对于平等保护中外投资者合法权益、保障股东选择管理者的权利、优化外商投资法治环境具有重要意义，被评为最高人民法院建院65周年重大案例之一。该案明确了外国公司的司法管理人及清盘人在中国境内民事权利能力和行为能力的认定规则，清晰界定了公司代表权争议的区分规则，增强了外商投资中国的信心。同时，该案是最高人民法院首次邀请外国驻华使节和境外媒体旁听庭审并当庭作出宣判的案件，彰显了我国公正高效的司法形象。

案例2

准确适用国际条约  依法支持当事人选择准据法

——德国蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司与中化国际（新加坡）有限公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案

一、基本案情

2008年4月11日，中化新加坡公司与德国克虏伯公司签订了购买石油焦的《采购合同》，中化新加坡公司按约支付了全部货款，但德国克虏伯公司交付的石油焦HGI指数仅为32。中化新加坡公司认为德国克虏伯公司构成根本违约，请求判令解除合同，德国克虏伯公司返还货款并赔偿损失。

江苏省高级人民法院一审认为，根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的有关规定，德国克虏伯公司提供的石油焦HGI指数远低于合同约定标准，导致石油焦难以在国内市场销售，签订买卖合同时的预期目的无法实现，故德国克虏伯公司的行为构成根本违约。判决支持中化新加坡公司的诉讼请求。德国克虏伯公司向最高人民法院提出上诉。

二、裁判结果

最高人民法院审理认为，案涉国际货物买卖合同纠纷的双方当事人营业地分别位于新加坡和德国，而该两国均为《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的缔约国，且当事人未排除该公约的适用，因此本案审理首先适用该公约。对于审理案件中涉及到的问题公约没有规定的，例如合同效力问题、所有权转移问题，应当适用当事人选择的美国法律。根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的规定，德国克虏伯公司交付的货物与合同约定不符，构成违约，但新加坡石化公司能够以合理价格予以转售货物，不构成公约规定的根本违约情形。据此，于2014年6月30日作出终审判决，撤销原判，改判德国克虏伯公司承担部分货款及堆存费损失。

三、典型意义

该案准确适用国际条约，并对于国际条约没有调整的事项，依法支持当事人选择的准据法。该案明确了适用《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》认定根本违约的标准，增强了我国司法实践中公约适用的统一性、稳定性和可预见性，有力保障了国际贸易的有序进行。

案例3

完善海上货损赔偿规则  有效规范国际航运秩序

——哈池曼海运公司与上海申福化工有限公司、日本德宝海运株式会社海上货物运输合同货损赔偿纠纷案

一、基本案情

2008年8月23日，涉案1001.53吨苯酚在西班牙维尔瓦港装船，承运人德宝公司签发了清洁指示提单。申福公司经背书受让了该提单，并据此在卸货港青岛港提取了船载货物。因承运期间苯酚色度升高造成货损，申福公司提起诉讼，要求德宝公司和实际承运人哈池曼公司连带赔偿货物损失人民币8347849.57元及其利息损失等。

青岛海事法院以货物修复费用计算货损赔偿额，判令德宝公司、哈池曼公司连带赔偿申福公司货物损失人民币3715676.30元及利息；驳回申福公司的其他诉讼请求。山东省高级人民法院采用实际价值差额法，予以部分改判。哈池曼公司向最高人民法院申请再审。

二、裁判结果

最高人民法院于2013年12月6日作出再审判决，认为：《中华人民共和国海商法》第五十五条规定：“货物损坏的赔偿额，按照货物受损前后实际价值的差额或者货物的修复费用计算。货物的实际价值，按照货物装船时的价值加保险费加运费计算。”本案不涉及修复费用，应以货物实际价值差额即货物受损前后的到岸价之差计算货损。海商法第五十五条排除了市价损失，故承运人对涉案苯酚的市价损失无赔偿责任。本案应采纳货物贬损率计算方法，即以目的港货物完好的市场价值减去受损货物的销售价值，再除以货物完好的市场价值，得出贬损率，再通过贬损率来计算货物因运输损坏造成的价值损失额。据此，撤销一、二审判决，改判哈池曼公司、德宝公司连带赔偿申福公司货物损失人民币2055837.30元及利息，并驳回申福公司的其他诉讼请求。

三、典型意义

本案是一起具有涉外因素的海上货物运输合同货损赔偿纠纷，当事人对适用我国海商法处理本案纠纷没有异议。根据我国海商法第五十五条的规定，承运人对责任期间货物损坏的赔偿额，有两种计算方法，按照货物受损前后实际价值的差额或者货物的修复费用计算。一审判决以货物修复费用计算货损赔偿额，但根据查明的事实，本案受损货物并未实际修复。二审采用实际价值差额法，但未扣除因货物市价下跌造成的损失。再审判决采用货物贬损率的计算方式，认定涉案货物的赔偿额，排除了市场价格波动对货损赔偿额的影响，符合海商法的规定，也为海事司法实践所采纳。本案完善了货损赔偿额的计算规则，有效规范了国际航运秩序，对今后司法实践具有重要的指导意义。

