UNIT-1

Art. 14(1) CISG provides that: “A proposal for concluding a contract addressed to
one or more specifi c persons constitutes an offer if it is sufficiently definite and
indicates the intention of the offeror to be bound in the case of
acceptance.
Art. 14(2) CISG seeks to deal with the classifi cation problem where the proposal is
made other than to “one or more specific persons”, i.e. to the public. It states that such
a proposal is to be considered merely as an invitation to make offers, unless the
contrary is indicated by the person making the proposal
Problem with article 55- validly conciulced contract without price has to be assumed
that parties are willing to pay whatever reaosnable at time of conclusion but article 14
“sufficiently defintie” contradicts it because for SD, unclear if price is determined
Art. 15(1) CISG requires that it must have become “effective”, and for this to happen
the provision requires that the offer must have “reached” the offeree.
Art. 16(1) CISG sets out the basic principle that under the Convention offers are
revocable: “Until a contract is concluded an offer may be revoked if the revocation
reaches the offeree before he has dispatched an acceptance.
Article 16(2)- irrevocable offer
Article 17- rejection of offer
Article 18(2)- acceptance becomes effective when it reaches offerror within
reasonable time
By Art. 23 CISG the contract is concluded at the moment when an acceptance of an
offer becomes effective in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. As a
general rule, three elements must be satisfi ed before a reply to an offer can constitute
an acceptance. First, there must be an indication of assent to the offer. Secondly, the
assent must be unqualifi ed. Thirdly, the assent must be effective.
Where the offeree in his reply does not unqualifi edly accept the terms offered but
instead seeks to introduce new terms or in some other way qualifi es or modifi es the
original offer, he will not generally be treated as having accepted the offer. Instead the
reply will be treated as a rejection of the original offer and as amounting to a counter-
offer on the terms set out in the reply. This rule is contained in Art. 19(1) CISG
Article 19(3)- modified acceptance when non material changes
Where an offer provides that it must be accepted within a fi xed time, an acceptance
received after that time is not effective (Art. 18(2) second sentence CISG).
Article 25- breach of contract- specific perforamce, seller’s right to cure, additional
time for delivery, reduction of price
Article 50- reduction of price
Article 46 and 62- avoidance of contract of buyer and seller respectively. Specific
performance
Article 45 and 61- buyers and seller rights to damages respectively
Article 74- damages- obligee entitled to sum equal to loss caused by breach ; restored
economic position as if contract performed ; obligor liable for all losses from non
performance.
Article 77- mitigation of damages

Seller Duties:
1. To supply goods, transfer ownsherhip and rpovide documentd- Article 30
2. Delivery to be in the time stated- Article 33
3. Conformity of goods- Article 35
Buyers duty:
1. General obligations of Taking delivery of goods and paying price: Article 53
2. Article 54: Price is apid
3. Article 57: Place of apyment
4. Article 60: buyers obligation ot take delivery

Damages for breach of contract by one party consist of a sum equal to the loss,
including loss of profit, suffered by the other party as a consequence of the breach.
Such damages may not exceed the loss which the party in breach foresaw or ought to
have foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract, in the light of the facts and
matters of which he then knew or ought to have known, as a possible consequence of
the breach of contract.Article 74
Article 25 provides:
A breach of contract committed by one of the parties is fundamental if
it results in such detriment to the other party as substantially to deprive
him of what he is entitled to expect under the contract, unless the
party in breach did not foresee and a reasonable person of the same
kind in the same circumstances would not have foreseen such a result.
Fundamental breach under the CISG affords an aggrieved party a basis
to avoid a contract in respect of:
(a) non-performance by the other party (Arts. 49(1)(a), 64(1)(a));
(6) anticipatory breach (Art. 72(1));
(c) instalment contracts (Art. 73(1),(2));
(d) partial delivery or non-conformity of part of the goods (Art. 51 (2)).
As well, fundamental breach can give rise to the buyer's right to require
delivery of substitute goods (Art. 46(2)) and enables rights to be preserved
which would otherwise be lost after the passing of risk (Art. 70).
The Article 25 definition of fundamental breach has n

