Twenty Third Annual Willem C. Vis International Commercial … · 2015-10-01 · Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot And Thirteenth Annual Willem C. Vis (East)

THE PROBLEM

Vienna, Austria October 2015 - March 2016

Oral Hearings

March 19 – 24, 2016

Organised by: Association for the organisation and promotion of the

Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot

And

Thirteenth Annual Willem C. Vis (East)

International Commercial Arbitration Moot Hong Kong

Oral Arguments March 6 – 13, 2016

Organized by:

Vis East Moot Foundation Limited

TwentyThirdAnnualWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

©AssociationfortheOrganisationandPromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot 1Prof.Dr.StefanKröll

Contents

Document PageFasttracktoVIAC(11July2015) 2StatementofClaim(11July2015) 3Claimant’sExhibitC1(Contractof22April2009) 9Claimant’sExhibitC2(Claimant’sOrder4November2014) 10Claimant’sExhibitC3(Respondent’sNotice1December2014) 11Claimant’sExhibitC4(ExcerptedarticlesaboutSuperWinesofNov/Dec.2014)

12

Claimant’sExhibitC5(WitnessStatementMsBuharit) 13Claimant’sExhibitC6(Claimant’sletterof2December2014) 14Claimant’sExhibitC7(Respondent’sTerminationLetterof4December2014)

15

Claimant’sExhibitC8(HighCourt–InterimRelief–12December2014) 16Claimant’sExhibitC9(HighCourt–DeclaratoryRelief–23April2015) 17Claimant’sExhibitC10(ContingentFeeAgreement–5December2014) 18Claimant’sExhibitC11(InvoiceLawFix–25May2015) 19Claimant’sExhibitC12(WitnessStatementMsLee) 20VIAC’slettertotheClaimant(Receiptofstatementofclaim‐15July2015)

21

VIAC’slettertotheRespondent(Serviceofthestatementofclaim‐15July2015)

22

AnswertoStatementofClaim(16August2015) 23Respondent’sExhibitNo.1(WitnessStatementMrWeinbauer) 31Respondent’sExhibitNo.2(LetterbyLangweiler‐14January2015) 33VIAC’slettertoClaimant(ForwardingofAnswertoStatementofClaim,commentonfast‐track–19August2015)

34

Claimant’sletterrejectingexpeditedproceedings(LetterbyFasttrack–21August2015)

35

VIAC’slettertotheParties(Advanceoncosts–22August2015) 36VIAC’slettertotheParties(Statementofacceptanceofco‐arbitrators‐28August2015)

38

VIAC’slettertotheParties(Paymentofadvanceoncosts,commencementofproceedings,statementofacceptanceofchairman‐15September2015)

43

VIAC’slettertotheArbitralTribunal(Transmissionofthefile‐15September2015)

47

LetterChairman–Parties(2October2015) 49ProceduralOrderNo1(2October2015) 50


HoraceFasttrackAdvocateattheCourt 14CapitalBoulevardOceansideEquatorianaTel.(0)2147732Telefax(0)[email protected]

11July2015BycourierTheSecretariatoftheViennaInternationalArbitralCentreoftheAustrianFederalEconomicChamberWiednerHauptstraße631045ViennaAustriaDearMadam/Sir,Onbehalfofmyclient,KaihariWainaLtd,IherebysubmittheenclosedStatementofClaimpursuanttotheViennaRules2013,Articles7and10.AcopyofthePowerofAttorneyauthorisingmetorepresentKaihariWainaLtdinthisarbitrationisalsoenclosed.TheCLAIMANTrequeststhepaymentofdamagesforabreachofcontract.TheregistrationfeeofEUR1.500hasbeenpaid.Therelevantbankconfirmationisattached.ThecontractgivingrisetothisarbitrationprovidesthattheseatofarbitrationshallbeVindobona,Danubia,andthatthearbitrationshallbeconductedinEnglish.Thearbitrationagreementprovidesforthreearbitrators.KaihariWainaLtdherebynominatesMsMariaGomesasitsarbitratorandrequeststhattheVIACappointsthechairmanofthearbitraltribunalifthepartynominatedarbitratorscannotagreeonachairmanordirectly,ifRESPONDENTisinagreementwithsuchafacilitatedprocedure.Therequireddocumentsareattached.Sincerelyyours,

HoraceFasttrackAttachments:StatementofClaimwithExhibitsPowerofAttorneyCVofMsMariaGomesProofofPaymentofRegistrationFee


11July2015

HoraceFasttrackAdvocateattheCourt14CapitalBoulevardOceansideEquatorianaTel(0)2147732Telefax(0)[email protected] BycourierTheSecretariatoftheViennaInternationalArbitralCentreoftheAustrianFederalEconomicChamberWiednerHauptstraße631045ViennaAustria

KaihariWainav.VinoVeritas

StatementofClaimPursuanttoArticle7ViennaRules

KaihariWainaLtd12RieslingStreetOceansideEquatoriana

‐CLAIMANT‐RepresentedinthisarbitrationbyHoraceFasttrackVinoVeritasLtd56MerlotRdStFundusVuachouaMediterraneo

- RESPONDENT‐StatementofFacts1. KaihariWainaLtd(“Kaihari”),theCLAIMANT,isawinemerchantspecialisedintopquality

wines for the collectors’ and high end gastronomy markets. Over recent years it hasconsistentlyincreaseditsmarketshareinahighlycompetitivemarket.KaiharihasdevelopedaparticularexpertiseinMediterraneanMataWeltinwinesfromtheVuachouaregionandhasgainedareputationwithitscustomersofbeingaparticularlyreliablesource.BecauseofitshighendcustomerbaseKaiharionlysellsMataWeltinwinesofdiamondquality.DiamondqualityMataWeltinhasaminimumalcohol contentof12.5vol%andhasbeen judgedasbeingonaparwiththebestwhitewinesintheworld.Thewinegetsitslabel“diamond”fromthediamondlizardwhichsun‐bathesonthestonewallsintheVuachouaregion.

2. The RESPONDENT, Vino Veritas Ltd (“Vino Veritas”), is one of the top vineyards in

Mediterraneo.ItistheonlyvineyardintheVuachouaregionthathaswontheMediterraneangoldmedalforitsdiamondMataWeltinineachofthelastfiveyears.


3. Kaihari has soldVinoVeritas diamondMataWeltinwines for the last 6 yearswith great

success.ThebaseoftheParties’economicrelationshipisaframeworkcontractconcludedbetweenthemon22April2009[ExhibitC1].Theframeworkcontractprovidesinessencethat, every year, CLAIMANT would buy a certain minimum number of bottles fromRESPONDENTwhich in return committed to deliver bottles up to amaximumamount of10.000 bottles. The exact amount will be determined every year by orders placed byCLAIMANTat theendof theyearandnormallybeforenegotiationswithothercustomersstart.

4. ForCLAIMANTthecertaintyofsupplyiscrucialandpartofitsbusinessmodelandsuccess.

TheselectedgroupofcollectorsandhighendrestaurantsaroundtheworldwhichformthemajorityofCLAIMANT’scustomerswantaquasi‐guaranteethattheywillbesuppliedwiththe high endMataWeltinwines they order annually. Over the years, Kaihari has alwaysorderedbetween7.500and8.500bottleswithageneraltendencytoincrease.

5. Following a series of prizes granted to RESPONDENT’s Mata Weltin wines from earlier

vintagesinthefirstmonthsof2014,bymid‐September2014therehadbeenaconsiderableincrease in pre‐orders from Claimant’s customers. Consequently, on 4 November 2014,KaihariorderedfromRESPONDENTthemaximumamountofguaranteedbottlesunderthecontract.Furthermore,itmadeclearthatinadditiontothose10.000bottlesofdiamondMataWeltinfromthe2014vintageitwouldbewillingtobuymoreandexpandtheco‐operationwithRESPONDENTfurther[ExhibitC2].

6. On1December2014,CLAIMANTreceivedaletterfromRESPONDENTstatingthatitwould

only deliver 4.500 – 5.000 bottles of the ordered wine [Exhibit C 3]. The RESPONDENTclaimedthatbecauseofthe2014harvesthavingyieldedamuchsmallerthanusualquantityofdiamondMataWeltinwines, itwasnotabletofulfiltheCLAIMANT’Sentireorder.VinoVeritasstatedthatithadoptedtofulfilitscontractualobligationwithitscustomersonaproratabasisinordertomaintainbusinessrelationshipswithallofthem.

7. TheCLAIMANT,whilenotdenyingthatthe2014harvesthadyieldedlessthanthenormal

quantity has, however, received information that the real reason for the RESPONDENT’sbreachofcontractwasnottheshortfallinyield;informationfromindustrysourcessuggeststhat the real reason for not delivering the entire 10.000 bottles has been that theRESPONDENThascontractedwithSuperWines,therebyexceedingitsavailablecapacity.TheRESPONDENT,rather thanhonouring its longstandingcontractandbusinessrelationshipwith CLAIMANT, tried to woo SuperWines, an international wine wholesaler which hasrecentlystartedtoexpandintothehighendmarketbydeliveringthesought‐afterquantityofitshighendwineondemandwithoutdelay.However,notonlydidRESPONDENTwanttoestablishanewbusiness relationship,RESPONDENTalsoused theopportunity tomakealarger profit. Reports published in industry journals around that time suggest thatSuperWinespaidapremiumforthewine[ExhibitC4].

8. TheRESPONDENT’sletterreceivedon1December2014cameasanunpleasantsurpriseto

CLAIMANT. In a meeting on 25 November 2014, Ms Buharit, Claimant’s developmentmanager,hadmadecleartoMrWeinbauer,Respondent’sCEOatthetime,thatCLAIMANTneededasaminimumthefullquantityofbottlesorderedbutpreferablymore[ExhibitC5].MrWeinbauerhadleftnodoubtsthatnoquantitylargerthanthe10.000bottlesClaimanthadaskedforcouldbedelivered.However,hehadcreatedtheimpressionthatRESPONDENTwould honour its contractual delivery commitments, even if thatmeant delivering fewerbottlestoothercustomers.TheseothercustomersnormallyonlyplacetheirbindingordersinDecemberorJanuary.Consequently,atthetimeofRESPONDENT’slettertherewerenoexisting contractual obligations to such customers, even if theywere long standing ones.CLAIMANThadpointed thatout in its email of 2December2014andhaddemanded the


deliveryof10.000bottlesofdiamondMataWeltin2014.Ithadstatedclearlythatitwasnotinterestedinanyfuturecompensationforthenon‐deliveryof5500bottlesbutwouldinsteadinsistonperformance[ExhibitC6].

9. Mr Weinbauer completely overreacted to this reasonable request for contractual

performance.HeaccusedCLAIMANTofoutrageousbehaviourandpurportedtoterminatethecontract,threateningthatnodeliverywouldbemadeatall[ExhibitC7].

10. AtthattimeCLAIMANThadalreadyreceivedaconsiderablenumberofordersfordiamond

MataWeltin2014,someofwhichithadalreadyaccepted.Consequently,CLAIMANThadtoprotectitsinterestanditsbusinessreputation.Thus,on8December2014,CLAIMANTsoughtan interim injunction in the High Court of Capital City, Mediterraneo, prohibitingRESPONDENTfromsellingtoothercustomersthe10.000bottlesofdiamondMataWeltin2014 ordered by CLAIMANT. The interim injunctionwas granted on 12 December 2014[ExhibitC8]andRESPONDENTrefrainedfromchallengingtheorder.

11. GivenMrWeinbauer’stemperandthereducedquantityharvesteditcouldnotbeguaranteed

thatRESPONDENTwouldactuallydeliver the10.000bottles that ithadbeen injunctedtokeep. Consequently, CLAIMANT in parallel immediately started to contact other topvineyardsandmanagedtomakesubstitutearrangementsforthe5.500bottlesRESPONDENThadalreadyrefusedtodeliverinitsfirstletterof1December2014.

