In order to have full access of this Article, please email us on thedocumentco@hotmail.co.uk
International Commercial Adjudication
MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT
MEMO AIMED AT APPELLANT
On the behalf of Against
Appellant Respondent
Innovative cancer treatment Ltd Hope Hospital
46-Commerce road. Capital city Anteega 1-3 Hospital Road
Oceanside, Barbadiosa
SYNOPSIS OF AUTHORIZED ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANTBUILT
OVER THE EVIDENCE OF THE EVENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ISSUE 1- PURVIEW OF JURISDICTION AS TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF PACT.
ISSUE 2- SEVERAL PACT ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
ISSUE 3- THE POINTS ON WHICH THE BOTH SIDES WERE IN DISPUTE.
ISSUE 5- ENACTMENT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
ISSUE 6- HOPE HOSPITAL SEEKING JOINT DEPENDENCE ON DISCRETIONARY EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION TO MAKE CORRESPONDING ESTIMATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM WITHIN INDENTURE.
ISSUE 7A- THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE PAYMENT CLAIMS RAISED BY CLAIMANT.
ISSUE 7B- THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HEAR BOTH CLAIMS IN A SINGLE ARBITRATION.
ISSUE 8- NATURE OF CORRESPONDING CAPACITIES THAT APPELLANT MADE WITH OFFENDER CARRY HINT TO IMPEDIMENT OF THIS INDENTURE.
ISSUE 9- DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS AND APPEALS COUNTER TO THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION AND REGIONAL DECREE TO OVERCOMEAMID CONFLICT OF DECREE.
ISSUE 10- APPELLANT’S CASE LACKING MERIT AND HOW DEFENDANT PURSUES TO FRAME IT.
REFRENCE CASES.
SYNOPSIS OF AUTHORIZED ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANTBUILT
OVER THE EVIDENCES OF THE EVENT
ISSUE 1- PURVIEW OF JURISDICTION AS TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF PACT
1-CEPANI CENTER OF ADJUDICATION HAS AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE
It is succumbed by appellant that CEPANI CENTER OF ADJUDICATION has dominion to settle the case. The Authority of adjudication highlighting argument between ICT and Hope hospital falls on Belgian center of conciliation& negotiation (CEPANI Adjudication guidelines ) because of (Outline and sales treaty-Appellant’s Exhibit, 1 Article 23) that commands that over non-fulfillment of conciliation amid apt members of both sides that else had better considered firstly aimed at resolving the disagreement and over non-fulfillment of third impartial party’s proposal technique for adjudication, the argument has to convert into contentious or sub judice so it can be eventually resolved through the CEPANI Instructions of Adjudication before CEPANI. Two or more arbiters would regulate settlements in English and bench of adjudication is proposed. The adjudication division is the fragment of an authorized indenture and is briefed.
One foremost example is the event of Trade land Merchandises SLvs. HC Trading Malta (1 WLR 3120 [2016]) presented to the Queen’s Bench present in the UK there it stood apprehended that Appellant avowing survival of pact with perpetrator encompassing London adjudication division and intending to make settlement claim without undertaking and once Perpetrator arguing presence of indenture, court has authority as there exists consent to adjudicate.
2- MANIFOLD PROPOSALS, DISCUSSIONS, DOCUMENTS AND RESEARC IN ACCORDANCE TO TREATY WERE FRAGMENT OF INDENTURE TO DIRECT AS ANTICIPATED BY BOTH SIDES INVOLVED ININDENTURE.
• The language used by both sides in adjudication division is clear, explicit. It illustrates the purpose of the two sides to come in the binding indenture to adjudicate. There have been sensible permission of members to settle disagreement through negotiation. It can be fulfilled by Hon’ble Law court by visiting the adjudication section also by several negotiations, communication and authorized tools entered by both sides.
Assent of the both sides could be deduced by means of manner also shows an Intent that there have been several other offers available that might also survive in core pact file (Outline – sales pact) that coincide stop conventional law policy for divisibility of pact intending to adhere to outline in future support to operate capacity, hence this very outline might summon in order to direct future indentures between Both sides for up keeping and supply of consumables as well as protons. Another outline for an extra room for therapy treatment using protons in future getting ICT installed which is an essential routing software to manage medical information as well as to make a boundary with hopes’ software.
ISSUE 2-SEVERALPACT ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
1- PACT VALIDITY
According to well-known tenet from English legal system also indenture decree states in occasion of before and after condition of a pact defaulting, ensuing pact resulting from real pact also delegating from it as well as not critical holds legality, it depends on court of law to check feasibility as well as legitimacy of whether the act’s portion in indentures liable to performance so that both sides are provided with justice.
2- EXECUTORY AND EXECUTED PARTSOF PERFORMANCE OF INDENTURE
AND HOW THEY BOTH INTERRELATE.