案例4

依法及时分配船舶拍卖款  保障海上丝绸之路畅通有序

——塞拉利昂籍“LEDOR”轮遭阿尔巴尼亚船东基恩毕船务有限公司弃船所引发系列纠纷案

一、基本案情

承运我国某大型国企2万吨进口铁矿石的塞拉利昂籍船舶“LEDOR”轮于2011年10月从印度陈奈港开往我国江苏南通港途中搁浅在福建莆田。海事部门认为该轮存在断裂、沉没、危及人命安全及污染海洋环境的风险，要求船东提交船舶脱险方案、过驳货物及船上存油过驳的措施，收货人则要求船东就地卸货，均未果。该轮船体老旧、压载舱及部分货舱破损、证书过期，阿尔巴尼亚船东基恩毕公司无力使船舶续航，遂将船舶连同十几名外籍船员及货物遗弃在福建莆田。2012年7月，收货人向法院申请海事强制令和海事请求保全，请求扣押船舶和强制卸货。船上1名阿尔巴尼亚籍船长和17名叙利亚籍船员起诉要求船东支付工资；收货人起诉船东要求赔偿货物损失等；因该轮搁浅而受损的养殖户以及该轮搁浅期间为该船提供防污服务和物料油料供应、代理服务的各家公司等相继起诉，要求支付相关费用，由此引发了一系列类型各异的重大复杂疑难案件。

二、裁判结果

厦门海事法院受理上述案件后，一方面及时依法裁定拍卖船舶并发布公告、通知相关债权人进行债权登记，最终以超乎船东预估的高价变卖了船舶。另一方面及时依法定程序公开审理该轮引发的系列纠纷案件，最后作出一审判决，于2013年5月发生法律效力。随后，法院及时组织召开债权人会议，将船舶拍卖款按照法律规定予以分配。

三、典型意义

该案系在外籍船东弃船的情况下成功审理系列疑难复杂纠纷的典型案例。人民法院通过高效组织船舶拍卖、召开债权人会议、依法分配船舶拍卖款，使境内外债权人权益得到及时实现，确保海上丝绸之路畅通有序。在执行扣船令和海事强制令过程中，法院指定国有船代为弃轮提供船舶代理服务，在船舶被依法变卖后，又与公安部门联系，根据这批外籍船员的特殊情况办理相应签证和出境手续，为外籍船员提供了充分的人道主义帮助。

案例5

准确理解公约条款 明晰国际航空运输纠纷裁判规则

——朗力（武汉）注塑系统有限公司与天地国际运输代理（中国）有限公司武汉分公司航空货物运输合同纠纷案

一、基本案情

2010年11月22日，朗力公司就委托办理国际航空快件运输事宜，与天地国际分公司签订《国际航空快件运输协议》，协议同时包括《TNT运输及其他服务条款》等三个附录文件。2011年3月至8月间，朗力公司多次委托天地国际分公司以快递方式向在法国的收货人运送货物。8月30日，天地国际分公司提取了朗力公司托运的5件商品，9月13日运抵法国里昂的4件商品被法国收货方签收。9月23日，天地国际分公司以电子邮件通知收货人及朗力公司，失踪的1件商品已找到并将于当日到达法国里昂。收货人回复电子邮件，拒绝接收。此后，该件货物从法国通过海运方式运回中国并最终交付给朗力公司。朗力公司提起诉讼，请求确认合同解除，由天地国际分公司赔偿违约损失；天地国际分公司反诉朗力公司支付拖欠运费及利息。

二、裁判结果

武汉市中级人民法院审理认为，天地国际分公司以航空方式实施了货物的跨国运输行为，其出具的运单项下对应有多件货物，上述货物在运输过程中均可视为独立物，因此货物中的每一件之上，均可视为存在一个独立的运输合同关系。涉案1件货物滞后十余日方运抵法国，且法国收货方拒收。而本案争议发生前，双方已发生持续的航空货物运输服务交易的实际履行期限最长未超过10日。鉴于航空运输方式的快捷性以及先前交易形成的运输期限预期，天地国际分公司的运输迟延行为，构成根本违约。《TNT运输及其他服务条款》约定的承运人免责条款，因违反《统一国际航空运输某些规则的公约》（简称《蒙特利尔公约》）的规定而无效，天地国际分公司应就其运输迟延造成的损失在公约法定限额内承担赔偿责任。据此，判决确认所涉的迟延货物的运输合同解除，天地国际分公司赔偿朗力公司损失，朗力公司向天地国际分公司支付运费及相应利息。双方均未上诉，该判决于2014年7月22日生效。

三、典型意义

该案对明晰国际航空运输合同纠纷的裁判规则、规范国际航空物流权责关系具有示范意义。一是明确了以航空方式实施的跨国货物运输中，运输迟延导致收货人拒绝接受交付可构成承运人的根本违约，托运人可行使部分解除权，有权解除相关运输合同。二是明确了航空货物运输合同旨在免除公约规定的承运人责任或者降低责任限额的约定，违反《蒙特利尔公约》的规定无效，承运人应当在公约限额内向托运人承担赔偿责任。