12. ThatCLAIMANT’sactionwasjustifiedisevidencedbythefactthatRESPONDENT,inbreach

of the arbitration agreement, subsequently started court proceedings in the Courts ofMediterraneoseekingadeclarationofnon‐liability.The requestwasdenied,primarilyonproceduralgrounds.CLAIMANThadinvokedthearbitrationagreementinthecontractandthecourtdeniedjurisdiction[ExhibitC9].Intheoralhearingthejudgemadeclear,however,thatheconsideredRESPONDENTtobeinbreachofitsobligationsunderthecontractandwouldmostlikelyhaverejectedtheactiononthemeritsaswell.

13. Inbothproceedings,CLAIMANTincurredconsiderablecosts.CLAIMANTisamediumsized

Equatorianan business that does not have sufficient liquid capital at its disposal to payMediterranean legal feeswhich are ‐ compared to the fees in Equatoriana ‐ very high. Inaddition the unfavourable exchange rate had exacerbated CLAIMANT’s problem. Also nothird party funding could be obtained. Therefore, CLAIMANT had engaged the localMediterranean law firm, LawFix, on a contingency fee basis [Exhibit C 10]. Even thoughCLAIMANTwassuccessfulintheMediterraneancourts,underMediterraneanprocedurallaweachpartyhastobearitsowncosts.

14. AsaresultoftherejectionofRESPONDENT’sapplicationforadeclarationofnon‐liability,its

newmanagementfinallyofferedtodeliverupto4.500bottles,as“asignoftheirgoodwillandtoterminatealllegalproceedings.”Itwas,however,notwillingtoreimburseCLAIMANTforthecostsandthedamagesincurredduetotheunreasonablebehaviourbyMrWeinbauer.

15. Thatmakestheinitiationofarbitrationproceedingsnecessary.Inthelightofthesuccessful

businessrelationshipinthepastandaneventualfuturecooperation,CLAIMANTwill limitthis action to claiming the legal fees it had incurred and the damages it had sufferedconsequentonRESPONDENT’sbreachesofthecontract.Undertheconditionthatthereisafirm commitment to deliver 4.500 bottles by 1 November 2015, CLAIMANT is willing torefrain from enforcing its right to specific performance in regard to the remaining 5.500bottlesofdiamondMataWeltin2014.Instead,itwillmerelyaskforthedamagesitincurredthroughthenon‐delivery.TheseareatleastashighastheprofitRESPONDENTobtainedbyselling5.500bottlestoSuperWines.


NominationofArbitrator16. InaccordancewiththearbitrationclauseinthecontractandArticle7(5)oftheViennaRules

wenominateMsMariaGomes,14HeurigenLane,Oceanside,Equatoriana,forconfirmationbytheSecretaryGeneral.

LegalEvaluationJurisdiction17. The arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction over the RESPONDENT by virtue of the arbitration

agreementcontainedinArticle20ofthecontractbetweenCLAIMANTandRESPONDENTof22April2009[ExhibitC1].Theclauseprovidesasfollows:

Art20:DisputeResolution/ApplicableLawAll disputes shall be settled amicably and in good faith between the parties. If noagreementcanbereachedthedisputeshallbedecidedbyarbitrationinVindobonabytheInternational Arbitration Tribunal (VIAC) under its International Arbitration Rules inaccordancewith internationalpractice.Thenumberof arbitrators shall be three tobeappointedinaccordancewiththeRules.Theproceedingsshallbeconductedinafastandcostefficientwayandthepartiesagreethatnodiscoveryshallbeallowed.Theawardshallbebindingandeachpartyshallcomplywiththeaward.ThiscontractisgovernedbythelawofDanubiaincludingtheCISG.

18. Weareaware that thePartiesdidnotuse theVIACModelArbitrationClauseavailableat

http://www.viac.eu/en/arbitration/model‐clause. Notwithstanding the lack of precisionconcerning thenameof the institution theacronym“VIAC” shows that theParties clearlywanted to arbitrate under the Vienna Rules and that the place of arbitration shall beVindobona.

Merits19. RESPONDENT through its refusal to deliver the 10.000 bottles in accordance with the

contract and by initiating court proceedings in Mediterraneo breached the FrameworkAgreement of 22 April 2009 and the arbitration clause contained in it. These breachesrequiredCLAIMANTtoseekinterimreliefinthestatecourtsofMediterraneoandledtolegalcostswhichCLAIMANTisentitledtorecoverasdamagespursuanttoArticles45,74CISG.

20. Pursuant to Article 4 of the Framework Agreement of 22 April 2009 [Exhibit C 1] and

CLAIMANT’s order of 4 November 2014 [Exhibit C 2], RESPONDENT was contractuallyobligedtodeliver10.000bottlesofdiamondMataWeltin2014toCLAIMANT.

21. In its letters of 1 and 4 December 2014, the RESPONDENT announced that itwould not

complywithitscontractualobligation,firstonlyinrelationto5.500bottlesandthen,afterapurportedterminationofthecontract,initsentirety.CLAIMANTdoesnotcontestthatthe2014harvestofdiamondMataWeltinwasofseverelydiminishedquantityduetoweatherconditions.However,CLAIMANThasgoodreasontobelievethattherealcauseforthepartavoidanceofthecontractwasnotthediminishedquantityofdiamondMataWeltinduetothedisastrousharvestbutratherthatRESPONDENTwantedtowinoverSuperWinesasanewcustomer [Exhibits C 4]. In light of wine industry practice not to enter into long termcommitmentsbuttonegotiatethequantitiesyearbyyear,CLAIMANThasseriousdoubtsastotheexistenceofanyfirmcommitmentsfordeliveryatthetimeofCLAIMANT’sorderwhichwouldhavejustifiedaprorataallocationoftheexistingquantities.Therefore,RESPONDENT


cannotpartlyavoidthecontractinaccordancewithArticle79CISGbuthastoperformitinaccordancewithArticle28CISG.

22. ToensuredeliveryandtopreventRESPONDENTsellinganddeliveringtheexisting lower

quantityofbottlestoothercustomers,CLAIMANThadtoseekinterimreliefinthecourtsofMediterraneo which was granted. The costs incurred in this action are direct damagesresultingfromtheRESPONDENT’sbreachofcontract.Theywereforeseeableasitwasclearthat CLAIMANT had to protect its interest with its customers and could not afford theordinaryratesofMediterraneanlawyers.LegalcostscanbeclaimedpursuanttoArticle74CISG.

23. The same applies to the costs incurred in the successful defence against the action for a

declaration of non‐liability brought byRESPONDENT in the courts ofMediterraneo. ThatactionconstitutedaclearbreachofArticle20oftheFrameworkAgreementwhichcoveredallmattersinrelationtothecontractof22April2009andtheorderof4November2014.

24. UnderArticle74CISGtheCLAIMANTisentitledtothereimbursementofUS$50.280,00in

legalcosts[ExhibitC11].25. In principle, CLAIMANT would also be entitled, pursuant to Article 28 CISG, to specific

performanceforthefullamountofthe10.000bottlesordered.AsindicatedaboveCLAIMANTwantsaquickandamicablesolutionofthedispute.Therefore,CLAIMANTis,atpresent,notenforcingitsrighttospecificperformanceinrelationtoallbottlesbutiswillingtoaccepttheoffermadebyRESPONDENTforthedeliveryof4.500bottlesofdiamondMataWeltin2014ifdeliveredby1November2015.

26. However,CLAIMANTwillsufferlostprofitsinregardtothe5.500bottlesitwillnotbeable

tosellanddemandsdamagesinaccordancewithArticle74CISG.Tofacilitatethecalculationof damages and as a sign of goodwill Claimant merely claims the profits made byRESPONDENTfromsellingthe5.500bottlestoSuperWines.CLAIMANThasreasontobelievethatSuperWineshaspaidasubstantialpremiumforthediamondMataWeltin2014[ExhibitC4].CLAIMANT’sprofitsfromsalestoitscustomerswouldmostlikelyhavebeenhigherthanthepremiumpaidbySuperWinesasatradertoRESPONDENT.Evenifthatshouldnotbethecase RESPONDENT should not be allowed to profit from breaching the contract withCLAIMANTandselling thebottlesrightfullybelonging toCLAIMANTtoa thirdparty. It isrequired by the principle of good faith underlying the CISG that a party breaching itscontractualobligationsshouldnotprofitfromitswrongdoings.DuetothelackofavailableinformationCLAIMANTcandonomorethanestimatethesedamagesatpresentwhichshouldnotbebelowEUR110.000.

27. To allow CLAIMANT to specify the amount claimed CLAIMANT makes the following

ProceduralRequest

To order RESPONDENT to provide to CLAIMANT all documents from the period of 1January2014–14July2015pertainingtocommunicationsbetweenRESPONDENTandSuperWinesinregardtothepurchaseofdiamondMataWeltin2014andanycontractualdocuments,includingdocumentsrelatingtothenegotiationofthesaidcontractbetweenSuperWines and theRESPONDENT in regard to thepurchaseof diamondMataWeltin2014. That includes in particular all documents relating to the number of bottlespurchasedandthepurchaseprice.

28. ThesedocumentsarenotinthepossessionofCLAIMANTandarerelevantandmaterialtothe

outcomeofthearbitration.WithoutthesedocumentsCLAIMANTisnotabletocalculatethedamagesitisclaiming.


29. The exclusion of “discovery” in the arbitration clausewasmeant only to cover extensivediscoveryproceedingswhicharepracticeinsomejurisdictionssuchastheUSAwithwidereaching requests for all types of documents, depositions and interrogatories. Itwas notintendedtoexcludethestandardtypeofdocumentproductionrequestsasarecommonininternationalarbitrationandareinlinewiththeIBARulesontheTakingofEvidence[ExhibitC12].Furthermore,pursuanttoArticle28ViennaRules,theTribunalhastoensurethattheParties’righttobeheardisnotinfringedwhichwouldbethecaseifnodocumentproductionweregranted.

30. Inadditiontothisproceduralrequest,CLAIMANTmakesthefollowingtworequestsonthe

merits,thefirstofwhichwillbespecifiedoncethedocumentshavebeendisclosed.StatementofReliefsought:

1. PaymentofdamagestobedeterminedbytheprofitstheRESPONDENTmadebyselling5.500bottlesofMataWeltin2014toSuperWine.

2. ReimbursementoflegalcostsofUS$50.280,00.3. RESPONDENTshallbearthecostofthisarbitralproceedings.

Horace Fasttrack Enclosures:ExhibitsC1–C11


EXHIBITC1

FRAMEWORKAGREEMENTArt1:ContractingPartiesSeller:VinoVeritasLtd,56MerlotRd,StFundusVuachoua,MediterraneoBuyer:KaihariWainaLtd,12RieslingStreet,Oceanside,EquatorianaArt2:ObligationsofthesellerTheselleragreestosellannuallytothebuyerupto10.000bottlesofitswineofdiamondqualitytothebuyeratapricetobeagreedbetweenthepartiesinaccordancewiththefollowingprovisions.Theselleragreestosupportthebuyerinitsmarketingactivitieswhereverpossiblewithoutdisruptiontoitsordinarycourseofbusiness.Art3:ObligationsofthebuyerThebuyeragreestobuyaminimumof7.500bottlesofwineofdiamondqualityfromthesellerasapricetobeagreedbythepartiesinaccordancewiththefollowingprovisions.Thebuyeragreestomarketandresellthewineasapremiumproductandtorefrainfromanyactionswhichmaydamagethereputationoftheselleroritswine.Art4:QuantitiesandPriceThebuyerwilleachyearnolaterthan20Decemberplaceitsordersforthatyear’svintage.Thepartieswillthenenterintonegotiationstodeterminethepricefortheorders.IfnopricecanbeagreedbetweenthepartiesareasonablemarketpricewillbedeterminedbyanexpertappointedbytheMediterraneanWineAssociation.Thepricefixedbytheexpertshallnotbemorethan15%higherthanthepriceforthepreviousyear.[...]Art19:DurationandterminationThiscontractshallrunforaminimumperiodof5years.Thereafter,unlesseitherapartyterminatesthecontractbefore1Januaryofanyyearthecontractisprolongedautomaticallyforoneyear.Art20:DisputeResolution/ApplicableLawAlldisputesshallbesettledamicablyandingoodfaithbetweentheparties.IfnoagreementcanbereachedthedisputeshallbedecidedbyarbitrationinVindobonabytheInternationalArbitrationTribunal(VIAC)underitsInternationalArbitrationRulesinaccordancewithinternationalpractice.ThenumberofarbitratorsshallbethreetobeappointedinaccordancewiththoseRules.Theproceedingsshallbeconductedinafastandcostefficientwayandthepartiesagreethatnodiscoveryshallbeallowed.Theawardshallbebindingandeachpartyshallcomplywiththeaward.ThiscontractisgovernedbythelawofDanubiaincludingtheCISG.Date:22April2009Forthebuyer: Fortheseller Mr.GustavFriedensreich Mr.WernerWeinbauer


