Aux termes d'un contrat de distribution, les défendeurs concédèrent au demandeur n° 1 le droit exclusif de distribuer certains des produits du défendeur sur les marchés de Singapour, de Malaisie, des Philippines et de Thaïlande. Ce contrat de distribution fut résilié par un accord signé entre les défendeurs et le demandeur n° 2, agissant tant pour son compte que pour celui du demandeur n° 2. L'accord de résiliation se réfère expressément au contrat principal pour ce qui concerne les litiges relatifs à son interprétation ou à sa validité. Un litige opposa les parties portant sur l'interprétation de l'article 1 de l'accord de résiliation prévoyant le rachat du stock des demandeurs par les défendeurs sur la base des prix facturés par les défendeurs libellés en francs belges. Les parties conviennent que le prix doit être payé en dollars de Singapour, après conversion des francs belges, mais elles sont en désaccord sur le taux de change applicable. Les demandeurs soutiennent qu'il y a lieu de retenir le taux de change en vigueur lors de l'achat initial du stock et les défendeurs celui en vigueur au jour de la résiliation. L'arbitre unique juge que le taux de change à retenir pour la conversion en francs belges des dollars de Singapour est le taux existant à la date d'exigibilité du paiement aux termes de l'accord de résiliation. Il se réfère dans sa décision au principe du nominalisme monétaire retenu par la jurisprudence et la doctrine suisses et par les <b>Principes d'Unidroit</b> (article 6.1.9(3)). Comme la somme due correspond au versement déjà effectué par les défendeurs, la demande soumise par les demandeurs visant à l'application du taux en vigueur à la date à laquelle le stock a été initialement acheté est rejetée. Les demandeurs devront supporter les frais de l'arbitrage.

<i>Sur le droit applicable et les principes régissant l'interprétation des contrats :</i>

'The determination of the exchange rate to be applied to Claimant's claim under Art.1 of the Termination Agreement requires interpretation of said stipulation under the applicable law.

The parties have agreed that the choice of law clause contained in Art. 36 of the Distribution Agreement and referring to the laws of Switzerland as the governing law of their contract shall also be applicable to the Termination Agreement. This agreement constitutes a valid choice of law clause and, according to the wording of Art. 36 of the Distribution Agreement, also applies to the interpretation of the contracts.

Under Swiss law, contract interpretation is governed by Art. 1 and 18 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (Obligationenrecht) in connection with Art. 1, Sec. 2 of the Swiss Civil Code (Zivilgesetzbuch). These provisions require the Arbitrator to look first for corresponding intentions of the parties as expressed in the contractual stipulations (Swiss Federal Tribunal BGE 105 II 16; 111 II 457; Guhl, Das Schweizerische Obligationenrecht, 8th ed. 1991, at 97). If no such natural consensus can be discerned, the Arbitrator has to look for the parties' implied or normative consensus. Towards this end the Arbitrator has to discern what reasonable parties acting in good faith must have expressed as their common intentions at the moment of conclusion of the contract . . . The principle of good faith thus establishes a "presumption of reasonableness" to be followed by the Arbitrator in his task of construing the contractual provision in dispute. Starting from the wording of the contractual stipulation this objective interpretation has to take into account not only the conduct of the parties before and after the conclusion of the contract but also the purpose of the contract and of previous contracts concluded between the same parties and the economic context in which it was concluded . . .'

<i>Sur le taux de change convenu entre les parties :</i>

'In answering this question one has to focus again on Art. 1(c) of the Termination Agreement. It must be determined whether this provision can be considered to contain an implied currency clause, fixing the date of conversion to the date of the individual purchase of each item of inventory. Since such a will is not expressed on the face of said provision, one has to apply the principles of objective interpretation as outlined . . . above.

Every attempt that tries to give Art. 1(c) of the Termination Agreement such a broad meaning has to take into account the principle of nominalism. This principle provides that absent a specific provision in the agreement of the parties each debtor has to pay a monetary debt at its nominal value. Therefore, without any special agreement, each party carries the risk of currency depreciation. The principle of nominalism is a general principle of transnational law. It is laid down not only in Swiss court decisions and doctrinal writings . . . but also in Art. 6.1.9(3) of the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts, allowing the obligor to make payment of a money debt expressed in a currency other than that of the place for payment in the currency of that place "at the rate of exchange prevailing there when payment is due" (Unidroit (ed.), Principles of International Commercial Contracts, 1994, at 127). As a consequence of this general principle of law, international arbitral tribunals are very reluctant to intervene into a contract because of inflation and currency depreciation in the absence of a specific currency depreciation clause . . .

This principle sets high standards for the Claimant who, according to the general principles of actori incumbit probatio, carries the burden of proof for a specific currency clause contained in the agreement of the parties. The Tribunal is not convinced that Art. 1(c) of the Termination Agreement contains such a currency clause. . . .'