案例6

尊重当事人仲裁意愿 推动仲裁国际化

——浙江逸盛石化有限公司与卢森堡英威达技术有限公司申请确认仲裁条款效力案（2014年）

一、基本案情

逸盛公司与英威达公司于2003年4月28日及6月15日分别签署了两份技术许可协议，约定：“有关争议、纠纷或诉求应当提交仲裁解决；仲裁应在中国北京中国国际经济贸易仲裁中心（“CIETAC”）进行，并适用现行有效的《联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则》”(以上约定的原文为英文，即“The arbitration shall take place at China International Economic Trade Arbitration Centre (CIETAC), Beijing, P. R. China and shall be settled according to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as at present in force”）。2012年7月11日，英威达公司向中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会提出仲裁申请。2012年10月29日，逸盛公司以双方约定的仲裁本质上属于我国仲裁法不允许的临时仲裁为由，向宁波市中级人民法院申请确认仲裁条款无效。

二、裁判结果

宁波市中级人民法院经逐级报请最高人民法院审查后，于2014年3月17日作出终审裁定，认为：当事人在仲裁条款中虽然使用了“take place at”的表述，此后的词组一般被理解为地点，然而按照有利于实现当事人仲裁意愿目的解释的方法，可以理解为也包括了对仲裁机构的约定。虽然当事人约定的仲裁机构中文名称不准确，但从英文简称CIETAC可以推定当事人选定的仲裁机构是在北京的中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会。本案所涉仲裁条款不违反我国仲裁法的规定，裁定驳回逸盛公司请求确认仲裁条款无效的诉请。

三、典型意义

该案首次认可当事人约定由中国的常设仲裁机构依据《联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则》管理仲裁程序的条款效力，并明确该条款约定的是机构仲裁，而非临时仲裁。该案对当事人理解存在分歧的合同用词，采取了有利于实现当事人仲裁意愿的目的解释方法，在仲裁条款未明确限定仲裁机构特定职能的情形下，认定当事人关于常设机构适用另一仲裁规则的约定应理解为该机构依仲裁规则管理整个仲裁程序。本案对于推动多元化纠纷解决机制建设、支持仲裁国际化、提升仲裁公信力，具有典型示范意义。

案例7

严格把握保函欺诈标准  维护国际金融秩序

——江苏太湖锅炉股份有限公司与卡拉卡托工程有限公司、中国银行股份有限公司无锡分行保函欺诈纠纷案

一、基本案情

太湖公司与卡拉卡托公司协议完成一项发电机组建设工程，双方合同明确约定如修改合同必须采用合同修正案形式，会议纪要、传真等不能产生合同变更的效力。如果太湖公司违约，卡拉卡托公司可以索付见索即付保函。后卡拉卡托公司以太湖公司违约要求保函出具方中国银行股份有限公司无锡分行兑付保函。太湖公司提起诉讼，称双方已经通过会议纪要修改了合同，卡拉卡托公司索付保函行为不符合合同约定，构成欺诈，请求止付保函。江苏省无锡市中级人民法院一审判决驳回太湖公司诉讼请求，太湖公司提起上诉。

二、裁判结果

江苏省高级人民法院审理认为，法院审查基础合同仅限于受益人是否存在明知基础交易债务人不存在违约事实或其他付款到期事实，仍然滥用索赔权恶意索赔的情形。未按合同约定的形式和程序作出修改合同的会议纪要不产生变更合同的效力。在基础合同中保函条款约定的性质、支付条件等存在争议的情形下，受益人按银行出具保函时的条件提出索付，不构成保函欺诈，应按“先赔付、后争议”规则兑付保函。江苏省高级人民法院于2014年5月27日作出终审判决，维持一审判决。

三、典型意义

人民法院在该案判决中，充分尊重当事人约定适用的国际交易惯例，按照国际商会关于见索即付保函“先赔付、后争议”的处理规则予以裁判，严格把握保函欺诈标准，保障受益人依据保函迅速得到偿付的合法权利，维护了国际金融秩序。该案为美国2014年9月《跟单信用证杂志》重点介绍。同时，该案也反映出中国企业在“走出去”过程中，必须充分了解国际金融结算及担保工具的特点，不严格按照合同履行将产生巨大的法律风险。

案例8

切实履行司法协助协定 依法承认和执行外国民商事判决

——波兰弗里古波尔股份有限公司申请承认和执行波兰共和国法院判决案

一、基本案情

宁波甬昌公司因与弗里古波尔公司发生买卖合同纠纷，先后于2004年和2006年在波兰绿山城地区法院和奥波莱地区法院提起诉讼，诉请弗里古波尔公司支付65454美元及相关利息。波兰上述法院均判决驳回宁波甬昌公司的诉请，但波兰弗罗茨瓦夫上诉法院改判宁波甬昌公司胜诉。其后，波兰最高法院裁定撤销波兰弗罗茨瓦夫上诉法院判决，将本案发回重审。2009年4月8日，波兰弗罗茨瓦夫上诉法院作出判决，驳回宁波甬昌公司请求，并判令其退还弗里古波尔公司根据弗罗茨瓦夫上诉法院判决已经向其支付的54521美元及相关诉讼费用。波兰弗罗茨瓦夫上诉法院作出的该终局判决于2009年5月12日生效。2011年4月8日，弗里古波尔公司向宁波中院寄送申请承认与执行波兰法院判决的相关材料。2013年2月5日，弗里古波尔公司又补充提交了相关材料，该案正式立案。宁波甬昌公司提出异议，认为判决的申请强制执行期限已过，且代理其参加波兰相关诉讼的律师并未获得授权。