. The buyer (under Art. 46) or the seller (under Art. 62) has
the right to require performance by the other party of its obligations under
the CISG. This right is lost if the aggrieved party resorts to any remedy
which is inconsistent with requiring performance. Included within the CISG
notion of specific performance are such types of performance in specie as
delivery of substitute goods and repair by the seller (Art. 46(2), (3)) and
payment of the price by the buyer (Art. 62)

the CISG permits a seller to cure an early, but

non-conforming, tender of documents (Art. 34) or of goods (Art. 37) up to
the time fixed for performance

Either party is permitted under the CISG to fix an additional period of

time of reasonable length for performance by the other (Arts. 47(1), 63(1))

Article 50 of the CISG provides a buyer with the self-help remedy of

reduction in price. When the goods do not conform with the contract, and
whether or not the price has already been paid, the buyer is entitled to
reduce the price "in the same proportion as the value that the goods actually
delivered had at the time of the delivery bears to the value that conforming
goods would have had at that time". But price reduction cannot be obtained
if the seller remedies the non-conformity by cure under Article 37 or Article
48, or if the buyer unjustifiably refuses to accept the cure (Art. 50).

The remedy of avoidance of the contract is made available to buyer

and seller in Articles 49 and 64 respectively

The CISG allows the buyer to declare the whole contract

avoided, but only when the partial delivery or partial non-conformity
amounts to a fundamental breach of contract (Art. 51 (2)). The use of the
word "only" in Article 51 (2) means that where a partial delivery by the
seller does not amount to a fundamental breach, the buyer cannot employ
the Nachfrist procedure in Article 47 to avoid the entire contract

Where the seller delivers the goods before the date fixed, the buyer
may refuse to take delivery (Art. 52(1))

. By article 72(1), an aggrieved

party may declare the contract avoided if prior to the performance date it is
clear that the other party will commit a fundamental breach of contract.
But the party intending to declare the contract avoided must, if time allows,
give reasonable notice to permit the other party to provide an adequate
assurance of performance, unless the other party has declared that it will
not perform (Art. 72(2), (3)

An aggrieved party is
able to declare the contract avoided in respect of a single instalment where
the other party has committed a fundamental breach with regard to that
instalment (Art. 73(1)

Article 79 of the CISG provides a framework that operates similarly to the doctrine of
frustration by excusing a party from liability for non-performance due to an
unforeseeable and unavoidable impediment.

The main duty of the seller under the FOB contract is loading. The seller must
deliver the goods on board the vessel, at a place where the buyer has already
identified as the port of loading and within the period of shipment which the
parties indicated in the contract of sale. Name of the port in a FOB contract is a
condition. For instance, the seller sends the goods to the other port from the port
where it has been identified in the contract of sale. The seller commits a breach of
a condition, so the buyer is entitled to refuse the delivery of the goods (Manbre S.
Co. Ltd. v Corn p. Co. Ltd. [1915] 1 KB 198)

Walton (Grain and Shipping) v British Italian Trade Co.- sellers of CIF contract
to deliver groundnut oil. FM clause containing in event of legisltive or executive
action contract to be void after 2 months passed. Buyers contended that no FM comes
in existence since it is a dipute of a commercial nature and license obtaining is the
ordinary duty if the seller. Seller contended that otuside their scope as they didn’t
know about it before so comes under FM. Held that Sellers are right as they couldn’t
have known and it is not legal for shipment and that it is outside their control.

DAMAGES main provisions

1. Aricle 75- if contract avoided and if in reasonable time and reasonable manner
after avoidance, buyer bought goods In replacement or seller rsold goods, the
party claiming damages may recover the difference bwtween contract price and
sale price AND ANY OTHER UNDER ART 74
2. Article 76- if contract avoided if goods not purchased or resold, recover damages
upto difference of contract price and current price. If party claiming damage has
avoided then current price of goods aat the time of taking over should be used for
calculation. All remedies under art 74
3. Article 77- reasonable provisions to be undertaken to reduce damages
4. Article 79, 80- exemption from damages

I. Rights of the Buyer

1. Right to Require Conformity and Delivery of Goods (Article 35 & Article 30)

2. Right to Inspection and Notification of Non-Conformity (Article 38 & Article 39)

3. Right to Require Performance (Articles 45(1)(a) & 46)

4. Right to Require Repair and/or Replacement of Non-Conforming Goods (Article

48)