Part of routines that have been implemented in this partially-executed or partly implemented indenturing. payments made by hospital as revealed in before-mentioned factual information and it moves the responsibility of ICT to keep their work act in reduction, hence, revocation to indenture cannot be queried short of utilizing medium to settlement as CIPANI proposed that suggests adjudication authority is individual choice for both sides doing indenture through morality to principle of divisibility that says settlement pact remain sun influenced from position of core indenture [Fouchard,199;Redfern/Hunter,§2.101].
ISSUE 3- THE POINTS ON WHICH THE BOTH SIDES WERE IN DISPUTE
1- RULE AND INNERMATTERS OF PLAINTIFFBODY
In contrast to indenture from which both sides had been ensured remained vital because themes on which both sides fell in disagreement faced a dearth to become the organization’s internal issue and lack of becoming part of policy making and for resolving the matters responsible inside their own organization and as there has been no contention amid both sides. As in the present case, the problems may have raised by any of two parties but it could be supposed that, on the argumentative matter the proposal was not engrossed at all; or that because it was annulled primarily thus the authority has ultimate power to resolve problem revealed to them.
ISSUE 4- ENACTMENT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
• RESPONSE TO INQUIRYIFDISAGREEMENTEXISTS IN ASETTLEMENTSECTION
From dialectal of factual information is clear that legal succeeding that is vital to be delayed essentially be in high belief of case which both sides have opted to converse and that falls inside the terrain of negotiations indenture. However lawsuit is instated as an issue that deceits the plan, the court of law is guaranteed to weaken to stay.
According to Viscount Simon, LC in Hayman v Drawins limited; answer to investigation if a disagreement falls within a settlement part in a pact should be reliant on
A) What is the dispute
B) What disagreement the judgment section reports
• DEMOSTRATION OF CURRENT CASE
Hope infirmary demanded advanced treatment of cancer but altered and removed few rapports of pact, hence it had been suspected via CT about the presence of an inscribed pact amid both sides in case of any clash among both sides the case shall be put before authorities, ICT had a suit in disagreement with Hope for the separate fragment acts built on pact between both sides by which respondent approves to remain patron of other party conclusion of rapports of orientations of pact amid them except an infringement to a pledged pact enacted by appellant.
ISSUE 6- HOPE HOSPITAL SEEKING JOINT DEPENDENCE ON DISCRETIONARY EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION TO MAKE CORRESPONDING ESTIMATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM WITHIN INDENTURE MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT.
FUTURE INDENTURES ARE INFERABLE FROM CONTEXT AND SALES PACT AND FURTHERPAPERS OF PACT.
CASE IN THEME (Petition by Hope hospital of prior-sales planninginvestigation also consequential obligation by ICT of fixed type of data) makes use of contemplation for future indentures that amply clears unambiguity that Hope intended to draw over outline and sales pact for out spread as well as engross transactions of main pact in hope of reduction that once more implores the query that whether Hope hospital was in the front impending in the professed creation of Qusai indentures which impedes Hope hospital to not impulse pact of indenture singly.
PROBLEM 7A- THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE PAYMENT CLAIMS RAISED BY CLAIMANT
According to the principle of Kompetenz -Kompetenz, the Tribunal has the control/ authority to frame and decide on its own jurisdiction [Born, Commercial Arbitration, p. 855-856; Redfern et al., International Arbitration, § 5.99]. Such rule or the principle is codified in Art. 16(1) Model Law as well as in Art. 12(1) CEPANI Rules, as per the applicable procedural/ executional rules [Art. 23(3) FSA, Cl. Ex. 2; R.A., § 20]. The rule demonstrates that the Tribunal has authority and jurisdiction regarding both the claim arising under the FSA which stands for Framework and Sales Agreement and the claim arising under the SLA which stands for Sales and Licensing Agreement (Felemegas, 2007).
PROBLEM 7B- THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HEAR BOTH CLAIMS IN A SINGLE ARBITRATION
Assuming that both contracts MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT which include Framework and Sales Agreement (FSA) and Sales and Licensing Agreement (SLA) contain the valid arbitration clauses and The Tribunal is respectfully requested to join the claims arising out of the Framework and Sales Agreement (FSA) and Sales and Licensing Agreement (SLA) and address them together in the present proceeding, there is a provision that both the claims can be heard in a single arbitration according to Art. 12(1) CEPANI Rules which read in conjunction with Art. 10 CEPANI Rules, explains and refers to multi-contract arbitration, that Tribunal is empowered to rule on both claims into a single arbitration (Lew et al, 2013).
First and foremost, the Tribunal is fully capable and allowed as reported by Hanotiau (2009) to join the claims pursuant to the arbitration clause kept in the FSA (I.). Alternatively, the Tribunal is entitled to join the claims subject to two arbitration agreements (II.).