二、裁判结果

宁波市中级人民法院审理认为，我国和波兰共和国缔结了《关于民事和刑事司法协助的协定》，故应当根据我国民事诉讼法及该协定的有关规定审查是否应予承认判决。根据当时我国法律有关申请执行期限及诉讼时效中止、中断的规定，弗里古波尔公司的申请未过法定期限。而且，宁波甬昌公司在波兰诉讼期间均以授权书委托同一律师参与诉讼，该授权书对律师作出了概括授权，宁波甬昌公司亦领受了弗里古波尔公司支付的54521美元和相关诉讼费用，故律师代理行为应为有效。该院于2014年3月12日作出终审裁定，承认波兰弗罗茨瓦夫上诉法院于2009年4月8日作出的I ACa 231/9号民事判决。

三、典型意义

我国目前已和三十多个国家缔结了含民商事司法协助内容的双边协定，其中部分协定包含了相互承认和执行民商事判决的内容。该案体现了我国法院切实履行司法协助协定，依法承认和执行外国法院民商事判决，平等保护中外当事人合法权益的立场。

catalogue

1. Dispute over Shareholders' Contributions between Singapore Zhonghua Environmental Protection Technology Group Co., Ltd. and Thumb Environmental Protection Technology Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd

2. Dispute between ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products Co., Ltd. and Sinochem International (Singapore) Co., Ltd. on the International Sales Contract for Goods

3. Hachiman Shipping Company, Shanghai Shenfu Chemical Co., Ltd., and Japan Debao Shipping Co., Ltd. Disputes over Compensation for Cargo Damage in Maritime Cargo Transportation Contracts

4. Series of Disputes Caused by the Abandonment of the Sierra Leonean "LEDOR" Ship by Albanian Shipowner Keenby Shipping Co., Ltd

5. Langli (Wuhan) Injection Molding System Co., Ltd. and Tiandi International Transportation Agency (China) Co., Ltd. Wuhan Branch Air Cargo Transportation Contract Dispute Case

6. Case of Zhejiang Yisheng Petrochemical Co., Ltd. and Luxembourg Invida Technology Co., Ltd. Applying for Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Clause

7. Letter of Guarantee Fraud Dispute between the Taihu Lake Boiler Co., Ltd., Karakato Engineering Co., Ltd. and Bank of China Wuxi Branch

8. Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments of the Courts of the Republic of Poland by Frigupol Co., Ltd

Case 1

Fair, efficient, and equal judicial protection of the legitimate rights and interests of domestic and foreign investors

——Dispute over Shareholders' Contributions between Singapore Zhonghua Environmental Protection Technology Group Co., Ltd. and Thumb Environmental Protection Technology Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd

1、 Basic facts of the case

Thumb Company is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise established by Singapore Environmental Protection Company in China. On June 30, 2008, Thumb Company's registered capital was approved to increase to RMB 380 million. On April 27, 2012, Thumb Company filed a lawsuit alleging that Singapore Environmental Protection Company had not fully paid its capital contribution, requesting that Singapore Environmental Protection Company fulfill its shareholder contribution obligations and pay a capital increase of 45 million yuan.

The Fujian Provincial High People's Court held in first instance that the failure of Singapore Environmental Protection Company to fulfill the legal obligation of shareholders to fully pay their capital contribution has infringed on the legal property rights of Thumb Company. Thumb Company has the right to demand that Singapore Environmental Protection Company fulfill its capital contribution obligations and make up for the capital contribution. Based on this, it is ordered that Singapore Environmental Protection Company pay a capital contribution of 45 million yuan to Thumb Company. Singapore Environmental Protection Company has filed an appeal to the Supreme People's Court.

2、 Judgment results

On June 11, 2014, the Supreme People's Court held a public hearing to hear the case and made a judgment in court. The second instance trial of the Supreme People's Court held that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Foreign Civil Relations, the investment obligations and other matters between foreign-invested enterprises in China and their foreign investors should be governed by the laws of China; The legal capacity for civil rights and civil conduct of the judicial administrator and liquidator of a foreign investor shall be governed by the law of the place where the foreign investor is registered. According to the provisions of the Singapore Company Law, during the judicial management period, the powers and responsibilities obtained by the directors of the company based on the Company Law and the articles of association are exercised and fulfilled by the judicial administrator. Therefore, the appointment and removal resolution made by the judicial manager of Singapore Environmental Protection Company to change the directors and legal representatives of Thumb Company is valid. Due to the failure of the board of directors of Thumb Company to implement the resolution of the sole shareholder Environmental Protection Company, there was a discrepancy between the legal representative registered for business registration and the legal representative appointed by the shareholder, which sparked controversy. According to the provisions of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, the legal representative of the industrial and commercial registration has the effect of public disclosure to the public. If there are external disputes arising from the company's representation rights caused by a third party outside the company, the industrial and commercial registration shall prevail; For internal disputes between the company and shareholders arising from the appointment or removal of the legal representative, a valid resolution of the shareholders' meeting shall prevail and have the legal effect of changing the legal representative within the company. The lawsuit in this case cannot represent the true intention of Thumb Company. The original judgment is revoked and Thumb Company's lawsuit is dismissed.

