申诉人：MM公司 The Plaintiff: M. M. Corp.
地址： ______ Address:______
被诉人：VV有限公司 The Defendant: V. V. Co., Ltd.
地址： ______ Address:______
I. Statement of Facts:
This dispute existing between the Plaintiff, M. M. Corp. and the Defendant, V. V. Co., Ltd was brought about by the Defendant’s failure to commit itself to the contracts 470E and 471E concluded on the 14th of May, 1992 for the supply of 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots.
According to the stipulations of the said contracts, 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots should have been completely delivered from European ports during a period from July to December, 1992, and each month a quantity specified thereby should have been shipped. This Corporation, the Plaintiff, issued letters of credit E25520 and E25733 on the 7th of June, 1992 through the Bank of China, London.
As these two contracts stipulate Hamburg/Rotterdam/Antwerp and Hamburg/Rotterdam respectively for the port of loading, the Plaintiff had therefore sent faxes on many occasions to the Defendant, asking them to advise the Plaintiff of the exact name of this Corporation to send vessels. But, the Defendant had failed to reply to those faxes dispatched by the Plaintiff by taking an evasive attitude.
It was not until the Plaintiff sent faxes and letters time and again to urge on and with the help of our Commercial Office in [ ] city to negotiate with the Defendant, that the Defendant finally forwarded a letter on the 26th November, 1992 to the Plaintiff through our Commercial Office in [ ] city, informing the Plaintiff to the new arrangement for shipment. As being indicated by this new arrangement for shipment, the delivery of 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots would have to be completed within a period from January to June, 1993.
In spite of suffering significant losses caused by the Defendant’s failure to fulfill its contractual obligation, the Plaintiff still accepted the New arrangement for shipment presented by the Defendant. Whereas the Defendants had neither kept its original promise nor committed itself again to the subsequent arrangement for shipment put forward by itself, thus bringing even greater losses to the Plaintiff.
Nevertheless, in order to enable the Defendant to meet its contractual obligation ultimately, the Plaintiff passed a letter on the 16th of November, 1994, through a British lawyer named Mr. [ ] to the Defendant, stating that the Defendant was permitted to meet its obligation to deliver the contracted goods within 45 days from the date it received the said letter, and that if the Defendant failed to do so, the Plaintiff would, according to the provision of Clause No. 16 of the contracts, formally submit the dispute to the F. T. Arbitration Commission for arbitration, asking the Defendant to compensate for all the losses sustained by this Corporation.
The date on which the Defendant received our letter was the 28th of November, 1994. The deadline of the 45 days period was on the 12th January, 1995, which has now passed, but the Defendant has done nothing at all to meet its contractual obligation, nor has it produced any proposal for the settlement of this dispute. It has even gone so far as to make a false charge through a letter dated the 7th of February, 1995, against the Plaintiff with failure to open a new letter of credit after its expiry, and has therefore assumed no responsibility whatsoever for its commitment to delivery for Aluminum Ingots concluded.
The true nature of this dispute is evident in the following fact: After the receipt of the new arrangement for shipment presented by the Defendant on the 26th of November, 1992, the Plaintiff sent many faxes and letters requesting the Defendant to inform the Plaintiff of the exact name of port of loading and the Advice of Goods ready for shipment, while the Defendant gave no answer at all to the Plaintiff’ faxes and letters and refused to meet its obligations under the contracts entered into, thus making it impossible for the Plaintiff to proceed with the procedures of sending vessels and extending the validity of letters of credit. Obviously, the liability for the non-execution of the contracts rests entirely with none other than the Defendant itself. The Plaintiff is therefore applying formally to the F. T. Arbitration Commission for arbitration of this dispute.
The claimed amount called for by the Plaintiff comes totally to ￡748,000.
6,000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots of 99.5% purity, under contract 470E, were priced at ￡152 per metric ton. The market price prevailing at that time (the 29th of June, 1993) ranged from ￡243 to ￡248 per metric ton. The Price difference per metric ton is ￡93.50, giving a total difference of ￡561,000 for 6,000 metric tons.
Another 2000 metric tons of 99.7% purity Aluminum Ingots, under contract 471E were priced at ￡154 per metric ton. The market price on the 29th of June 1993, was between ￡245 and ￡250 per metric ton. The price difference per metric ton indicates ￡93.50, resulting in a total difference of ￡187,000 for 2000 metric tons.
The above-mentioned two contracts aggregate a sum of ￡748,000 (=￡561,000+￡187,000) for the price difference of totally 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots.
The Plaintiff hereby requests that it be compensated by the Defendant not only with an amount of losses totaling ￡748,000 (in Pound Sterling of Seven hundred and Forty Eight Thousands) caused by the Defendant’s failure to execute the contracts concluded, but also with all costs arising from this arbitration.
Enclosed ￡3,740 for filing fees (in Pound Sterling of Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty), equivalent to the Chinese currency RMB15,729 (Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Nine Yuan), paid in advance in compensation for the costs of arbitration in accordance with Clause 6 of the F. T. Arbitration Commission.
Enclosure: Statement of Appointing Arbitrator
M. M. Corp.
May 20, 1995