5. Right to Reduce the Price (Article 50)

6. Right to Declare Avoidance (Rescission) of the Contract (Article 49)

7. Right to Claim Damages (Article 45(1)(b) & Article 74)

8. Right to Interest (Article 78)

Seller’s rights:

1. Right to Require Payment (Article 53 & Article 62(1))

2. Right to Require Performance (Article 61)

3. Right to Fix an Additional Period for Payment or Delivery (Article 63)

4. Right to Avoid the Contract (Article 64)

5. Right to Claim Damages (Article 45(1)(b) & Article 74)

6. Right to Interest (Article 78)

7. Right to Withhold Delivery (Article 71)

8. Right to Contractual Penalties or Liquidated Damages (Article 74 & Article 78)

Buyer’s duties
Duty to Pay the Price (Articles 53–60).
Duty to Take Delivery (Articles 53, 60, & 67).
Duty to Take Reasonable Steps to Preserve Avoided Goods (Articles 77 & 80).

Duties of the Seller

Duty to Deliver Conforming Goods (Articles 30 & 35).
Duty to Hand Over All Agreed Documents (Article 31).
Duty to Place Goods at Buyer’s Disposal (Articles 31–34).
Duty to Pack and Mark the Goods Appropriately (Article 35(2)).

UNIT-2
S.2 (Multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993)- definition of multimodal
transport- two different modes atleast- from place of acceptance in india to delivery
outside inida
S.3- registration

Combined transport document (CTD) before regularisation-- now multimodal

transport document (MTD)
UN Convention on mutlimodal transportation of goods, 1980

Bill of lading- Article 30- Uniform customs and Practice for documentary credits

Compania Naviera Vascongada v. Churchill (1906), the timber became badly

stained with petroleum while awaiting shipment; the master nevertheless issued a bill
acknowledging that the timber had been shipped in good order and condition. It was
held that the ship owners were estopped from denying the truth of the statement
against the assignee of the bill. In order to make the statement in the bill of lading
binding as an estoppel it is necessary that the person so acting upon it would have
done so upon a prejudice, wherein in this case the defendants were prejudiced since
they accepted the bills of lading as a good tender on the belief that the timber was in
good condition.

Motis Exports Ltd v. Dampskibsselskabet case is about a situation where goods

were handed over (delivered) by the shipping company (the carrier) to someone who
used a forged (fake) bill of lading. The shipping company tried to defend itself by
saying that its contract (the Maersk Line Bill of Lading) had a clause saying it wasn’t
responsible for any damage or loss once the goods were outside the ship, like on the
dock or ramp.
However, the court said that this didn’t matter. The law requires that goods must only
be handed over against the original (real) bill of lading, not a fake one. So, if the
carrier gives the goods to someone with a forged bill, they are responsible — they
can’t avoid blame by pointing to that clause in their contract.

INCOTERMS
For all modes:
1. EXW (Ex Works) Term of Delivery requires that the seller has fulfilled their
obligation once they have made the goods available to the buyer at their premises or
another designated place
2. FCA (Free Carrier) involves the obligation of the seller to deliver the goods at the
place
3. CPT (Carriage Paid To), the seller is obligated to deliver the goods to the carrier
nominated by themselves. This means that the buyer is responsible for the risk and all
other costs after the goods have been delivered to the carriernominated by the buyer.
4. CIP (Carriage And Insurance Paid To) means that the seller fulfills their obligation
of delivery to their own carrier, but they also have to pay the additional cost of
transport in order to dispatch the goods at the designated destination. This Incoterm
demands that the seller provide insurance at the minimum cover rate.
5. DAT (Delivered At Terminal)- seller cover all costs of delivery until delivery to
elected terminal including unloading. No import fees
6. DAP (Delivered at place- same as DAT but unloading cost not to be paid. No
import fees
7. DDP (Delivered Duty paid)- requires seller to pay import fees and everything in
transport cost except unloading
For sea and inland waterways:
8. FAS (free alongside ship)- seller obligated to deliver goods besides the buyers
vessel and no liability after
9. FOB (free on board)- obligation to deliver goods to the vessel to shift duty to buyer
10. CIF (cost insurance and freight)- all duty to buyer once ship passes the loading
port’s railing. Insurance to be paid by seller.