3、 Typical significance

This case is of great significance for equal protection of the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign investors, safeguarding the right of shareholders to choose managers, and optimizing the legal environment for foreign investment. It has been rated as one of the major cases of the 65th anniversary of the establishment of the Supreme People's Court. This case clarifies the rules for determining the civil rights and behavioral capacity of the judicial administrator and liquidator of foreign companies within China, clearly defines the rules for distinguishing disputes over company representation, and enhances the confidence of foreign investors in China. At the same time, this case is the first time that the Supreme People's Court has invited foreign envoys to China and foreign media to attend the trial and make judgments in court, highlighting China's fair and efficient judicial image.

Case 2

Accurately applying international treaties in accordance with the law to support parties in choosing the applicable law

——Dispute between ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products Co., Ltd. and Sinochem International (Singapore) Co., Ltd. on the International Sales Contract for Goods

1、 Basic facts of the case

On April 11, 2008, Sinochem Singapore signed a "Purchase Contract" with Krupp Germany for the purchase of petroleum coke. Sinochem Singapore paid the full amount as agreed, but the HGI index of petroleum coke delivered by Krupp Germany was only 32. Sinochem Singapore believes that Krupp Germany constitutes a fundamental breach of contract and requests a decree to terminate the contract. Krupp Germany will refund the payment and compensate for the losses.

The Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court held in first instance that, according to the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the HGI index of petroleum coke provided by Krupp Germany is far below the contractual standard, making it difficult for petroleum coke to be sold in the domestic market and the expected purpose at the time of signing the sales contract cannot be achieved. Therefore, Krupp Germany's behavior constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. The judgment supports the lawsuit request of Sinochem Singapore Company. German Krupp Company has appealed to the Supreme People's Court.

2、 Judgment results

The Supreme People's Court held that the parties involved in the dispute over an international contract for the sale of goods have their respective places of business in Singapore and Germany, both of which are contracting states to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, and the parties have not ruled out its application. Therefore, this case first applies the Convention. For issues that are not covered by the convention in the trial of cases, such as contract validity and transfer of ownership, the United States law chosen by the parties should apply. According to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the goods delivered by Krupp AG do not comply with the contract and constitute a breach of contract. However, Singapore Petrochemical Company's ability to resell the goods at a reasonable price does not constitute a fundamental breach of contract under the Convention. Based on this, a final judgment was made on June 30, 2014, revoking the original judgment and changing the judgment to German Krupp Company to bear partial losses of payment and storage fees.

3、 Typical significance

This case accurately applies international treaties and supports the applicable law chosen by the parties in accordance with the law for matters not adjusted by international treaties. This case clarifies the criteria for determining fundamental breach of contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, enhances the uniformity, stability, and predictability of the application of the Convention in China's judicial practice, and effectively guarantees the orderly progress of international trade.

Case 3

Improving the Rules for Compensation for Maritime Cargo Damage and Effectively Standardizing the International Shipping Order

——Hachiman Shipping Company, Shanghai Shenfu Chemical Co., Ltd., and Japan Debao Shipping Co., Ltd. Disputes over Compensation for Cargo Damage in Maritime Cargo Transportation Contracts

1、 Basic facts of the case

On August 23, 2008, 1001.53 tons of phenol were loaded onto the ship at the port of Vilva, Spain, and the carrier, Debao Company, issued a clean instruction bill of lading. Shenfu Company has endorsed and accepted the bill of lading, and accordingly picked up the goods on board at the unloading port Qingdao Port. Due to the increase in phenol color during the transportation period, causing damage to the goods, Shenfu Company filed a lawsuit and demanded that Debao Company and the actual carrier Hachiman Company jointly compensate for the loss of the goods by RMB 8347849.57 and its interest losses.

The Qingdao Maritime Court calculated the amount of compensation for cargo damage based on the cost of repairing the goods, and ordered Debao Company and Hachiman Company to jointly compensate Shenfu Company for the loss of goods of RMB 3715676.30 and interest; Reject other litigation requests from Shenfu Company. The Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court adopted the actual value difference method and partially revised the judgment. Hachiman Company applied for retrial to the Supreme People's Court.

2、 Judgment results

The Supreme People's Court made a retrial judgment on December 6, 2013, stating that Article 55 of the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "The compensation for damage to goods shall be calculated based on the difference between the actual value of the goods before and after the damage or the repair cost of the goods. The actual value of the goods shall be calculated based on the value of the goods at the time of loading, plus insurance and freight." This case does not involve repair costs, The loss of goods should be calculated based on the difference between the actual value of the goods, which is the difference between the CIF price before and after the damage. Article 55 of the Maritime Code excludes market value losses, so the carrier is not liable for the market value losses of the phenol involved in the case. This case should adopt the method of calculating the depreciation rate of goods, which is to subtract the sales value of the damaged goods from the intact market value of the goods at the destination port, and then divide it by the intact market value of the goods to obtain the depreciation rate. Then, the depreciation rate is used to calculate the amount of value loss caused by transportation damage to the goods. Based on this, the first and second instance judgments are revoked, and Hachiman Company and Debao Company are adjudged to jointly compensate Shenfu Company for the loss of goods of RMB 2055837.30 and interest, and other litigation claims of Shenfu Company are rejected.

