Take an action in court, Business Law and Ethics

A is a Malaysian contractor in the oil and gas business. B is a large British oil exploration company. By a written Contract, B appointed A in January 2008 to maintain B's offshore platform for a period of 3 years. The platform is just off the coast of Terengganu.

The contract between A and B states that, "Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Rules for Arbitration of the Regional Centre for Arbitration Kuala Lumpur by three Arbitrators appointed in accordance with the rules. The place of Arbitration shall be Switzerland"

By letter dated 31.12.2009, B terminates the contract with A, stating that the termination was due to unsatisfactory work performed by A and that B has incurred various costs rectifying A's shoddy work.

A issued a Notice of Arbitration in January 2010 pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the Contract and claims for loss of profits as a result of the termination of the Contract. B however, has filed a claim in Court against A for breach of Contract and for damages related to the costs it says it suffered as a result of the shoddy work.

At the Preliminary meeting with the Tribunal, it was discovered that the Contract was in fact not signed by B although both parties performed their obligations under the terms stipulated under the written document (the Contract) from January 2009. On this ground, B challenges the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute on grounds that there is in fact no Contract (and therefore any arbitration agreement) between A and B.

            Based on the aforesaid facts, discuss the following:

(a) whether the Tribunal may determine if it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the disputes between the parties.

(b) if so, explain with reasons whether there is, in your view, an arbitration Agreement between A and B.

(c)  what, in your view, is the seat of the arbitration in this dispute

(d)  whether B may proceed with its action in Court.

Posted Date: 3/6/2013 1:19:23 AM | Location : United States







Related Discussions:- Take an action in court, Assignment Help, Ask Question on Take an action in court, Get Answer, Expert's Help, Take an action in court Discussions

Write discussion on Take an action in court
Your posts are moderated
Related Questions
Why International law is very different from domestic law International law is very different from domestic law because in domestic disputes there are Courts to adjudicate upon

Self-Control : Most entrepreneurs believe they can do the job better than anyone else and will strive for maximum responsibility and accountability. An entrepreneur needs to maint

Accounts to be Annexed to Balance Sheet: By S.156 (1) the profit and loss of account, and, thus far as not incorporated in the balance sheet or profit and loss of account, any

Name the issue pertaining to state succession The first issue pertaining to state succession is treaties. The new state would have to embark upon with the treaties signed by th

Proposal to reduce the votes of preference shares: In making this approach the courts have nonetheless kept the door open for action to deal with discrimination against a clas

1. Maryland is one of a few states in which contributory negligence is a complete defense, barring the plaintiff from any recovery. What is contributory negligence? How does it com

Elements of a Contract - Offer Further this is an unequivocal manifestation through one party of its intention to contract into another. So well it is a clear intimation for i

Models for a criminal-justice system based on an ethos of rehabilitation and reintegration ... have been regarded as idealistic but unworkable in the real world, except perhaps in

Define the term - policy elites A community of policy activists having somehow, a dominant position in policy process, called policy elites. They are guided by a substantive pro

Remedies of the Ultra Vires Lender:                          In Sinclair v Brougham (26) the House of Lords explained that no action or suit lies at law or in equity to recove