1. Aotearoa International Ltd. v. Westpac Banking Corp [1984] 2 NZLR 3

Aotearoa International sold wastepaper to Haryana Paper Mills, with payment via an
irrevocable letter of credit issued by United Commercial Bank (India) and advised by
ANZ Bank. ANZ’s advice letter omitted certain terms, and a negotiating bank
completed and submitted a bill of exchange containing errors. The issuing bank
refused reimbursement due to unpaid freight and late certification. The court held that
the negotiating bank had no recourse against Aotearoa because the bill of exchange
was neither signed nor authorized by Aotearoa, and the bank had no indemnity rights
absent a valid draft or undertaking.

2. Bank of Taiwan v. Union Syndicate Corp [1981] HKC 205

In a contract for sale of scrap metal between a Hong Kong seller and Taiwanese
buyer, part of the credit was transferred to Capricorn Seafords, which committed
fraud by lacking the cargo. Despite submission of documents, the court dismissed the
buyer's claim, holding that the buyer and its agent had no contractual basis or proven
damages to claim against the banks. The Ka Wah Bank accepted a non-compliant bill,
but the Bank of Taiwan was deemed to have acquiesced, making both bound by the
credit terms.

3. Bankers Trust Co. v. State Bank of India [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 443
This case involved an irrevocable credit governed by UCP 400 for steel plate sale
from India to England. Bankers Trust, the issuing bank, received non-conforming
documents but sent them to the buyer instead of directly notifying the negotiating
bank. The court held that under UCP 400, Bankers Trust failed to notify discrepancies
in time and could not shift the burden by seeking buyer comment, thus forfeiting its
right to claim reimbursement from State Bank of India.

4. Banque de L’Indochine et de Suez SA v. J.H. Rayne (Mincing Lane) Ltd. [1983] QB

711
Rayne submitted documents under an irrevocable letter of credit; the advising bank
(Banque de L’Indochine) found discrepancies. Although Rayne disputed this, the
bank paid under reserve. When the issuing bank ultimately rejected the documents,
the advising bank sought reimbursement. The court held the bank’s right to recover
was preserved as payment was made under reserve, explicitly conditional on
acceptance of documents by the issuing bank or buyer.

5. Michael Doyle & Associates Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal (1984) 11 DLR (4th) 496
Michael Doyle sold frozen herring to a Dutch buyer under a letter of credit. After
accepting the draft and documents for the third delivery, the buyer objected to the
quality. The Dutch issuing bank then rejected a late-submitted health certificate and
refused payment. The Bank of Montreal, despite prior acceptance, denied payment.
The court ruled that by accepting the draft, the bank undertook a binding obligation to
pay, and was thus liable.

6. Midland Bank v. Seymour [1955] 2 Lloyd's Rep 147

A letter of credit was issued by Midland Bank for feather shipments from Hong Kong.
The seller fraudulently shipped rubbish. The buyer refused reimbursement, alleging
non-conformity. However, the bank had acted based on ambiguous instructions. The
court upheld the bank’s interpretation, ruling that the documents collectively
conveyed sufficient information, and that the ambiguous terms justified construing the
documents as conforming, thereby binding the buyer.

UNIT-3

Methods of payment:

1. Cash in advance
2. Documentary credit
3. Documentary collection
4. Open ccount trading
5. Clean payments
6. pAyment collection of bills

UCP-600

 One of the central features of UCP 600 is its principle of strict compliance
(Article 14), which mandates that banks examine documents in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the credit with meticulous precision.
 Article 4- separate contract of credit and no reference in the orginal contract
matters
 Banks only deal with documents. Strict rules for payment regarding orgination of
credit inclding expiry date when to be available etc.
 Advising of credits and amendments (article 9) - advising bank is haooy and
satisified with the terms of LOC.
 Amendments (Aeticle 10).
 May refuse to honour if presentation does not comply (Article 16). issuing bank
may appraoch applicant to waive discrepancis. Nominated bank shoudld give
notice to beneficiary. Notice must state bank is refusing to honour and each
discrpeancy and future steps.
 Article 20 bill of lading
 Insurance document and coverage (Article 28). Date of insurance document must
not be later than date of shipment. Must indicate amount and coverage and must
be atleast 110% of CIF or CIP.
 5% deviance on quantity and 10% on credit quanitity and amount Article 30
 Bank undertakes no liability or consequences of goods or performance or
reliaibility of documents. Article 34
 No resposnibility in case of force majeure event (Article 36)
 Transferable credits (Article 38)