Kaihari Waina Ltd EXHIBITC2 Oceanside,4November2014WernerWeinbauerVinoVeritasLtd56MerlotRdStFundusVuachouaMediterraneoOrder:10.000bottlesofDiamondMataWeltinDearMrWeinbauer,Firstofallletmecongratulateyouonthevariousprizesyourwineshavewonduringthisyear.TheyarewelldeservedandunderlineyourstatusasthetopvineyardinMediterraneo.Inlinewithouroverallagreementweherewithorderthemaximumguaranteednumberof10.000bottlesofdiamondMataWeltin2014.Inlightofthenumberofpre‐orderswehavealreadyreceived,wewouldbemorethanhappytobuyanother2.000bottles,sothatthe10.000bottlesguaranteedunderthecontractisreallytheminimumweneed.MsBuharit,ourdevelopmentmanager,wouldliketovisityouon25Novembertodiscussthisorderandournewmarketingstrategywhichoffersexitingopportunitiesforyou.Pleaseletmeknowwhetherthedatesuitsyouandwhattimewouldbemostconvenient.KindregardsBestwishes

GustavFriedensreich12 Riesling Street, Oceanside, Equatoriana, tel + 214 77 32 45 74, fax + 214 77 32 45 75

[email protected]


EXHIBITC3 StFundus,1December2014KaihariWainaLtd12RieslingStreetOceansideEquatoriana‐byemail‐DearMrFriedensreich,AsalreadydiscussedwithMsBuharitwewillonlybeabletodeliver4.500–5.000bottlesofMataWeltin2014atapriceofEUR41,50perbottletoyou.Thisyear’sharvestwasmadeparticularlydifficultbytheverywetsecondhalfofAugustwhichatthesametimewasmarkedbyhighnighttemperatures.Thatcombinationledtoagreatdealofrotinthegrapes.SincetheweatherconditionsdidnotimproveduringSeptembertheharvestwasoneofthemostinrecentmemory.Thatresultedinoneoftheworstharvestsinthelasttenyearsinrelationtoquantity,albeitoneofthebestqualityones.WeonlywillbeabletobottlehalfoftheusualquantityofdiamondMataWeltin.Givenourlonglastingrelationshipwithallourcustomerswehavedecidedthatitisinthebestinterestsofeveryonethatwedistributetheavailablequantitiesprorataanddeliverthereforeonlyuptohalfoftheorderedquantitiestoeachofthem.Fromthefirstimpression,weareconfidentthatthequalityofthe2014vintagewillcompensateyouandyourcustomersatleastforsomeoftheinconveniencecausedbythebadharvest.TheproposalsubmittedbyMsBuharitlooksinsomepartsveryinterestingbutbecauseofournewstrategywewillinthefuture,however,beunlikelytobeabletoguaranteedeliveryofmorethan8.000bottlesperyear.Weshoulddiscussthatduringthepricenegotiationsagreedfornextweek.WearelookingforwardtobeabletopresentyouahighqualityelegantandnuttydiamondMataWeltininMay2015.KindregardsWernerWeinbauer56 Merlot Rd, St Fundus, Vuachoua, Mediterraneo, tel + 587 4 587128, Fax + 587 4 587129, email [email protected]


EXHIBITC4

SuperWinestheNewKidontheBlockJean Barolo, former manager of LiquorLoja which went into liquidation five years ago, is now heading SuperWines. In an interview he talked about the mistakes that were made at LiquorLoja and what he personally had learned from that experience. … It is understood that SuperWines paid a premium to convince Vino Veritas to supply to SuperWines.

SuperWines- A Force to be Reckon With SuperWines is a new force in the alcohol retailing and one which has the

potential to shake up the wine industry in particular. Jean Barolo,

former manager of LiquorLoja, will bring considerable experience

especially to the wine side of the business. An acclaimed wine judge, he

will pay special attention to high end wines, probably from the region.

It will be interesting to see whether the strategy of paying a premium

for particular popular wines and spirits will pay off this time- it has

failed once before….

j|Çx axãá Formany,wineiseverythingbut“just”anotheralcoholicbeverage.Forsome,itisaninvestment,however,formany,aglassofthemostelegantandhighqualitywineattheendofalongdayistheepitomeofsophistication.JeanBarolo’saimistoletawidercommunityparticipateinthatsophistication.Barolowhoisanacclaimedwinejudgeandhasworkedinthewineindustryfor30years,hastakenthehelmofSuperWines.SuperWines,whichhastakentheplaceofLiquorLojaasamajorretailerofalcoholicbeveragesinEquatoriana,Danubia,andMediterraneo,hasthedistributionnetworktoallowthedistributionofhighendwinesatreasonableprices.WithamarketingmachinebehinditandBarolo’sexpertiseandstandingamongthewinegrowers,SuperWineswillbeveryattractivetoforallwineriesthatwanttoexpandtheirreach.Highlyrespectedforitsgoldmedalwinningreds,VintoVineyardinDanubiahasalreadyteamedupwithSuperWines.Rumourhasitthatotherhighendvineyardswillfollowsuit……RumourhasitthatSuperWinesattractivenessfortheproducersalsohassomethingtodowithitpayingpremiumprices…..


EXHIBITC5

WitnessStatementIsmeBuharit

MynameisIsmeBuharit.Iwasbornon21July1980inOceanside,Equatoriana.Iamcurrentlyresidingat23SilvanerRd,Oceanside,Equatoriana.IamthedevelopmentmanageratKaihariWainaLtd,12RieslingStreet,Oceanside,Equatoriana.On25November2014IvisitedVinoVeritastodiscussKaihari’snewmarketingstrategywithMrWeinbauer.ThiswasacourtesyvisittocementtherelationshipKaiharihadwithVinoVeritas.DiamondMataWeltinfromVinoVeritashasbeenoneofourmostpopularhighendwines.Inaddition,VinoVeritasisapopulartouristattractionbeinglocatedonly80kmfromEquatoriana’scapitalVillanovaandofferingwinetastingsina16thcenturymonastery.WewantedtodevelopapartnershipwithVinoVeritascombiningourretailexperienceandourmarketpresencewiththeirproduct.ThemeetingwithMrWeinbauerhadbeendifficult.Hehadbeenveryannoyedbyourorderof10.000bottles,afterhehadapparentlysentusafaxthedaybeforetellingusthatonlyasmalleramountcouldbedelivered.Duetoproblemwithourfaxmachinethatfaxhadnotbeenproperlyprintedoutandneverreachedtherelevantpersons.MrWeinbauerisknownintheindustrytobepersonallyverydifficultandveryimpulsive.Inthepasthehasterminatedrelationshipswithseveralcustomersforpersonaldifferences.Therefore,Iwasveryalarmedwhenhetoldmethatafterthereceiptofourorderhehadoriginallybeeninclinedtodelivernobottlestousandtoimmediatelyterminatethecontractwithus.Ihadtoldhimthatwehadneverreceivedthefaxandtriedtoexplaintohimwhyitwassocrucialforustoreceivethebottlesordered.Attheendofthediscussion,Ihadtheimpressionthatwehadmanagedtoconvincehimtodeliverthequantitiesrequested.Hehadpromisedtogiveouroffer“afavourableconsideration”.IrememberthatwordingverywellasinmysubsequentreporttoMrFriedensreichaboutthemeetingwediscussedwhetherthatmeantthatwecouldevengetmorethanthe10.000bottlesguaranteedundertheFrameworkAgreement.AfterthemeetinghadfinishedIhadanotherwalkaroundtheadjacentvineyardandthecellartotestoutafewideasforphotoshots.IleftVinoVeritasthereforelaterthananticipated.IwasjustabouttogetintomycarwhenaMercedeswithSuperWineslogosonbothdoorspulledupbesidemeinthecarpark.IthinkIrecognisedJeanBarolointhedriverseat.IhavenevermetJeanBarolopersonally,however,hisphotooftenappearsintherelevantindustryjournals.

IsmeBuharitOceanside,8July2015


Kaihari Waina Ltd EXHIBITC6

Oceanside,2December2014WernerWeinbauerVinoVeritasLtd56MerlotRdStFundusVuachouaMediterraneoOrder:10.000bottlesofDiamondMataWeltinDearMrWeinbauer,Wehavebeenverysurprisedbyyourletterofyesterdayandcannotaccepttheproposalyoumadeastoquantities.Atthemeetingon25NovemberMsBuharitmadeclearthatweneededall10.000bottlesofwine.ThatamountisguaranteedtousunderArticle2oftheFrameworkAgreementandhasalreadylargelybeenpromisedtoourcustomers.Weunderstandthattherehasbeenadropinquantitythisyear.However,wedoubtthatatpresentyoualreadyhavebindingorderswhichexceedthequantityharvestedandthatwouldlegallyobligeyoutodeliveronaproratabasis.Ourrelationshipwasdeliberatelystructuredinawaythatwewouldorderbeforeallothercustomers.Thatallowedyoutoguaranteeusdeliveryuptothemaximumamountagreedandthentonegotiatewiththeothercustomersconcerningtheremainingquantity.YouwillunderstandthatweareinparticularnotwillingtogiveupsomeofourbottlesforthedeliverytoourbiggestcompetitorSuperWines.Accordingtopressreleasestheyarebuyinglargequantitiesfromyouforthefirsttime.Sinceweknowyoutobeatrustworthybusinesspartnerweareconfidentthatyouwillhonouryourcontractualobligationstousandthatthiswillnotaffectourlonglastingandmutuallybeneficialrelationship.AsMsBuharitalreadytoldyouwearewillingtocooperateevenmorecloselywithyouanduseyourfacilitiesmorefrequentlyforwineeventswithourcollectorscreatingadditionalopportunitiesforyou.ThepriceofEUR41,50perbottleisaccepted.BestwishesGustavFriedensreich12 Riesling Street, Oceanside, Equatoriana, tel + 214 77 32 45 74, fax + 214 77 32 45 75

[email protected]


EXHIBITC7 StFundus,4December2014KaihariWainaLtd12RieslingStreetOceansideEquatoriana‐byemail‐HelloMrFriedensreich,Ifindyourbehaviourextraordinary!!!Uncooperativeandrude!!!InallmyyearsintheindustryIhaveneverexperiencedanythingcomparable.YouaretheonlycustomerIhaveeverhadwhichisunwillingtocooperateinfindingamutuallyacceptablesolutiontotheproblemscreatedbytheextremelylowquantitiesofgrapesharvestedthisyear.Instead,youaccusemeoflyingandmisrepresentingtherealreasonsforourrequestaswellastheoutcomeofmyconversationwithMs.Buharit.Youdonotseemtounderstandtheworldofhighendwinemaking.Ourwholebusinessisbasedonmutualtrustandlonglastingrelationships.Alreadyyourinsistenceonawrittenframeworkcontractandfixedquantitiesfiveyearsagoagainwasextremelyunusual.Atthetime,Iascribedthattoyourlackofexperienceinthefield.NowIrealizethatthisisjustyourwayofdoingbusiness.Sincethatis,however,notmywayofdoingbusiness,Iconsiderourrelationshipterminated.Toavoidanydoubts:therewillbenodeliveryofanybottleofthe2014harvesttoyouevenifwehavetodrinkthemourselveswhichIdoubtgiventheinterestinourqualityproduct.GoodbyeWernerWeinbauer56 Merlot Rd, St Fundus, Vuachoua, Mediterraneo, tel + 587 4 587128, Fax + 587 4 587129, email [email protected]


EXHIBITC8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEDITERRANEO IN THE CAPITAL CITY JUDICIAL DIVISION

FILE NO: IJCV/K/111/2014

BETWEEN KAIHARI WAINA LTD PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT AND VINO VERITAS LTD DEFENDANT

O R D E R

UPON THIS MOTION dated 8th day of December 2014, coming before the Court and praying as follows:

An Interim Injunction restraining the Defendant by itself, agents, or representatives from selling or committing for sale any number of bottles of the Defendant’s diamond Mata Weltin 2014 that would prevent it from supplying a total of 10.000 bottles to the Plaintiff pending the determination of the claim by a court or an arbitral tribunal.

