United States / 30 June 1992 / United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit / Ministry of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Gould, Inc.; Gould Marketing, Inc.; Hoffman Export Corporation; Gould International, Inc. / 91-55135 / 91-55136
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Date | 30 June 1992 |
| Parties | Ministry of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Gould, Inc.; Gould Marketing, Inc.; Hoffman Export Corporation; Gould International, Inc. |
| Case number | 91-55135 / 91-55136 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(c) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | The Government of Iran entered into an agreement with Hoffman Export Corporation (“Hoffman”), an American corporation, for the sale of military equipment to Iran. A dispute arose and arbitration was commenced before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal pursuant to Article II of the Claims Settlement Declaration, which established the Tribunal. During the arbitral proceedings, Hoffman was merged into Gould Marketing, Inc. (“GMI”). The Tribunal ruled in favor of Iran and ordered GMI to pay certain sums to Iran and “to make available to Iran” certain communications equipment in possession of GMI. Iran sought confirmation and enforcement of the award in the United States federal courts. The District Court confirmed the monetary portion of the award, but modified the specific performance portion of the award. GMI appealed, arguing that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in rendering an award. Both parties appealed the Court’s order modifying the specific performance portion of the award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit confirmed the monetary portion of the award and vacated the part of the award which ordered GMI to make available certain equipment. In so ruling, the Court of Appeals expressed no views as to whether the District Court’s action concerning specific performance of the award was allowed under the NYC. It rejected GMI’s argument that the award should not be enforced pursuant to Article V(1)(c) NYC because it exceeded the scope of the parties’ pleadings. It stated that the award dealt with a “difference falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration” and found that under the NYC, it could only examine whether the award exceeded the scope of the Claims Settlement Declaration and not whether the award exceeded the scope of the parties’ pleadings. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Pending Adobe Acrobat PDF |