3、 Typical significance

This case is a dispute over compensation for damage to goods in a maritime cargo transportation contract with foreign factors. The parties have no objection to the application of China's Maritime Law to handle this dispute. According to Article 55 of the Maritime Code of China, there are two calculation methods for the carrier's compensation for damage to the goods during the period of responsibility, which are based on the difference between the actual value of the goods before and after the damage or the cost of repairing the goods. The first instance judgment calculated the amount of compensation for damage based on the cost of repairing the goods, but based on the facts found, the damaged goods in this case were not actually repaired. The second instance adopted the actual value difference method, but did not deduct losses caused by the decrease in the market price of goods. The retrial judgment adopts the calculation method of the rate of goods depreciation to determine the compensation amount for the involved goods, excluding the impact of market price fluctuations on the compensation amount for goods damage. It is in line with the provisions of Maritime Law and has also been adopted in maritime judicial practice. This case has improved the calculation rules for cargo damage compensation, effectively standardized the international shipping order, and has important guiding significance for future judicial practice.

Case 4

Timely distribution of ship auction funds in accordance with the law to ensure the smooth and orderly operation of the Maritime Silk Road

——Series of Disputes Caused by the Abandonment of the Sierra Leonean "LEDOR" Ship by Albanian Shipowner Keenby Shipping Co., Ltd

1、 Basic facts of the case

The Sierra Leonean ship "LEDOR", which carries 20000 tons of imported iron ore from a large state-owned enterprise in China, ran aground in Putian, Fujian during its journey from Chennai Port in India to Nantong Port in Jiangsu, China in October 2011. The maritime department believes that the ship poses risks of breakage, sinking, endangering human safety, and polluting the marine environment. They require the shipowner to submit a ship's escape plan, measures for transferring cargo and oil on board, while the consignee requires the shipowner to unload the cargo on site, all of which have failed. The hull of the ship was old, the ballast tanks and some cargo tanks were damaged, and the certificate expired. The Albanian shipowner, Keenby Company, was unable to continue the ship, so the ship, along with more than ten foreign crew members and cargo, was abandoned in Putian, Fujian. In July 2012, the consignee applied to the court for a maritime injunction and maritime preservation, requesting the arrest of the ship and compulsory unloading. One Albanian captain and 17 Syrian crew members on board sued the ship owner for payment of wages; The consignee sued the shipowner for compensation for the loss of the goods, etc; The farmers who were damaged due to the grounding of the ship, as well as various companies that provided anti pollution services, material and oil supply, and agency services for the ship during the grounding period, have filed lawsuits demanding payment of related fees, which has led to a series of major and complex cases of different types.

2、 Judgment results

After accepting the above-mentioned case, the Xiamen Maritime Court ruled in a timely manner to auction the ship and issued an announcement, notifying relevant creditors to register their claims, and ultimately sold the ship at a higher price than the estimated by the shipowner. On the other hand, a series of dispute cases arising from this round were promptly and publicly tried in accordance with legal procedures, and a first instance judgment was finally made, which took legal effect in May 2013. Subsequently, the court promptly organized a creditors' meeting to distribute the ship auction proceeds in accordance with legal provisions.

3、 Typical significance

This case is a typical case of successfully trying a series of difficult and complex disputes when a foreign shipowner abandoned the ship. The people's court ensures the timely realization of the rights and interests of domestic and foreign creditors by efficiently organizing ship auctions, convening creditor meetings, and distributing ship auction funds in accordance with the law, ensuring the smooth and orderly operation of the Maritime Silk Road. In the process of executing the arrest order and maritime injunction, the court designated a state-owned shipping agent to provide ship agency services for the abandonment of the ship. After the ship was sold off in accordance with the law, the court contacted the public security department to handle corresponding visas and exit procedures according to the special circumstances of this batch of foreign crew members, providing sufficient humanitarian assistance to the foreign crew members.

Case 5

Accurately understanding the provisions of the convention and clarifying the rules for international air transport disputes

——Langli (Wuhan) Injection Molding System Co., Ltd. and Tiandi International Transportation Agency (China) Co., Ltd. Wuhan Branch Air Cargo Transportation Contract Dispute Case

1、 Basic facts of the case

On November 22, 2010, Langli Company signed the "International Air Express Transport Agreement" with Tiandi International Branch regarding the entrusted handling of international air express transportation matters. The agreement also includes three appendix documents, including "TNT Transportation and Other Service Terms". From March to August 2011, Langli Company repeatedly entrusted Tiandi International Branch to deliver goods by express delivery to the consignee in France. On August 30th, Tiandi International Branch extracted 5 items shipped by Langli Company, and 4 items arrived in Lyon, France on September 13th and were signed for by the French consignee. On September 23rd, Tiandi International Branch notified the consignee and Langley Company via email that the missing item had been found and would arrive in Lyon, France on the same day. The recipient replied to the email and refused to receive it. Afterwards, the goods were transported back to China by sea from France and ultimately delivered to Langley Company. Langli Company filed a lawsuit requesting confirmation of contract termination and compensation for breach of contract losses from Tiandi International Branch; Tiandi International Branch counterclaims Langli Company for paying overdue freight and interest.