[…..]

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 54 OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT 2013 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

The Defendant by itself, agents, or representatives is hereby restrained from selling or committing for sale any number of bottles of the Defendant’s diamond Mata Weltin 2014 that would prevent it from supplying a total of 10.000 bottles to the Plaintiff pending the determination of the claim by a court or an arbitral tribunal.

Each Party bears its own costs.

Dr Pablo Friulano

12 December 2014


EXHIBITC9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEDITERRANEO IN THE CAPITAL CITY JUDICIAL DIVISION

FILE NO: DCCV/M/14/2015

BETWEEN VINO VERITAS LTD PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT AND KAIHARI WAINA LTD DEFENDANT

D E C L A R A T I O N

UPON THIS MOTION dated 30th day of January 2015, coming before the Court and praying as follows:

1. A Declaration that the Plaintiff by itself, agents, or representatives is not liable for the breach of the contract between the parties to this Declaration, namely the non-delivery of 10.000 bottles of the Plaintiff’s diamond Mata Weltin 2014, due to an Act of God and a rightful termination of the underlying contract.

2. As an auxiliary declaration that the Plaintiff is not compelled to specific performance of 10.000 bottles of the Plaintiff’s diamond Mata Weltin 2014.

[…..]

UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT 2013 IT IS HEREBY DECLARED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The action initiated by the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed since the court lacks jurisdiction due to the existence of an arbitration clause.

2. Each Party bears its own costs.

Dr Leila Malbec

23 April 2015


EXHIBITC10

CONTINGENTFEEAGREEMENT

Date05/12/2014

TheClientKaihari Waina Ltd, represented by Gustav Friedensreich, 12 Riesling Street, Oceanside, Equatoriana

retainsAmadir Xynisteri of LawFix, 64 Petit Verdoe, Capital City, Mediterraneotoperformthelegalservicessetoutinparagraph(1)below.Theattorneyagreestoperformthemfaithfullyandwithduediligence.

(1) The claim, controversy, and other matters with reference to which the services are to be performed in the Courts of Mediterraneo are

the contract between Kaihari Waina Ltd, 12 Riesling Street, Oceanside, Equatoriana and Vino Veritas Ltd, 56

Merlot Rd, St Fundus, Vuachoua, Mediterraneo of 22 April 2009

(2) The contingency upon which compensation is to be paid as: ‐ Winning on procedural matters pertaining to the contract: US $15,000 ‐ Winning on issues pertaining to the merits of the contract: US $30,000

(3) [……] (4) The client is in any event to be liable to the attorney for an hourly rate of US $ 200 in

regard to any work undertaken in relation to the matter stated in (1) and for his/her reasonable expenses and disbursements.

(5) [….] ThisagreementanditsperformancearesubjecttoRule3.05oftheSupremeCourtofMediterraneo.

WEEACHHAVEREADTHEABOVEAGREEMENTBEFORESIGNINGIT.CLIENTACKNOWLEDGESRECEIPTOFACOPYOFTHISAGREEMENT.

WitnesstoSignature[signed] [signed]‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐(toClient) (Client)[signed] [signed]‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐(toAttorney) (Attorney)

64PetitVerdoe,CapitalCity,Mediterraneo,tel+587673345,fax+587673346,[email protected]

LawFix


EXHIBITC11

INVOICE1254 25.5.2015

KaihariWainaLtd12RieslingStreetOceansideEquatoriana

KaihariWainaLtdvVinoVeritasLtdcontractualdispute

DATE DESCRIPTION PRICERATE TOTAL

04.12.2014 ConsultationKaiharivVinoVeritasrestrategy(phone) 2hrs@$150 $300

05.12.2014 Followupmeetingtodiscussinteriminjunction(phone) 1hr@$150 $150

05.12‐08.12.2014

Research,draftingofinteriminjunction 4hrs@$150 $600

08.12.2014 Filingofinteriminjunction 1/2hr@$150 $75

08.12.2014 Courtfees $2000 $2000

04.02.2015ConsultationinregardtoVinoVeritas’declarationsoughtinHighCourt(phone)

3hrs@$150 $450

08.02‐13.03.2015

Research,draftingofresponse,consultation 5hrs@$150 $750

13.03.2015 Filingofresponse 1/2hr@$150 $75

SUBTOTAL $4,400SALESTAX20% $880CONTINGENCY $45,000TOTALDUEBY1JUNE2015 $50.280,00

Thank you for your instructions!

LawFix


EXHIBITC12WitnessStatementMrs.KimLee

Iwasbornon25August1990.IampresentlythesoleinhouselawyerworkingforKaihariWainaLtd,theClaimant.IhavebeenworkingforKaihariWainaparttimesincemysecondyearatlawschool.IrememberthenegotiationsleadingtothecontractwithVinoVeritasverywellbecausetheywerethefirstnegotiationsinwhichIwasinvolved.Furthermore,Ihadbeentoldthatthenegotiationscouldbedifficult.Apparentlycontractsarenormallyconcludedorallyinthebusinessandthetopvineyardsdonotwanttocommitthemselvestobindingdeliveryobligations,limitingtheirfreedomtoallocateproductionthewaytheylike.IhadbeentoldthatMrWeinbauer,thethenCEOofRespondent,waspersonallynoteasy.Hehadthereputationintheindustryofbeingveryemotional,easytoannoyandtherewererumorsintradecirclesthatheallocatedbottlesverymuchaccordingtohislikingofparticularcustomersandthathehadbeenwillingtoterminatelongstandingcontractsmerelyforpersonaldifferenceswiththerelevantpersonsonthecustomers’side.IreceivedthedraftcontractfromourthenCOO,Mr.Friedensreich,whowasalsoalawyer.Ihadneitherseenanarbitrationclausenoranexclusionofdiscoveryclausebefore,soIaskedMrFriedensreichparticularlyaboutthisspecificclause.Hesaidthatithadbeenrecommendedtohimbyhisbrotherwhoistheheadofdisputeresolutioninamultinationalcompany.Thebrother’scompanyhadbeeninvolvedinamultimillioncourtcasewithextensivepre‐trialdiscoveryintheUScourts.Asaconsequencetheyhadinsertedthisarbitrationclauseintoalltheircontractsexcludingdiscoveryofdocuments.Atthesametimethecompanyhadimplementedadocumentretentionpolicyreducingthenumberofdocumentsproducedandorderingtheirsystematicdestructionafter5years.Heexplainedthatwehadtakenovertheclauseandalsotriedtoproduceaslittlepaperaspossible.Ispenttheeveningbeforetheactualnegotiationreadingthroughthecontractagain.SinceMr.FriedensreichhadbeenveryvagueaboutarbitrationanddiscoveryIlookedupbothtermsinWikipediatogetabetterunderstandingoftheclause.MyunderstandingoftheclausewasthatitwasmeanttoexcludeonlyverybroadUS‐stylediscoveryincludingletterinterrogatoriesandrequestsforbroadgroupsofdocuments.Itwas,however,notintendedtorestrictanypartyfromaskingfordocumentsinlinewiththeprincipleswhicharecommoninarbitrationasevidencedbytheIBARulesonTakingofEvidenceinInternationalArbitration.Formeitwasclearthatwecouldnotrestrictthepossibleevidenceinawaywhichwouldaffectaparty’srighttobeheard.IdoubtthatRespondenthadaveryspecificviewontheclause.DuringthediscussionofourdraftRespondentagreedtothearbitrationclausesayingthattheywereinterestedinarbitrationasafastandinformaldisputeresolutionprocess.Forthemitwasimportantthatthereshouldbenomajorcostsinvolvedindisputeresolution.Theyhadapparentlybeeninvolvedrecentlyinlitigationinwhichtheotherpartywantedtoseelargequantitiesofdocuments.

KimLee8July2015


Horace Fasttrack Advocate at the Court 14 Capital Boulevard Oceanside Equatoriana E-mail: [email protected] By e-mail in advance and by letter

Vienna, 15 July 2015

SCH-1975/VM Re: Case no. SCH-1975 KAIHARI WAINA vs. VINO VERITAS Dear Mr. Fasttrack, This is to confirm receipt of your Statement of Claim dated 11 July 2015 on 14 July 2015 and of the registration fee of EUR 1,500 in the above mentioned case. Please be aware that according to Article 10 para. 3 Vienna Rules the registration fee is non-refundable and shall not be deducted from the paying party’s advance on costs. The case is registered under the reference number SCH-1975. We kindly ask you to use this reference number in your further correspondence and submissions. We have forwarded the Statement of Claim to the Respondent and have invited the Respondent to submit the Answer to the Statement of Claim within a period of 30 days after receipt thereof. Please note that the arbitration case is administered according to the Vienna Rules 2013 (in force as from 1 July 2013). Article 45 provides for an expedited procedure (fast-track proceedings), if both parties agree thereto no later than the submission of the Answer to the Statement of Claim. If you agree to this procedure, please inform us accordingly. Please find attached a copy of the Rules of Arbitration (Vienna Rules 2013).

With kind regards,

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL CENTRE OF THE AUSTRIAN FEDERAL ECONOMIC CHAMBER

Manfred Heider

Secretary General Enclosure: Vienna Rules 2013


Vino Veritas Ltd 56 Merlot Rd St Fundus Vuachoua Mediterraneo By DHL courier services

Vienna, 15 July 2015 SCH-1975/VM

Re: Case no. SCH-1975 KAIHARI WAINA vs. VINO VERITAS Dear Sirs, Please find enclosed a copy of the Statement of Claim which we received from Kaihari Waina Ltd, 12 Riesling Street, Oceanside, Equatoriana, on 14 July 2015. The case is registered under the reference number SCH-1975. We kindly ask you to use this reference number in your further correspondence and submissions. In accordance with Article 8 of the Vienna Rules, we invite you to submit 5 copies of your Answer to the Statement of Claim within a period of thirty days after receipt of this letter. The Parties have agreed that the case shall be decided by a Tribunal composed of three arbitrators. The Claimant has nominated Ms Maria Gomes, 14 Heurigen Lane, Oceanside, Equatoriana, as arbitrator. We therefore ask the Respondent to nominate an arbitrator in the Answer to the Statement of Claim and to state his/her contact details. In case of default, we will proceed according to Article 17 para. 4 Vienna Rules and the Board of VIAC shall appoint an arbitrator for the Respondent. A non-binding List of Practitioners in International Arbitration can be downloaded from our website: http://www.viac.eu/en/list-of-practitioners.html . The Claimant proposes in its Statement of Claim that VIAC should appoint the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal directly, if Respondent is in agreement with such a facilitated procedure. Please comment on this proposal in your Answer to the Statement of Claim within the same time-limit. Please note that the arbitration case is administered according to the Vienna Rules 2013 (enclosure). Article 45 provides for an expedited procedure (fast-track proceedings), if both parties agree thereto no later than the submission of the Answer to the Statement of Claim. If you agree to this procedure, please inform us accordingly.


2 Please find enclosed a copy of the Rules of Arbitration (Vienna Rules 2013).

Kind regards,

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL CENTRE

OF THE AUSTRIAN FEDERAL ECONOMIC CHAMBER

Manfred Heider

Secretary General Enclosures: Statement of Claim Vienna Rules 2013.