Types:
1. Irrecovable and revocable
2. Confirmed
3. Sight credit and usance credit
4. Back to back letter of credit
5. Transferrable

1. Aotearoa International Ltd. v. Westpac Banking Corp [1984] 2 NZLR 3

Aotearoa International sold wastepaper to Haryana Paper Mills, with payment via an
irrevocable letter of credit issued by United Commercial Bank (India) and advised by
ANZ Bank. ANZ’s advice letter omitted certain terms, and a negotiating bank
completed and submitted a bill of exchange containing errors. The issuing bank
refused reimbursement due to unpaid freight and late certification. The court held that
the negotiating bank had no recourse against Aotearoa because the bill of exchange
was neither signed nor authorized by Aotearoa, and the bank had no indemnity rights
absent a valid draft or undertaking.

2. Bank of Taiwan v. Union Syndicate Corp [1981] HKC 205

In a contract for sale of scrap metal between a Hong Kong seller and Taiwanese
buyer, part of the credit was transferred to Capricorn Seafords, which committed
fraud by lacking the cargo. Despite submission of documents, the court dismissed the
buyer's claim, holding that the buyer and its agent had no contractual basis or proven
damages to claim against the banks. The Ka Wah Bank accepted a non-compliant bill,
but the Bank of Taiwan was deemed to have acquiesced, making both bound by the
credit terms.

3. Bankers Trust Co. v. State Bank of India [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 443
This case involved an irrevocable credit governed by UCP 400 for steel plate sale
from India to England. Bankers Trust, the issuing bank, received non-conforming
documents but sent them to the buyer instead of directly notifying the negotiating
bank. The court held that under UCP 400, Bankers Trust failed to notify discrepancies
in time and could not shift the burden by seeking buyer comment, thus forfeiting its
right to claim reimbursement from State Bank of India.

4. Banque de L’Indochine et de Suez SA v. J.H. Rayne (Mincing Lane) Ltd. [1983] QB

711
Rayne submitted documents under an irrevocable letter of credit; the advising bank
(Banque de L’Indochine) found discrepancies. Although Rayne disputed this, the
bank paid under reserve. When the issuing bank ultimately rejected the documents,
the advising bank sought reimbursement. The court held the bank’s right to recover
was preserved as payment was made under reserve, explicitly conditional on
acceptance of documents by the issuing bank or buyer.
5. Michael Doyle & Associates Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal (1984) 11 DLR (4th) 496
Michael Doyle sold frozen herring to a Dutch buyer under a letter of credit. After
accepting the draft and documents for the third delivery, the buyer objected to the
quality. The Dutch issuing bank then rejected a late-submitted health certificate and
refused payment. The Bank of Montreal, despite prior acceptance, denied payment.
The court ruled that by accepting the draft, the bank undertook a binding obligation to
pay, and was thus liable.

6. Midland Bank v. Seymour [1955] 2 Lloyd's Rep 147

A letter of credit was issued by Midland Bank for feather shipments from Hong Kong.
The seller fraudulently shipped rubbish. The buyer refused reimbursement, alleging
non-conformity. However, the bank had acted based on ambiguous instructions. The
court upheld the bank’s interpretation, ruling that the documents collectively
conveyed sufficient information, and that the ambiguous terms justified construing the
documents as conforming, thereby binding the buyer.

UNIT-4
Roger Shaslzoua v Mukesh Sharma- Juridical seat of arbitration = seat of
arbitration ( Section 3 ICA). the word “Venue” was enough to indicate a desingation
of juridical seat to be London.

Home and Overseas Insurance v Mentor Insurance- arbitration clause which just
provides that arbitrator can decide using an equitable interpretation than a legal one
will be null and void since if the award goes for judicial review for enforcement, the
validity of the award cannot be judged.

Miller v Whitworth Street Estates- the body of law (seat of arbitration or the law
underlying the agreement) which is the closest to the arbitration will be applicable.

Harbour Assurance v Kansa General International Insurance- severability of

arbitration clause from underlying contract

NTPC v. Singer Co.