2、 Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Wuhan City held that Tiandi International Branch carried out cross-border transportation of goods by air, and there were multiple pieces of goods corresponding to the waybill issued by Tiandi International Branch. These goods were considered independent during transportation, so each piece of goods can be considered as having an independent transportation contract relationship. One piece of goods involved in the case was delayed by more than ten days in arriving in France, and the French consignee refused. Before the dispute in this case occurred, the actual performance period of the ongoing air cargo transportation service transaction between the two parties did not exceed 10 days. Given the speed of air transportation and the expected transportation period formed by previous transactions, the transportation delay behavior of Tiandi International Branch constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. The carrier exemption clause stipulated in the TNT Transportation and Other Service Terms is invalid due to violation of the provisions of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Air Transport (referred to as the Montreal Convention). Tiandi International Branch shall be liable for compensation within the legal limit of the Convention for losses caused by transportation delay. Based on this, the judgment confirms the termination of the transportation contract for the delayed goods involved, and Tiandi International Branch compensates Langli Company for the losses. Langli Company pays the freight and corresponding interest to Tiandi International Branch. Neither party appealed, and the judgment came into effect on July 22, 2014.

3、 Typical significance

This case has exemplary significance in clarifying the arbitration rules for international air transport contract disputes and regulating the rights and responsibilities of international air logistics. One is to clarify that in cross-border cargo transportation implemented by air, the delay in transportation leading to the consignee's refusal to accept delivery can constitute a fundamental breach of contract by the carrier, and the shipper can exercise partial termination rights and have the right to terminate the relevant transportation contract. The second is to clarify that the air cargo transportation contract aims to exempt the carrier from liability or reduce the limit of liability stipulated in the convention. Violation of the provisions of the Montreal Convention is invalid, and the carrier shall bear compensation liability to the shipper within the limit of the convention.

Case 6

Respect the willingness of the parties involved in arbitration and promote the internationalization of arbitration

——Case of Zhejiang Yisheng Petrochemical Co., Ltd. and Luxembourg Invida Technology Co., Ltd. Applying for Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Clause (2014)

1、 Basic facts of the case

Yisheng Company and INVIDIA Company signed two technology license agreements on April 28 and June 15, 2003, respectively, stipulating that "relevant disputes, disputes or demands shall be submitted for arbitration and resolution; arbitration shall be conducted at the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Center (" CIETAC ") in Beijing, China, The arbitration shall take place at China International Economic Trade Arbitration Centre (CIETAC), Beijing, P. R. China and shall be settled according to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules as presented in force. On July 11, 2012, INVIDIA submitted an arbitration application to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission. On October 29, 2012, Yisheng Company applied to the Ningbo Intermediate People's Court to confirm the invalidity of the arbitration clause, citing that the arbitration agreed upon by both parties was essentially an interim arbitration not allowed by China's arbitration law.

2、 Judgment results

After being submitted to the Supreme People's Court for review step by step, the Ningbo Intermediate People's Court made a final ruling on March 17, 2014, stating that although the parties used the expression "take place at" in the arbitration clause, the subsequent phrase is generally understood as the place. However, according to the method of interpretation that is conducive to achieving the parties' arbitration intention, it can be understood that it also includes the agreement on the arbitration institution. Although the Chinese name of the arbitration institution agreed upon by the parties is inaccurate, it can be inferred from the English abbreviation CIETAC that the arbitration institution chosen by the parties is the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission in Beijing. The arbitration clause involved in this case does not violate the provisions of China's arbitration law, and the ruling rejects the application of Yisheng Company to confirm the invalidity of the arbitration clause.

3、 Typical significance

The case recognizes for the first time the validity of the clause that the parties agree to have a permanent arbitration institution in China manage the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and clarifies that the clause stipulates institutional arbitration rather than ad hoc arbitration. The case adopts a method of interpretation that is conducive to the realization of the parties' willingness to arbitrate in the contract terms where there are differences in understanding between the parties. In the case where the arbitration clause does not clearly limit the specific functions of the arbitration institution, it is determined that the agreement between the parties regarding the application of another arbitration rule by the permanent institution should be understood as that the institution manages the entire arbitration procedure in accordance with the arbitration rules. This case has typical exemplary significance in promoting the construction of diversified dispute resolution mechanisms, supporting the internationalization of arbitration, and enhancing the credibility of arbitration.