JosephLangweilerAdvocateattheCourt 75CourtStreetCapitalCityMediterraneoTel.(0)146‐9845Telefax(0)146‐[email protected]

16.August2015BycourierTheSecretariatoftheViennaInternationalArbitralCentreoftheAustrianFederalEconomicChamberWiednerHauptstraße631045ViennaAustria

KaihariWainav.VinoVeritas

AnswertoStatementofClaim

KaihariWainaLtd.12RieslingStreetOceansideEquatoriana

‐CLAIMANT–RepresentedinthisarbitrationbyHoraceFasttrack,

VinoVeritasLtd.56MerlotRdStFundusVuachouaMediterraneo

‐RESPONDENT–RepresentedinthisarbitrationbyJosephLangweiler

Introduction1. InitsStatementofClaim,CLAIMANTengagedinbroadspeculationsandwildlegalreasoning

in an effort to present Vino Veritas Ltd (“RESPONDENT”) in a bad light and to justifyuntenableclaims.FromthebeginningCLAIMANTwasveryuncooperativeintryingtosolvetheproblems createdby the extremely badharvest in 2014 in accordancewith thewineindustrypracticeanditsobligationtosettledisputesinanamicableway.Insteadoflookingforaworkablesolutioninregardtothoseproblems.CLAIMANTtriedtoforceRESPONDENTtobreachitscontractswithothercustomers.InaclearviolationofthedutytosolveupcomingproblemsingoodfaithCLAIMANTcreatedunnecessarycostsby,first,immediatelyinitiatingcourtproceedingsforinterimrelief,then,second,notcooperatinginfindingasolutiontotheuncleararbitrationclausesothatRESPONDENTwasforcedtocommencecourtproceedingsand,third,bynotagreeingonexpeditedproceedingsbeforeasolearbitrator.Lastbutnot


leastCLAIMANTisnowtryingtoobtainbusinesssecretsfromRESPONDENTbyitrequestfordiscoveryofdocumentscompletelyignoringthatthepartiesexplicitlyexcludeddiscoveryintheirarbitrationagreement.

2. ThefirsttimeCLAIMANTshowedanywillingnesstocooperatewasbypurportingtoacceptin its Statement of Claim the offer to deliver 4.500 bottles of MataWelting 2014 whichRESPONDENTmadeinMay2015.However,theofferwasoriginallymadeinanefforttodealwiththeentiredisputeandwasonlyopenforacceptancefortwoweeks.Irrespectiveofthatandwithoutrecognizingany legalobligation todoso,andnoneexists,RESPONDENTwilldeliver4.500bottlesofMataWelting2014toCLAIMANT.Thatisintendedtoconstitutenomorethanagestureofgoodwillandshouldnotbeinterpretedasrecognitionofanylegaldutyofdeliveryundertheparties’agreement.

3. RESPONDENThopesthatinreturnCLAIMANTwillreconsideritsdecisiontorejectouroffertohavethedisputeresolvedbyasolearbitratorinexpeditedproceedingspursuanttoArticle45VIACRules.

NominationofArbitratorandJurisdictionofArbitralTribunal

4. RESPONDENTrecognizesthejurisdictionofthearbitraltribunaltoavoidanyfurthercosts.Furthermore,shouldCLAIMANTnotindicatewithinthenextweekthatitiswillingtoagreeonfast‐trackproceedingsbeforeasolearbitrator,RESPONDENTnominatesasitsarbitratorinthiscaseMrOlegGraševina,GrapesRoad5,StFundus,Vuachoua,Mediterraneo.Forthatcase,wealsoacceptdirectappointmentoftheChairmanoftheTribunalbyVIAC.

StatementofFacts5. RESPONDENTisamediumsizehighqualitywineproducerinMediterraneo.Ithasanannual

production of around 100.000 bottles per year which it sells to a number of selectedcustomers includingmostof the leading restaurants inMediterraneo. Someof themhavebeen buying ourwines for 40 years and numerous personal friendships have developed.Nearly all of them have maintained their relationship even during the times when thereputationofthewinefromMediterraneohadbeenseriouslyaffectedbyascandalcreatedbysomeofthemassproducersinotherregions.Eachoftheserestaurantsonlybuysbetween200and500bottles a year. Irrespectiveof these small quantities theyare crucial for thereputationofRESPONDENT’swinesandthereforeforthepriceRESPONDENTcanobtainonthemarket.

6. Theremaining60percentofRESPONDENT’swineproductionissoldtomajorforeignwinemerchantsforhighendwineswhichdistributethewinestocustomersallovertheworld.Fiveyearsago,RESPONDENT’sbiggestcustomerwasboughtbyamajorconglomerateandshortly thereafter went insolvent due to an exodus of its best people. Consequently,RESPONDENThadtoreplacethatcustomeratveryshortnoticeandselectedCLAIMANTwhohadalreadytriedtogetintobusinesswithRESPONDENTforseveralyears.

7. CLAIMANT insisted on entering into a framework contract, deviating from the ordinaryindustrypractice.DuetothespecialsituationatthetimeandbelievingthatanyproblemsthatmighteventuallyarisewouldberesolvedamicablyRESPONDENTwaswillingtoenterinto such a contract giving CLAIMANT the option to purchase up to around 10% ofRESPONDENT’sannualproduction[ExhibitR1].ThatmadeCLAIMANTtheRESPONDENT’ssecond biggest customer. The framework contract provided for a range within whichCLAIMANTcouldannuallyorderbottlesfromthenewvintage.ClaimantoriginallywantedtheoptiontoorderalargerquantitybutRESPONDENTresistedthatrequest.Itwantedtoensure that even in bad years CLAIMANT’s demands could be met by the bottlesRESPONDENTnormallyreservedforitselfwithoutaffectingthedeliverytoothercustomerstoomuch.Giventheamicablerelationshipwithallitscustomersandindustrypracticethere


was,however,anexpectationthatinbadyears,thepartieswouldjointlyfindasolutionwhichallowedRESPONDENTtokeepacertainminimumofbottles.

8. Inrecentyears,CLAIMANThasorderedatthelowerendoftheagreedquantityrange.2013for example it ordered only 8.000 bottles. At the beginning of 2014, however, several ofRESPONDENT’sproductswonprizesatmajortradefairs.Furthermore,aleadingwinecriticenthusiasticallydescribedRESPONDENT’stopwineDiamond‐GoldSelection2010as“oneofthebestwhitewinesworldwide,withanenormouspotentialtoageandprobablyoneofthebestinvestmentsinwinepresentlyavailable:98points.”

9. Itseemsthat in lightofthatpositivepressCLAIMANTenteredintoseveralcontractswithleading restaurants in the summer of 2014. Until early August, it seemed that the 2014vintagewouldbeexcellent.DuringthelasttwoweeksofAugustandinSeptemberitrainedsomuchthatnearlyhalfofthegrapesrottedonthevine.Asaconsequence,theamountofgrapesavailabletoRESPONDENTforwineproductiondroppedtoanall‐time low, leavingonlyaproductionofabout65.000bottlesin2014.Quality‐wisetheremaininggrapeswereexcellentandpromisedanabsolutelyextraordinaryyear.

10. On 3 November 2014, a few days after the vintage had been brought in, RESPONDENTimmediately informed its customers by fax about that extraordinary drop in quantity. Itannouncedthatonewouldtrytonegotiatewiththecustomersquantitiesavailableforeachofthemwithinthenextweeks.

11. All other customers showed understanding our difficult situation and entered intonegotiationsresulting inreducedquantitiesallround.OnlyCLAIMANTprovedcompletelyuncooperative. Theday after the faxwas sent notifyingRESPONDENT’s customers of thereducedquantityavailableCLAIMANTmade,forthefirsttime,anorderatthetopendoftheagreedrangeandordered10.000bottles[ExhibitC2].

12. At that time RESPONDENT was already considering terminating the contract becauseCLAIMANT’s offensive behavior in ignoring the reduced harvest had led to a completedestructionoftrust,trustbeingoneofthecrucialelementsinthehighendwinetrade.Asaconsequence,RESPONDENTintensified itsdiscussionwithSuperWineswhichhadalreadybeen going on since the beginning of the year, when Mr Barolo had become CEO ofSuperWines. He is one of the most reputable wine critics and previously had regularconnectionswithRESPONDENT.

13. On 25 October 2014, CLAIMANT’s development manager, Ms Buharit, came to visitRESPONDENT to discuss further business opportunities, including using RESPONDENT’sfacilities formajor promotional events. She asserted that CLAIMANT had never receivedRESPONDENT’sfaxof3November2014whichcouldhaveexplainedCLAIMANT’sbehavior.She informed Mr Weinbauer about the urgent need for 10.000 bottles but no firmcommitmenttosupplythatquantitywasevergiven.MrWeinbauermerelysaidthatwiththatexplanation of CLAIMANT’s order of 4November2014 the immediate termination of thecontract was no longer an issue and that he would give CLAIMANT’s order “a favorableconsideration”.WecannotseehowMsBuharitcouldinterpretthatasapromisetodeliverthewholequantityorderedin2014whichevenexceededtheamountsdeliveredinpreviousyearswhentherewasnoproblemwiththeharvest.

14. Withitsletterof1December2014,RESPONDENTinformedCLAIMANTthatitwaswillingtodeliver4.500–5000bottlestoCLAIMANT[ExhibitC3].Thatismorethan50%ofthebottlesdelivered in previous years andone of the best quotasRESPONDENTgave to its existinglargercustomers.

15. SuperWines,whichwasanewcustomer,wasonlypromised30%ofthe15.000bottlestheywanted to order, even though they had from the beginning of the negotiations in earlysummer2014beenwillingtopayapremiumtobecomeourbiggestcustomer.Thus,insteadof making profits to the detriment of its existing customers, as alleged by CLAIMANT,RESPONDENTwasinfactwillingtoforegoprofitsoutofloyaltytoitsexistingcustomers.One


alwayshas tokeep inmind that therewasnever anyexclusivity agreementor anyotherprovisionwhichcouldhavepreventedRESPONDENTfromenlargingitspotentialcustomerbase. There had been reports about financial difficulties at the end of 2013 withRESPONDENT’s then biggest customer, which made it commercially necessary forRESPONDENT to develop a fall back plan should that customer become insolvent, as itfortunatelydidnot.ThatandtheappointmentofMrBaroloastheCEOofSuperWinesledtothediscussionswithSuperWinesinsummer2014.

16. CLAIMANT’s reaction to RESPONDENT’s generous offer was a slap in the face to MrWeinbauer.InsteadofcooperatinginresolvingthedifficultiescreatedbytheextremelylowharvestCLAIMANTnotonlyinsistedonfulldeliveryofanumberofbottlesitneverpreviouslyorderedbutalso–atleastimplicitly–accusedMrWeinbaueroflyingabouttherealreasonsforthereductionindelivery.

17. This personal attack in combination with CLAIMANT’s uncooperative behavior led MrWeinbauertoconcludethatCLAIMANTwouldnotbeasuitabledistributorforsuchhighendanduniqueproductsasRESPONDENT’swines.GoodpersonalrelationshipsandtrustarepartoftheDNAofthetradeintopclasswines.Writtencontractsarerareandpartieshardlyevergo to court or arbitration given their long time relationships. Top class wines are not aproduct like any other but a personal statement. Consequently, false allegations anduncooperativebehaviorviolatefundamentalprinciplesofthebusinessandentitletheothersidetoterminateanexistingcontract.

18. MrWeinbauerterminatedthecontractinhisletterof4December2014[ExhibitC7].Thewording clearly evidenced how personally hurt and disappointed he was. His sarcasticreactionmayalsohavebeeninfluencedbythenewshehadreceivedthedaybeforethatheurgentlyneededheart surgery,which in turn resulted inhim turningover the family runbusinesstohissoninlawonthe1January2015,twoyearsbeforeoriginallyplanned.

19. CLAIMANT,insteadoftryingtoclarifymisunderstandingsortoseekasolution,aswouldhavebeennormalindustrypractice,turnedaroundandimmediatelystartedcourtproceedingstoobtain an interim injunction against RESPONDENT. Due to Mr Weinbauer’s the healthproblems and in order not to escalate the dispute any further RESPONDENT did notparticipate in the proceedings for interim relief. In particular, it did not subsequentlychallenge the injunction granted by the judge on the basis of the CLAIMANT’s distorteddescriptionofthefacts.