The High Court had refused to entertain the appellant’s application under the
Arbitration Act, 1940, treating an award made in London as a “foreign award” under
the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, and beyond Indian
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that, since the contract expressly provided that
the laws in force in India would apply and that the courts of Delhi would have
exclusive jurisdiction, the arbitration agreement was governed by Indian law and
subject to the jurisdiction of Indian courts. It affirmed that procedural rules chosen by
contract (i.e., ICC Rules) cannot override the mandatory requirements of Indian law
or the public policy of India. Consequently, the Award made in London is not a
“foreign award” under the 1961 Act, and the Indian courts retain jurisdiction over all
matters relating to that arbitration.
Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd.
Under a contract stipulating that all disputes “shall be subject to the laws of India” but
that arbitration proceedings “shall be held at London, U.K.” under ICC Rules, the
Court was asked to define the scope of the curial (procedural) law. It concluded that
curial law governs only the conduct and procedure of the arbitration while
proceedings are ongoing before the tribunal. The authority of the courts administering
the curial law extends to ensuring procedural conformity but ceases upon conclusion
of the arbitral proceedings. Matters such as filing the award, its enforcement, or
challenges fall under the law governing the arbitration agreement—which, here, is
Indian law.

Indtel Technical Services (P) Ltd. v. W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd.

A memorandum of understanding provided that its “construction, validity and
performance” would be governed by English law and that disputes “shall be referred
to adjudication.” The questions were whether these clauses constituted an arbitration
agreement and whether a Section 11 appointment lay with the Indian Court despite
the governing law being English. The Court reaffirmed that when an arbitration
agreement is silent on procedural law, the law of the underlying contract (English law
here) ordinarily governs the arbitration agreement. However, it rejected any implied
exclusion of Part I of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even in
international commercial agreements. Therefore, the Indian courts retained
jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators under Section 11.

Infowares Ltd. v. Equinox Corp.

The contract in Clause 10.1 stipulated that California law would govern and that
disputes “shall be referred for arbitration to a mutually agreed Arbitrator.” The
Supreme Court examined whether this choice of Californian law excluded Part I of
the 1996 Act and ousted Indian jurisdiction. It held that, while the contract law was
Californian, there was no specific agreement on the procedural law of arbitration;
absent such an agreement, one cannot infer an implied exclusion of Part I.
Consequently, Indian courts retain the power to govern arbitration procedure under
the Act, notwithstanding the choice of foreign substantive law.

Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India

In a Production Sharing Contract, Article 34 stipulated that, “notwithstanding” prior
provisions, the arbitration agreement would be governed by English law and
conducted in English at Kuala Lumpur. The issue was whether the Delhi High Court
could grant interim relief under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. The Court found that the
express choice of English law for the arbitration agreement amounted to an exclusion
of Part I, including Section 9. Thus, the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain a Section 9 application for interim measures in aid of the Kuala Lumpur-
seated arbitration.

Internal Shipping Ltd. GmbH v. Fercometul Sarl (The Elikon)

Under an English charterparty, IS signed as “owner,” though S was the named owner;
a dispute arose over party identity in arbitration. The English Court of Appeal held
that IS’s unqualified signature adopted the identity of owner, making IS a party to the
arbitration agreement. Proceedings in the name of S were not a mere misnomer but a
nullity, since S was never a party to the charterparty. The decision also noted that,
under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act, 1999, a third party mentioned in an
arbitration clause may enforce it only if seeking enforcement of a substantive right
under the underlying contract.

The Palmas (Island of Miangas) Arbitration (1925–1932)

Spain had ceded Palmas to the United States by the 1898 treaty, but the Netherlands
claimed it based on long-standing sovereignty. The US and the Netherlands referred
the dispute to sole arbitrator Max Huber, who emphasized effective, continuous
display of state authority over discovery as the principal basis for territorial title. He
treated discovery and cession by third powers as of limited effect when not followed
by effective occupation, and cautioned on the evidentiary weight of maps. Huber
concluded that, by 1906, Dutch authority was so firmly established that maintaining
the status quo outweighed any inchoate Spanish title. Accordingly, he awarded
sovereignty over the Island of Palmas to the Netherlands.

Dubai Islamic bank v payment merchant services- seat of arbitration not england
but california as laid down in section3 of the agreement