Règlement d'arbitrage de la CCI de 1988

Art. 74, 78 CVIM

Les parties conclurent deux contrats, l'un pour la fabrication d'un appareil électrique et l'autre pour la vente des outils nécessaires à la production de cet appareil. L'acheteur (demandeur) allégua divers manquements contractuels du vendeur (défendeur), y compris la non-conformité aux spécifications techniques, la notification insuffisante d'une activité concurrente et non-réalisation d'un dépôt de brevet. Le défendeur s'opposa à ces allégations, prétendant qu'il avait produit et livré un article de bonne qualité marchande, rendant injustifiée la résiliation unilatérale des contrats par le demandeur. Il introduisit en conséquence une demande reconventionnelle en dommages-intérêts.

Le droit applicable

'1. Paragraph 9 of the Preliminary Agreement of October provides that "the arbitrator will interpret the contract and settle the dispute in accordance with French law".

2. Article XXIV of the Contract for Manufacture, and article 22 of the Toolings Agreement both provide that "the arbitrator will interpret the contract and settle the dispute in accordance with French law and suppletorily with the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, concluded in Vienna on 11 April 1980".

3. This is somewhat confusing because in French law international sales made on or after January 1, 1998 [sic], are principally, not just suppletorily, governed by the Vienna Convention.

4. As the Sole Arbitrator understands the clause, the parties meant that the international sales law aspects should be governed by the Vienna Convention. Other aspects such as construction law or mandate aspects should be governed by general French law. To the extent, however, that French law is silent, the Vienna Convention would fill the gaps.'

Sur le gain manqué du défendeur

'1. Defendant alleges that Claimant - without any justification on the merits - stopped purchasing the agreed quantities . . .

2. Claimant answers that Defendant's production costs . . . are not so far supported by any evidence. More importantly, the lost margin counterclaimed is equal to the anticipated profit, which is obtained after deducting all expenses associated with the operation and therefore, this counterclaim cannot logically stand alongside other counterclaims . . .

3. The Sole Arbitrator must apply Art. 74 Vienna Convention. This provision does not exclude that a party might claim both damnum emergens and lucrum cessans. There is nothing illogical about that since by receiving damnum emergens the damaged party is only put at break-even, and lucrum cessans comes on top.

4. Both elements of damages must be foreseeably caused by the fundamental breach. The amount claimed as lost profits was not challenged by Claimant with reasonable particularity. The Sole Arbitrator has no reason to doubt that for Defendant a large order . . . would have been foreseeably profitable in a way comparable to the profits expected by Claimant itself . . .

5. The Sole Arbitrator awards the lost profits as claimed . . .'

Sur les intérêts

'1. Claimant claims interest at the French statutory rate from . . .

2. Defendant claims interest at 10.5% . . . since . . .

3. Defendant is entitled to interest on the sums awarded pursuant to Art. 78 of the Vienna Convention. Art. 78 Vienna Convention does not specify a particular interest rate. The Sole Arbitrator considers it appropriate to apply a commercially reasonable interest rate (see Art. 7.4.9. subs. 2 Unidroit Principles). The interest rate claimed is commercially reasonable for the award currency . . .

4. On . . . the date from which Defendant claims interest, the Agreement had been terminated. The sums claimed were due in the sense of Art. 78 Vienna Convention.

5. Accordingly, interest is awarded to Defendant as claimed.'