20. Instead, RESPONDENT’s new management approached CLAIMANT in the first week ofJanuary2015asoneofitsfirststepsandtriedtoresolvethedispute.However,noagreementwaspossiblewithCLAIMANTwhounequivocallydemandedthedeliveryof10.000bottlesofdiamond Mata Weltin 2014. RESPONDENT, however, needed certainty as to the legalsituationandastothenumberofbottlesavailableforthecontractswithothercustomers.GivenCLAIMANT’sbehaviortheonlyoptionforRespondenttoclarifythelegalsituationwasto start an action for a declaration of non‐liability, i.e. that the contract had been validlyterminatedorRESPONDENTwouldat leastbe excused fromhaving todelivermore than4.500bottles.

21. Initsletterof14January2015[ExhibitR2]RESPONDENTmadeanotherapproachtoresolvethedisputeoratleastclarifytheforuminwhichanactionhadtobebrought,asthearbitrationclause – provided by CLAIMANT – was everything but clear. Again CLAIMANT did notcooperateeventhoughtheclauseitselfexplicitlystatesthatdisputesshouldberesolvedingoodfaith.

22. When RESPONDENT finally started the action in the state courts of Mediterraneo on30January2015,CLAIMANTimmediatelyinvokedthearbitrationclausewhichinitsviewprovided forVIACarbitration.HadCLAIMANTdone sobefore,RESPONDENTwouldhaveneverstartedcourtproceedingsbutwouldhaveimmediatelygonetoVIACarbitration.TheCourtrejectedtheactionasinadmissible.


23. AfterthatdecisionRESPONDENTmadeanotherefforttoresolvethedisputeandofferedtodelivertoCLAIMANT4.500bottles,althoughinRESPONDENT’sviewthecontracthadbeenrightfullyterminatedbyMrWeinbauer.

24. Again CLAIMANT stayed silent concerning that offer but instead started this arbitrationwhereitfinallycamebacktotheofferwhichhadlongexpired.

25. To show its commitment to amicable dispute resolution RESPONDENT is still willing todeliver4.500bottlesofMataWeltin2014andwilldeliverthematmarketpricetoCLAIMANTbefore1October2016.

26. AllotherclaimsbyCLAIMANTare,however,devoidofanylegalsubstanceandcontrarytotheexpresscontractualstipulationsbetweentheparties.InparticulartheproceduralmotionisprimarilyintendedtoobtainconfidentialbusinessinformationfromRESPONDENTandtocreatesufficientnuisanceformyclientsothatitagreestopaythedamagescreatedsolelybyCLAIMANT’suncooperativebehavior.

LegalEvaluationRequestforDocumentProduction27. TheTribunalhasnopowertograntCLAIMANT’srequestfordocumentproduction.Pursuant

toArticle28ViennaRules,theTribunalhasto“conductthearbitrationinaccordancewiththeViennaRulesandtheagreementoftheParties”.NotonlydotheViennaRulesnotmentiondocumentproductionbut,tothecontrary,intheirarbitrationagreementthePartiesexplicitlyexcludedanytypeofdiscovery,whichismerelyanotherwordfordocumentproduction.

28. ThefactthatClaimantnowcontendsthatitonlywantedtoexcludebroaddiscoveryintheAmericanstyleismerelyadefensivelieoratbestapurposefulreadingoftheclauseinanefforttosupporttheunsupportable.InaninternationalarbitrationwithnoconnectiontotheUSAtheAmericanrulesondiscoverywouldanywaynotbeapplicable,sothattherewasnoneedtoexcludethemoranyotherdiscoveryrulesofacomparablereach.ThepartieswereintendingtoexcludethetypeofdocumentproductiononeoftenfindsinpracticeundertheIBARules,whichhaveanyhownotbeenselectedinthisarbitration.

29. CLAIMANT can alsonot rely on an allegedviolation of the right tobe heard.The type ofdocumentproductionrequestedbyCLAIMANTisbynomeansanecessaryrequirementfortherighttobeheard.ThelawofMediterraneo,forexample,initsproceduralcodedoesnotprovideforanydocumentdisclosurebeyondthepossibilitytorequesttheproductionofoneorseveralsufficientlyspecifieddocuments.Arequesttoproduceclassesofdocumentsisnotforeseen.

30. To the contrary, the grantingofCLAIMANT’s requestwouldunduly favorCLAIMANTandthereby violate RESPONDENT’s right to equal treatment. CLAIMANT seems to haveimplemented a certain policy to prevent it being obliged to disclose certain documents.Furthermore,CLAIMANTcomes froma jurisdictionwhichhas, in itsCodeofProcedure,aprovisiondealingwiththedisclosureofdocumentscontainingidenticalwordingtoArticle3IBARulesuponwhichCLAIMANTrelies.Consequently,thelocallawhasdevelopedanumberofexceptionsandprivilegeswhichfreeCLAIMANTfromanyobligationtopresentdocumentswhich could be relevant in this arbitration. In particular, the exception for documentsinvolving business secretshas been interpreted sobroadly thatCLAIMANTwouldnotbeobligedtodisclosetheRESPONDENTcontractsandpre‐contractualcommunicationswithitsfinalcustomers.Bycontrast,thelawinMediterraneohasnotdevelopedsuchasophisticatedschemeofprivilegesandexception,since itsCodeofProcedureonlyallowsfordisclosurerequestsdirectedtooneorseveralparticulardocuments.

31. Lastbutnotleast,documentproductionisnotnecessary.TheCISGcontainsanelaboratesetofrulesontheburdenofproofallocatingitaccordingtotheavailabilityofproof.Thebalance


developedintheseruleswouldbedisturbedifapartycouldadditionallyrequesttheotherpartytoproducedocuments.CLAIMANTmustproveitsdamagesbysubmittingitscontractswithitscustomerswhichitdoesnotwanttodoforobviousreasons.

Requestfordamages:Costforinterimrelief32. CLAIMANThasnoclaimfordamagesforeitherthelegalcostsitincurredorthecostsforits

application for interimrelief. Ingeneral,proceduralcostsarenotrecoverableasdamagesunder the CISG. The recoverability of legal fees is regulated in the procedural laws. ThedraftersoftheCISGandtheStatessigningtheCISGdidnotwanttoundothelocalrulesontherecoveryofcostsinlegalproceedingsthroughtheCISG.ThedecisionoftheHighCourtofCapitalCity isa finalandbindingdecisionas to thecostsrecoverable for thataction.Thedecisionofthelegislatureastowhichcostsarerecoverableincivilproceedingsisamatterofprocedurallaw.Itshouldnotbecircumventedbyrelianceonclaimsfordamagesallegedlyforeseenundersubstantivelaws.

33. EveniflegalcostswereinprinciplerecoverableasdamagesundertheCISG,whichtheyarenot,CLAIMANTisnotentitledtoreimbursementfortheamountclaimed.Neitherwerethedamagesforeseeablenorwerethefeesreasonable.

34. TherewasnoneedforCLAIMANTtohaveaskedforinterimrelief.Thewinehadnotyetbeenbottledand,contrarytothedecisionoftheCourt,therewasnoimminentthreatthatthewinewouldbedistributedtoanyothercustomerwithinthenextsixmonths.Consequently,neitherRESPONDENTnor any other reasonable third party could foresee that CLAIMANTwouldimmediately start proceedings for interim relief once RESPONDENT had terminated thecontract.

35. Furthermore,itwasneitherforeseeablenorreasonablethatCLAIMANTwouldenterintothetypeofcontingencyfeeagreementitdid.Toallowthereimbursementofsuchcontingencyfeeswouldamounttoendorsingthecontracttothedetrimentofthirdparties.CLAIMANTpromiseditslawyersahigherfeethannormalandnowwantstobepaidbyRESPONDENT.

36. ThecostsincurredindefendingtheactioninthestatecourtsareentirelyduetoCLAIMANT’sbehavior.CLAIMANThadanobligationtoclarifytheuncertaintycreatedbythepathologicalarbitrationclausecontainedinthecontract.Itclearlybreachedthatobligationandatleastviolated itsobligationtomitigatedamagesundertheCISG.Furthermore,damagesarenotavailableasaremedyforthebreachofanarbitrationagreement.

Requestfordamages:Costfordeclaratoryrelief37. ThecostsallegedlyincurredbyCLAIMANTindefendingRESPONDENT’sapplicationinthe

HighCourtofCapitalCity,Mediterraneo,fordeclaratoryreliefarenotrecoverableeitherforthesamereasons.Theyevenapplyhereafortioriastheclaimsconcernanallegedbreachofthearbitrationagreement.ThearbitrationagreementisaseparateagreementtowhichttheCISGdoesnotapplybut insteadtheUNCITRALModelLawdoes.TheModelLawdoesnotcontainanyprovisionprovidingfordamagesforbreachofanarbitrationagreement.

38. EveniftheCISGorthesubstantivelawofanyofDanubia,EquatorianaorMediterraneo(inrelationtodamagesallthreejurisdictionshavingadoptedtherelevantUNIDROIT‐Principleson International Commercial Contracts) were applicable, CLAIMANT would have beenprimarilyresponsibleforthecostincurred.FollowingCLAIMANT’srequestforinterimrelief,RESPONDENTinformedCLAIMANTbyletterof14January2015[ExhibitR2]thatitintendedtoinitiateproceedingsforadeclarationofnon‐liability.Atthesametime,RESPONDENTtoldCLAIMANTthatitconsideredthearbitrationclausetobeunclearandunworkableandwouldthereforestartcourtproceedingsunlessCLAIMANTinformedRESPONDENTwithin10daysabout its understanding of the clause and made an offer to rectify the unclear clause.


CLAIMANTdidnotreacttothisrequest.Haditreacted,aswouldhavebeenrequiredbytheclauseandgoodfaith,RESPONDENTwouldnothaveinitiatedthecourtproceedings.

Requestfordamages:5.500bottles39. CLAIMANThas not proven anydamages it incurreddue to thenon‐delivery of the 5.500

bottles.Inanefforttoavoiddisclosureofitsowncustomerbaseithasnotsubmittedanyofthecontractsithaswithitscustomersorexplaineditscalculationofdamages.CLAIMANTcannotmerelyclaimtheallegedgainmadebyRESPONDENTbysellingthe5.500bottlestoSuperWines.Themark‐uppaidbySuperWinesrelatestootherfactorswhichhavenothingtodowithCLAIMANT.Article74CISGexiststocompensateapartyforactualdamagessufferedbutisnotintendedtoforcedisgorgementofprofitsmadebytheotherpartyduetoabreachofcontract.

StatementofReliefSoughtInlightofthisRESPONDENTrequeststheArbitralTribunal1. torejectCLAIMANT’srequestfordocumentproduction;

2. torejectallclaimsfordamagesraisedbyCLAIMANT;

3. toorderCLAIMANTtopayRESPONDENT’scostsincurredinthisarbitration.

JosephLangweiler

AnnexesExhibitR1:WitnessStatementofMrWeinbauerExhibitR2:Letterof14January2015byMrLangweiler


EXHIBITR1

Witness Statement Mr. Werner Weinbauer

I was born on 1. December 1946. Until 31 December 2014 I was the Managing Director and main shareholder of Vino Veritas Ltd., one of the leading quality wine producers in Mediterraneo.

I had negotiated the Framework Agreement for Respondent’s side. Normally, we conclude all our contracts orally and personal relationships play an important role for us. Claimant, however, insisted on a written contract guaranteeing it a steady supply. In return, Claimant was willing to commit to a minimum purchase and pay in the first year for a certain number of the bottles upfront.

At the time, we had been short of cash due to other investments we had made the year before. Furthermore, we had just lost one of our major customers due to its insolvency and the insolvency administrator even started litigation against us since we stopped the delivery of bottles which had not been paid for. The need to improve cash flow and to allocate the bottles at short notice led us to agree to a written contract. It is customary practice in the wine industry that seller freely determines every year the number of bottles it can allocate to a particular buyer. Consequently, buyers are normally interested in a good relationship with the wineries which made the minimum delivery obligation in our view acceptable. In light of the termination right we were convinced that Claimant would also sit down with us and find an acceptable solution for problems created by low quantities.

We had received a draft of the contract from Mr Friedensreich the week before and had gone through the draft with our local lawyer. Since we are not a major company and had had a recent bad experience with the insolvency administrator of our former customer it was crucial for us to keep the costs of any dispute resolution low.