Fry, Greenberg and Mazza (2012) further addressed that a single tribunal can hear two claims in a single arbitration and reported the followings for such hearings.
A- Rules permit the Tribunal to link the claims ascending out of the Framework and Sales Agreement (FSA) and Sales and Licensing Agreement (SLA) covered by the arbitration agreement.
B- A single arbitration is predicted by the scope of the Parties’ arbitration agreement.
C- Different practical laws applicable to the agreements do not in any way stop single proceeding.
D- The configuration of the Tribunal observes with the will of the Parties.
E- In addition, the benefits of the good supervision of justice certainly influence for the joinder of claims.
ISSUE 8- NATURE OF CORRESPONDINGCAPACITIES THAT APPELLANTMADE WITH OFFENDERCARRYHINT TO IMPEDIMENT OF THIS INDENTURE.
JOINT AND CONTINGENTSTYLE OF CORRESPONDING CAPACITY BEING APROBLEM INDENTURE MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT
Both sides have (joint and contingent) corresponding promises as compared to (mutual and autonomous) and as against (mutual and parallel) therefore joint and contingent nature of corresponding promises commands a promisor to fulfill his promise.
RELATIONSHIP OF PROMISEE AND PROMISING PARTYIN THIS INDENTURE
Having explained the sort of mutual capacities both sides are fraught under, promisor being Hope hospital and promise being ICT Ltd, if indenture is finished by Hope, presentation by the ICT Ltd. would be exempted and it technically reserves the position to take matter to court setting which is CEPANI.
• Endeavored routine offers to perform clear from the evidences of the event that ICT offered the routine of indenture that got terminated by Hope organization as exit from normal process of presentations that was agreed on.
ISSUE 9- DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS AND APPEALSCOUNTER TO THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ANDREGIONALDECREE TO OVERCOMEAMID CONFLICT OF DECREE.
1- Defendant refutes validity of authority of court settings till defendant suggests mediator regarding compensation from outline and sales pact to start adjudication happening.
2- All claims by appellant in mode of coexisting dominion is disproved by defendant as well.
3- Sales and license pact which per accuser is resulted in adjudication is completely refuted from defendant as both sides do not have similar mindset of how it links to adjudication medium of CEPANI MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT
4- Defendant declared disagreement resolve can be assisted by it, if it tries to appeal and analyze in case defendant feels deceived by the apparent injustice.
5- Defendant is obstinate to follow its case in public courts where plea and analysis instruments are certain and as an organization committed to public, it is burdened with responsibilities.
6- That adjudication arrangement assumes autonomous for appellant and there he is flexed to take it to adjudication court exclusive of public benches.
7- Appellant does not have right in adjudication section rapports-settings for selling transfer. Defendant already opposed it and displaced it from Art 23 describing outline and sale indenture for disagreement resolve.
8- MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Art 23 outline in addition to selling indenture had been out dated via quarrel determination section exemplified in section 23 selling and warrant pact.
9- Legit and accurate basis of these two indentures are dissimilar hence can’t be bonded together in adjudication court of law MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT.
10- Core cause in defendant getting about adjudication setting is chiefly because both indentures wouldn’t be an issue of adjudication alongside as in case of sole adjudication, defendant hopes his case would be heard on merit.
ISSUE 10- APPELLANT’S CASE LACKING MERIT AND HOW DEFENDANT PURSUES TO FRAME IT.
• CISG VS Law of AntigaDefendant thought it was a false position that both pacts are controlled bylaw of Antiga only and CISG is omitted.
• As per defendant choice to terminate the indenture, there is appellant’s slit of sales and confirming indenture as appellant’s ostensive software had not been given to accused side to function it in an authentic way.
• DENIALS of defendant’s lawful disagreement by appellant MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT
• CEPANI IS IMMUNED FROM THE CONSTRAINTS OF PUBLIC COURTS OF DEFENDANTS WELL AS APPELLANT
As far as authority is concerned, the adjudication platform CEPANI has protection from constraints of public court’s intrusion because of global trade and adjudication.
• KNOWLEDGE FROM PLEDGEDPACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES AS TO ADJUDICATION.
A contractual agreement has two types of propositions, firstly, the stipulation can be made in the original indenture pact that in dispute; matter would not be put before Global settlement platform, instead, it would be settled through a judgment of public courts. Furthermore, there is stillness on part of settlement courts and outline of pact itself can comprise provisions which in every situation, MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT the platform of global adjudication is defensible. Lastly, a dominion of international adjudication court is technically supposed, it comes to action in the situation of alteration and disagreement, nonetheless stipulation of short trial for conciliation suitable and well-matched under present conditions and style of professional dealings.
• TWO INDENTURES ARE NOT UNRELATEDDEALINGS
Both indentures involved in jurisdictive hearings seem to not having unrelated dealings while secluding one another, an only indenture can’t be accustomed outside the dominion of adjudication…
Recent Comments