Case 7

Strictly grasp the standards of letter of guarantee fraud and maintain the international financial order

——Letter of Guarantee Fraud Dispute between the Taihu Lake Boiler Co., Ltd., Karakato Engineering Co., Ltd. and Bank of China Wuxi Branch

1、 Basic facts of the case

The Taihu Lake Company and Karakato Company have agreed to complete a generator unit construction project. The contract between the two parties clearly stipulates that if the contract is modified, the form of contract amendment must be used. Minutes of meeting, fax, etc. cannot produce the effect of contract change. If the Taihu Lake Company defaults, Karakato Company can claim the demand guarantee. Later, Karakato Company requested the issuer of the letter of guarantee, Bank of China Wuxi Branch, to honor the letter of guarantee in case of breach of contract by the Taihu Lake Company. The Taihu Lake Company filed a lawsuit, claiming that both parties had modified the contract through the minutes of the meeting. Karakato Company's claim for the letter of guarantee did not comply with the contract, which constituted fraud, and requested to stop the payment of the letter of guarantee. The First Instance Decision of Wuxi Intermediate People's Court in Jiangsu Province rejected the lawsuit request of the Taihu Lake Company, and the Taihu Lake Company filed an appeal.

2、 Judgment results

The Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province held that the court's review of the basic contract was limited to whether the beneficiary had knowingly abused the right to claim maliciously even though the debtor of the basic transaction did not have a breach of contract or other payment due facts. The meeting minutes of modifying the contract not in accordance with the agreed form and procedures shall not have the effect of changing the contract. In the event of disputes over the nature and payment conditions stipulated in the guarantee terms in the basic contract, if the beneficiary requests payment according to the conditions when the bank issues the guarantee, it does not constitute fraud in the guarantee. Instead, the guarantee should be honored according to the "compensation first, dispute later" rule. The Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court made a final judgment on May 27, 2014, upholding the first instance judgment.

3、 Typical significance

In the judgment of this case, the People's Court fully respected the international transaction practices agreed upon by the parties, and made a judgment in accordance with the International Chamber of Commerce's rules on "first compensation, then dispute" handling of demand guarantee letters. It strictly grasped the standard of guarantee letter fraud, protected the legitimate rights of beneficiaries to receive prompt repayment based on the guarantee letter, and maintained the international financial order. This case was highlighted in the September 2014 Journal of Documentary Credits in the United States. At the same time, the case also reflects that Chinese enterprises must fully understand the characteristics of international financial settlement and guarantee tools in the process of "going global". Failure to strictly fulfill contracts will result in huge legal risks.

Case 8

Effectively fulfilling judicial assistance agreements, recognizing and enforcing foreign civil and commercial judgments in accordance with the law

——Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments of the Courts of the Republic of Poland by Frigupol Co., Ltd

1、 Basic facts of the case

Ningbo Yongchang Company filed lawsuits in 2004 and 2006 in the Polish Green Mountain City District Court and the Oppole District Court due to a sales contract dispute with Frigupol Company, requesting Frigupol Company to pay $65454 and related interest. The above-mentioned courts in Poland have all ruled against the application of Ningbo Yongchang Company, but the Wroclaw Court of Appeal in Poland has ruled in favor of Ningbo Yongchang Company. Subsequently, the Polish Supreme Court ruled to revoke the judgment of the Polish Court of Appeal in Wroclaw and remand the case for retrial. On April 8, 2009, the Wroclaw Court of Appeal in Poland issued a judgment rejecting the request of Ningbo Yongchang Company and ordering it to refund the $54521 and related litigation costs already paid to Frigupol Company according to the Wroclaw Court of Appeal. The final judgment made by the Wroclaw Court of Appeal in Poland came into effect on May 12, 2009. On April 8, 2011, Frigupol Company sent relevant materials to the Ningbo Intermediate People's Court for recognition and enforcement of Polish court judgments. On February 5, 2013, Freguopol Company submitted additional relevant materials, and the case was officially filed. Ningbo Yongchang Company raised an objection, stating that the application for compulsory execution of the judgment has expired and that the lawyer representing it in the relevant Polish litigation has not been authorized.

2、 Judgment results

The Ningbo Intermediate People's Court held that China and the Republic of Poland have concluded the Agreement on Civil and Criminal Judicial Assistance, and therefore should review whether the judgment should be recognized in accordance with the relevant provisions of China's Civil Procedure Law and the Agreement. According to the relevant provisions of Chinese law at that time regarding the suspension or interruption of the application for execution and the statute of limitations, the application of Freguopol Company did not exceed the statutory deadline. Moreover, Ningbo Yongchang Company entrusted the same lawyer to participate in the litigation in Poland with a power of attorney during the litigation period. The power of attorney provided a general authorization to the lawyer, and Ningbo Yongchang Company also received the payment of 54521 US dollars and related litigation fees from Frigupol Company. Therefore, the lawyer's agency should be valid. The court made a final ruling on March 12, 2014, acknowledging the civil judgment I ACa 231/9 made by the Wroclaw Court of Appeal in Poland on April 8, 2009.

3、 Typical significance

China has currently concluded bilateral agreements with more than 30 countries that include judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters, some of which include mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments. This case reflects the position of Chinese courts in effectively fulfilling judicial assistance agreements, recognizing and executing foreign court civil and commercial judgments in accordance with the law, and equally protecting the legitimate rights and interests of both Chinese and foreign parties.