In that law suit which the insolvency administrator of our former customer had started before the courts in Mediterraneo, she had asked to see all our correspondence with the producer of the wine capsules we had used for the last six years. In that case the request had finally been defeated as the law of Mediterraneo in principle requires each party to prove its case with the evidence it has available. Only in very limited circumstances can a party ask a court to order the other party to produce a specific document.

Our lawyer told us, however, that in other jurisdictions, in particular those from the common law world, such requests are common and are often granted. Any such request would be seriously disruptive to our business and could require us to disclose business secrets to the market. Consequently, we wanted to avoid having to face such requests again.

In light of that, I was very happy when I saw the clause excluding such request in the draft contract received from Mr Friedensreich. I even explicitly mentioned that during the meeting in which the contract was finalized.

I understood the clause to exclude all types of requests for documents which go beyond requests for particular documents in very specific circumstances. Given that the law of Mediterraneo allows only requests for particular documents I had no doubts that such a provision would also be possible.


At the end of 2014, I had to step down as the managing director of Vino Veritas due to health problems. The position has then been taken over by my son in law. He has studied law but has never practiced as a lawyer. St Fundus, 2.8.2015 Werner Weinbauer


EXHIBITR2

JosephLangweilerAdvocateattheCourt 75CourtStreetCapitalCityMediterraneoTel.(0)146‐9845Telefax(0)146‐9850,Langweiler@lawyer.meHoraceFasttrackAdvocateattheCourt14CapitalBoulevardOceansideEquatoriana

14January2015

Re:KaihariWainavVinoVeritas

DearMr.Fasttrack,AsalreadyexpressedatourlastmeetingmyclienthasbeenverydisappointedbythebehaviourofKaihariWainaanditsapplicationforinterimrelieftotheHighCourtofCapitalCity.AsyouknowMrWeinbauerhadtoundergoopenheartsurgerythedayaftertheapplicationhadbeenfiledsothatVinoVeritasdidnotpaymuchattentiontotheaction.Otherwisetheinjunctionwouldprobablynothavebeengrantedasitlacksanyjustification.Thereisnoimminentdangerofdisposalofthewine(diamondMataWeltins2014)toothercustomersasthewinewillonlybebottledinMayorJune.Nevertheless,thenewmanagementofVinoVeritashasdecidedthatitwill,atpresent,refrainfromchallengingthedecisiontoavoidfurtherunnecessarycosts.

Wearestillinterestedinanamicablesolution.Asweandourothercustomersneedcertaintyinthematterthewindowfornegotiationsisfairlyshort.Ifnosettlementcanbereachedwithinthenexttwoweeks,wewillinitiateproceedingsapplyingforadeclarationofnon‐liability.Youwillfindthedraftapplicationattached.Inourviewthearbitrationclauseisvoidforuncertaintyastheinstitutionmentionedintheclausedoesnotexist.IfyouconsidertheclausetobeanarbitrationclauseinfavourofVIACarbitrationwewouldbewillingtoagreeontheVIACstandardclausewiththeadditionthatdocumentdisclosureisexcluded.OtherwisewewillstartcourtproceedingsbeforetheHighCourtinCapitalCity,whichhasalreadybeenselectedbyyouforyourapplicationforinterimrelieffortheliftingofwhichwewillalsoapply.Ilookforwardtohearingfromyouatyourearliestconveniencebutnotlaterthan28January2015.YourssincerelyJosephLangweiler


To:Mr.HoraceFasttrackAdvocateattheCourt14CapitalBoulevardOceansideEquatorianaE‐mail:[email protected] 75CourtStreetCapitalCityMediterraneoE‐mail:[email protected]‐mailinadvanceandbyDHLcourierservices

Vienna,19August2015SCH‐1975/VM

Re:Caseno.SCH‐1975KAIHARIWAINAvs.VINOVERITASDearSirs,Weconfirmreceiptof theAnswertotheStatementofClaimdated16August2016on18August2016(copyenclosedfortheClaimant)inwhichtheRespondentproposestohavetheproceedingsconductedasfast‐trackproceedingsaccordingtoArticle45ViennaRuleswithasolearbitrator.WekindlyrequestClaimanttocommentonthisproposaluntil26August2015andadvisewhether an agreement on fast‐track proceedings and a sole arbitrator was alreadyreachedbetweentheparties.Thereafter,wewillcalculatetheadvanceoncosts.

Kindregards,

INTERNATIONALARBITRALCENTREOFTHEAUSTRIANFEDERALECONOMICCHAMBER

AliceFremuth‐Wolf

Deputy‐SecretaryGeneral

EnclosurefortheClaimant:AnswertotheStatementofClaim


HoraceFasttrackAdvocateattheCourt 14CapitalBoulevardOceansideEquatorianaTel.(0)2147732Telefax(0)[email protected]

21August2015BycourierTheSecretariatoftheViennaInternationalArbitralCentreoftheAustrianFederalEconomicChamberWiednerHauptstraße631045ViennaAustriaDearMsFremuth‐Wolf,ThankyoufortheopportunitytocommentonRespondent’s“proposal”forfast‐trackproceedingsbeforeaSoleArbitrator.Wehadalreadyexplainedinourtelephoneconversationof1August2015withMrLangweilerthatCLAIMANTwouldinprinciplebewillingtoagreeonfast‐trackproceedingsbeforeasolearbitratorpursuanttoArticle45ViennaRules.ItsonlyconditionwasthatthisshouldnotaffectCLAIMANT’srighttoproperlypresentitscase.WemadeclearthatthiswouldeitherrequirethatRESPONDENTdeliveredthedocumentsrequestedbyCLAIMANTvoluntarilyoragreedonasolearbitratorwhoisfamiliarwiththehandlingofdocumentproductionrequests,i.e.probablysomeonefromEquatoriana.Duringthecallof1August2015MrLangweilerclearlystatedthatneitherofthetwooptionsisacceptabletoRESPONDENTandweabandonedtheidea.Consequently,IcanonlycharacterizeRespondent’srenewedreferenceinitsStatementofDefensetothepossibilityoffast‐trackproceedingsbeforeasolearbitratorasjustanotherunsuccessfulefforttopresentCLAIMANTinanunfavorablelightasalitigiousanduncooperativeparty.Theoffertoholdthisarbitrationasfast‐trackproceedingsbeforeasolearbitratorisnothingbutanotherattempttotrytodepriveCLAIMANToftheopportunitytogetaccesstodocumentswhicharecrucialforitscase.Therefore,VIACiskindlyrequestedtocontinuewiththeconfirmationofthearbitratorsnominatedbythePartiesandtoappointtheChairman.Sincerelyyours,

HoraceFasttrack


To:Mr.HoraceFasttrackAdvocateattheCourt14CapitalBoulevardOceansideEquatorianaE‐mail:[email protected] 75CourtStreetCapitalCityMediterraneoE‐mail:[email protected]‐mailinadvanceandbyDHLcourierservices

Vienna,22August2015SCH‐1975/VM

Re:Caseno.SCH‐1975KAIHARIWAINAvs.VINOVERITASDearSirs,WeconfirmreceiptofClaimant’sletterdated21August2015andtakenoteoftheparties’lackofagreementuponconductingtheproceedingsasfast‐trackproceedings.We refer toRespondent’sAnswer to the Statement ofClaim inwhich theRespondentnominatedMr.OlegGraševina,GrapesRoad5,StFundus,Vuachoua,Mediterraneoasco‐arbitratorshouldanagreementonfast‐trackproceedingsnotbereached.RespondenthasinitsAnsweragreedwithClaimant’sproposalthatVIACshouldappointtheChairmanoftheArbitralTribunaldirectly.Therefore,theBoardofVIACwillappointtheChairmanoftheArbitralTribunal.Forthetimebeing,theamountindisputeisfixedwithEUR154,788.90andtheadvanceoncostshasbeencalculatedonthatbasisforapanelofthreearbitrators(Article42para.1 Vienna Rules). Should the damage claim be extended in the course of the arbitralproceedings, the SecretaryGeneralwill alter the amount indispute anddetermine anadditionaladvanceoncosts(Article42para5andArt44para.3ViennaRules).


2

TheadvanceoncostsamountstoEUR40,000.00thatisEUR20,000.00foreachparty.Ithasbeencalculatedforapanelofthreearbitrators.Wethereforeaska) theClaimanttopaytheamountofEUR20,000.00 andb) theRespondenttopaytheamountofEUR20,000.00into our bank account free of chargewithin thirtydays after service of this request.Ourbankinformationisasfollows:Accountno.123456789oftheAustrianFederalEconomicChamber(“WirtschaftskammerÖsterreich”), at Bank XYZ AG, Vienna, bank identification no. 77777, IBAN‐CodeAT12345678900000,BIC‐CodeVWXXYYZZ.Pleasequote"ViennaInternationalArbitralCentre(VIAC)"andtheabovereferencenumberSCH‐1975undertheheading“purposeofpayment”.Asbanktransfersaresometimesslow,wekindlyaskyoutosendusacopyofyourpaymentorderbyfaxore‐mail.

Kindregards,

INTERNATIONALARBITRALCENTREOFTHEAUSTRIANFEDERALECONOMICCHAMBER

AliceFremuth‐Wolf

DeputySecretaryGeneral


To: Mr. Horace Fasttrack Advocate at the Court 14 Capital Boulevard Oceanside Equatoriana E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Joseph Langweiler Advocate at the Court 75 Court Street Capital City Mediterraneo E-mail: [email protected] By e-mail in advance and by DHL courier services

Vienna, 28 August 2015 SCH-1975/VM

Re: Case no. SCH-1975 KAIHARI WAINA vs. VINO VERITAS Dear Sirs, Enclosed please find a copy of the completed co-arbitrator’s declaration of acceptance of Ms. Maria Gomes, 14 Heurigen Lane, Oceanside, Equatoriana, who was nominated by the Claimant, and of Mr. Oleg Graševina, Grapes Road 5, St Fundus, Vuachoua, Mediterraneo, who was nominated by the Respondent. You have the possibility to comment on these statements within a period of 15 days. The Secretary General will then decide on the confirmation of the nominated arbitrators (Article 19 Vienna Rules) and inform you upon the appointment of the chairman by the Board. You will be notified in a separate letter of the actual commencement of the proceedings.

Kind regards,


Manfred Heider

Secretary General

Enclosures: Co-arbitrator’s declarations of acceptance of Ms. Gomes and Mr. Graševina


ARBITRATOR’S DECLARATION OF ACCEPTANCE

Name: Ms. Maria Gomes Case No: SCH-1975 Claimant: Kaihari Waina Ltd, Oceanside, Equatoriana Respondent: Vino Veritas Ltd, Vuachoua, Mediterraneo 1. ACCEPTANCE / REJECTION x I accept the appointment to act as arbitrator in these proceedings pursuant to the Rules of

Arbitration of the International Arbitral Centre of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber in Vienna dated 1 July 2013 (the "Vienna Rules") and I submit to the provisions of the Vienna Rules, in particular the schedule of fees (Annex 3). I take note of the “Guidelines for Arbitrators” dated July 2013.

� I decline to act as arbitrator in these proceedings.

(If ticked here please just date and sign the form without considering P.2.-5.).

2. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

x I am impartial and independent and will remain impartial and independent for the duration of the proceedings. There are no circumstances known to me which would justify a challenge to my arbitrator’s mandate in these proceedings pursuant to Article 16 para. 4 and Article 20 of the Vienna Rules.

� However, I disclose the following circumstances, which, from the perspective of the parties, could possibly call my independence into question (add an additional sheet if necessary):

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. TRANSMISSION OF SUBMISSIONS TO THE VIAC

I undertake to submit a complete set of all written submissions and decisions to the Secretariat of the VIAC.


4. DECLARATION OF AVAILABILITY

Based on current information, I confirm that I will have the necessary time to administer the case and act as an arbitrator in a way that is diligent, efficient and in compliance with the deadlines in the Vienna Rules, which can be extended by the Secretary General or the Board.

For information of the VIAC and the parties my current job related duties are as follows:

Full-time occupation (i.e. Lawyer, Arbitrator, Scholar)

arbitrator_______________________________________________________________________

5. UNDERTAKING TO OBSERVE RULES ON COSTS

I acknowledge that determinations as to cost advances, arbitrators’ fees and administrative costs in these proceedings shall be made exclusively by the Secretary General of the Vienna International Arbitral Centre of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber pursuant to Articles 42 and 44 Vienna Rules and I recognize that such determinations shall be binding.

