Subject-matters:
(1) Letter of credit and unjust enrichment - whether the purchaser
had fulfilled its obligations concerning payment under the contract by
obtaining the letter of credit.
(2) Invalidity of contract – whether the contract was duly signed
and dealt with past events.
(3) Calculation of interest.
Findings:
(1) The opening of a letter of credit does not constitute a final
payment.
Furthermore, since the purchaser had accepted the equipment sold
and the purchaser had received full payment for the goods by the end
user, the purchaser would be unjustly enriched if it did not have to pay
the seller.
(2) It is a widely recognized principle under international contract
law that a party to a contract cannot successfully claim invalidity of the
contract after having himself acted in compliance with the contract,
without giving notice to the opposing party that the contract might be
invalid.
There is no rule allowing the avoidance of a written contract for the
sole reason that it was signed after its performance.
(3) Since the purchaser was not liable for the seller’s failure to
obtain payment under the letter of credit, the seller was not entitled to
interest as from the expiry date of the letter of credit.
Parties:
Claimant: Claimant (Hong Kong)
Respondent: Respondent (P. R. China)
Place of arbitration:
Stockholm, Sweden
Language of the proceedings:
English