I acknowledge that as arbitrator in these proceedings, I may not take any action entailing costs, such as the appointment of experts or court reporters, before I make arrangements to cover the expected costs (Article 43 Vienna Rules).

Oceanside 1 August 2015

Place and Date Signature



Name: Mr. Oleg Graševina Case No: SCH-1975 Claimant: Kaihari Waina Ltd, Oceanside, Equatoriana Respondent: Vino Veritas Ltd, Vuachoua, Mediterraneo 1. ACCEPTANCE / REJECTION x I accept the appointment to act as arbitrator in these proceedings pursuant to the Rules of







___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________








___Lawyer_____________________________________________________________________




Vuachoua, 24 August 2015



To: Mr. Horace Fasttrack Advocate at the Court 14 Capital Boulevard Oceanside Equatoriana E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Joseph Langweiler Advocate at the Court 75 Court Street Capital City Mediterraneo E-mail: [email protected] By e-mail in advance and by DHL courier services

Vienna, 15 September 2015 SCH-1975/VM

Re: Case no. SCH-1975 KAIHARI WAINA vs. VINO VERITAS Dear Sirs, This is to confirm receipt of the advance on costs paid by the parties in equal shares. The Secretary General of the VIAC has confirmed the nomination of the co-arbitrators Ms. Gomes and Mr. Graševina for the case SCH-1975 (Article 19 para. 3 Vienna Rules). The Board of VIAC has appointed Mr. Falco Amadeus, 40 Klimmt Road, Vindobona, Danubia, as Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal for the above mentioned case. Please find enclosed a copy of the completed arbitrator’s declaration of acceptance of Mr. Amadeus (Article 19 Vienna Rules).

The file has been transmitted to the arbitral tribunal and the chairman was requested to commence the proceedings.


2

We kindly ask you to correspond exclusively with the chairman and to send copies of all your submissions to the arbitrators, the opposing party and the Secretariat of the VIAC.

Kind regards,


Manfred Heider

Secretary General

Enclosures: Chairman’s declaration of acceptance Copy to the arbitral tribunal.



Name: Mr. Falco Amadeus Case No: SCH-1975 Claimant: Kaihari Waina Ltd, Oceanside, Equatoriana Respondent: Vino Veritas Ltd, Vuachoua, Mediterraneo 1. ACCEPTANCE / REJECTION x I accept the appointment to act as arbitrator in these proceedings pursuant to the Rules of







___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________








_____University Professor_________________________________________________________




__Vindobona, 27 August 2015____



To: Ms. Maria Gomes 14 Heurigen Lane Oceanside Equatoriana Mr. Oleg Graševina Grapes Road 5, St Fundus Vuachoua Mediterraneo Mr. Falco Amadeus 40 Klimmt Road Vindobona Danubia By DHL courier services

Vienna, 15 September 2015 SCH-1975/VM

Re: Case no. SCH-1975 KAIHARI WAINA vs. VINO VERITAS Dear Madam and Sirs, The Secretary General of the VIAC hereby confirms the nomination of the co-arbitrators Ms. Gomes and Mr. Graševina in the case SCH-1975 (Article 19 para. 3 Vienna Rules). The Board of VIAC has appointed Mr. Falco Amadeus, 40 Klimmt Road, Vindobona, Danubia, as Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal for the above mentioned case. Since the Statement of Claim fulfils all criteria set forth by Article 7 Vienna Rules, the advance on costs has been paid in full, and all members of the arbitral tribunal have been appointed, we transmit the file with all enclosures to the arbitral tribunal (Article 11 Vienna Rules). We kindly ask the chairman to commence the proceedings and to send copies of all procedural orders to the Secretariat of the VIAC.


2

We have informed the parties of the commencement of the proceedings by today's date and have asked them to subsequently correspond exclusively with the chairman and to send copies of all their submissions to the opposing party, the arbitrators, and the Secretariat of the VIAC (Article 12 para. 5 Vienna Rules).

Kind regards,


Manfred Heider

Secretary General Enclosures: Statement of Claim. Answer to the Request for Arbitration.


FromMr.FalcoAmadeusChairmanoftheArbitralTribunalInthecaseVIAC(SCH‐1975)40KlimmtRoad,Vindobona,Danubia To:HoraceFasttrack 14CapitalBoulevard Oceanside,Equatoriana JosephLangweiler 75CourtStreet CapitalCity,Mediterraneo

Vindobona,2October2015VIACSCH‐1975KaihariWaina./.VinoVeritasDearColleagues,PleasefindenclosedProceduralOrderNo1intheabovereferencedarbitrationproceedings.BothPartiesarerequestedtocomplywiththeordersmadeandtheArbitralTribunalreservestherighttodrawnegativeinferencesfromanynon‐compliancewithProceduralOrderNo1.Yourssincerely,

FalcoAmadeusChairmanoftheArbitralTribunal

Encl.:ProceduralOrderNo1


VIACArbitrationProceduralOrderNo1

2October2015

1. AfteritsconstitutionandreceiptofthefilefromtheVIACtheArbitralTribunalinvitedthe

Partiestoparticipateinatelephoneconferenceon1October2015.AtthatmeetingtheArbitralTribunalandthePartiesdiscussedthevariousoptionsinstructuringthearbitralproceedingsinacostandtime‐efficientmanner,takingintoaccounttheundertakingbyRESPONDENT’snewmanagementtodeliver4.500bottlesofMataVeltin2014by1November2015.TheArbitralTribunalwantstothankbothpartiesfortheirverycooperativeapproachandtheirwillingnesstoresorttounusualundertakingstopotentiallyreducecosts.

2. TheArbitralTribunaltakesnoteofthefactsthatRESPONDENT

doesnotchallengethejurisdictionofthisArbitralTribunalbutthatRESPONDENTexplicitlyconsentedattheTelephoneConferencethatthisArbitralTribunalestablishedonthebasisoftheVIACRuleshasjurisdictiontohearthedisputeundertheVIAC‐Rulesinlinewiththeotherprovisionsofthearbitrationagreement.

will–forthetimebeing–notcontestthattheterminationofcontractwasabreachofcontract,butreservestherighttodososhouldtheArbitralTribunalcometotheconclusionthatinsuchacaseRESPONDENTwouldbeliableforthedamagesrequestedbyCLAIMANT;

willdeliver4.500bottlesofMataVeltin2014withoutprejudiceandwithoutadmittingorrecognizinganylegalobligationunderthecontracttodoso.

3. BothpartiesareremindedthattheaboveundertakingsweregivenbyRESPONDENT’snew

managementsolelyasanefforttofacilitatetheproceedingsandtoallowforcostefficientdisputeresolution.TheymaymerelybeusedtoprovesuchacommitmentofRESPONDENTtoefficientdisputeresolution.Innowayshouldtheybeunderstoodastheadmittingofaparticularvieworunderstandingatthetimethecontractwasenteredinto.

4. Inthelightoftheseundertakings,theparticularitiesofthecase,theParties’discussionsand

inagreementwiththePartiestheArbitralTribunalhasdecidedtoaddressCLAIMANT’sclaimsfordamagesfirstonthebasisoftheassumptionthattheterminationofthecontractandtherefusaltodeliveranywinewasabreachofcontract.Furthermore,theArbitralTribunalwillfirstmerelyaddressthequestionswhetheranexistingdamagesclaiminprinciplecoversthevariousheadsofdamagesclaimed.AnydetaileddiscussionwillthenoccursubsequentlyoncetheArbitralTribunalhastakenadecisiononwhetherornottogranttherequestfordocumentproduction.InthelightoftheArbitralTribunal’sconclusiononthedamageswhichmaybedueinsuchascenarioRESPONDENTisthenentitledtodecidewhetheritwishestopursueitsoriginaldefencethatthedecisiontoterminatetherelationshipwasnotabreachofcontractbutjustifiedinthelightofboththelimitedquantitiesofwineproducedin2014andCLAIMANT’sbehavior.Thatwouldthenbeaddressedinasecondphaseofthiscase,shouldRESPONDENTdecidetoseekadecisiononwhetheranysuchbreacheveractuallyoccurred.

5. InthelightoftheseconsiderationstheArbitralTribunalherebymakesthefollowingorders:

(1)IntheirnextsubmissionsandattheOralHearinginVindobona(HongKong)thePartiesarerequiredtoaddressthefollowingissues:


a. Doesthetribunalhavethepowerand,ifso,shoulditorderRESPONDENTtoproducethedocumentsrequestedbyCLAIMANT?

b. IsCLAIMANTentitledtothedamagesclaimedforthelitigationcostsofUS$50.280incurredpartly

i. initsapplicationforinterimrelief?ii. initssuccessfuldefenceagainsttheproceedingsintheHighCourtof

CapitalCityßc. CanCLAIMANTclaimtheprofitsRESPONDENTmadebysellingthebottlesto

SuperWinesaspartofitsdamages,evenifthatincludesfurtherprofits?ThePartiesarefreetodecideinwhichordertheyaddressthevariousissues.Nofurtherquestionsgoingtothemeritsoftheclaimsshouldbeaddressed.

(2)FortheirsubmissionsthefollowingProceduralTimetableapplies:

a.Claimant’sSubmission:notlaterthan10December2015b.Respondent’sSubmission:nolaterthan19January2016

(3)ThesubmissionsaretobemadeinaccordancewiththeRulesoftheMootagreeduponatthetelephoneconference.Consequently,concerningtheproceduralissuesinNo.(1)(a),thePartiesshouldaddressthequestiononthebasisthatthetribunal’sgeneraljurisdictionisnowuncontested.OnlyitspowertoorderdocumentproductionundertheexistingarbitrationclauseinfavourofanarbitrationundertheViennaRulesiscontested.Furthermore,thepartiesareinagreementthatthecontract,aswellasthearbitrationclauseincludedin,itaregovernedinprinciplebytheCISG,ifnospecialproceduralrulesapplytothearbitrationclause.DanubiahasadoptedtheUNCITRALModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitrationwiththe2006‐amendments.

(4)ItisundisputedbetweenthePartiesthatEquatoriana,MediterraneoandDanubiaare

ContractingStatesoftheCISG.ThegeneralcontractlawofallthreestatesisaverbatimadoptionoftheUNIDROITPrinciplesonInternationalCommercialContracts.

(5)IntheeventPartiesneedfurtherinformation,RequestsforClarificationmustbemadenotlaterthan22October2015viatheironlineparty[team]account.

(5bis)ForthoseinstitutionsparticipatingONLYINTHEVISEASTquestionsshouldbe

emailedtoclarifications@vismoot.org.WhereaninstitutionisparticipatinginbothHongKongandVienna,theHongKongteamshouldsubmititsquestionstogetherwiththoseoftheteamparticipatinginViennaviathelatter’saccountontheViswebsite.

Clarificationsmustbecategorizedasfollows:

1. Questionsrelatingtoapplicableprocedurallaw2. Questionsrelatingtoapplicablesubstantivelaw3. Questionsconcerningthearbitrationagreement4. QuestionsconcerningtheconclusionoftheFrameworkAgreement(with

exceptionofthearbitrationagreement)


5. QuestionsconcerningthecontactswithSuperWines/MrBarolo6. QuestionsconcerningthevisitofMsBuharit7. QuestionsconcerningClaimant’sbusiness8. QuestionsconcerningRespondent’sbusiness9. Questionsconcerningtheapplicationforinterimrelief10. Questionsconcerningtheapplicationforadeclarationofnon‐liability11. Questionsconcerningthefeeagreement12. Otherquestions

6. BothPartiesareinvitedtoattendtheOralHearingscheduledfor19–24March2016inVindobona,Danubia(7–13March2016inHongKong).Thedetailsconcerningthetimingandthevenuewillbeprovidedinduecourse.

FortheArbitralTribunal

FalcoAmadeusChairmanoftheTribunal

Documents

Twenty Third Annual Willem C. Vis International Commercial … · 2015-10-01 · Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot And Thirteenth Annual Willem C. Vis (East)