Switzerland / 07 February 1984 / Switzerland, Tribunal Fédéral (Federal Tribunal) / Tradax Export SA v. Amoco Iran Oil Company
| Country | Switzerland |
| Court | Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) |
| Date | 07 February 1984 |
| Parties | Tradax Export SA v. Amoco Iran Oil Company |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II |
| Source |
http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Amoco entered into an agreement with Tradax for the transportation of oil, which contained an arbitration clause stipulating New York as the place of the arbitration. Amoco sued Tradax before the Tribunal of First Instance in Geneva; Tradax objected to the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute should be resolved by arbitration. The Tribunal of First Instance and the Court of Justice in Geneva found for Amoco. Tradax lodged a public law appeal arguing that the two tribunals should not have applied cantonal law but Article II NYC. The Swiss Federal Tribunal allowed Tradax’s appeal, holding that Article II NYC obliges the Contracting States to recognize the effect and validity of an arbitration agreement. Specifically, the term ‘agreement in writing’ was held to include a clause in a contract or arbitration agreement that is signed by the parties or contained in telegrams or letters exchanged by the parties (2.2). Therefore, the fact that Amoco’s signature did not appear on the bills of lading did not deprive the arbitration clause of its effect, even if the bills of lading did not specifically refer back to the arbitration clause in the agreement between Amoco and Tradax (3.bb). In deciding whether the parties envisaged the clause’s application even though it was not mentioned in the bills, the Tribunal had recourse to the parties’ experience in similar transactions (3.cc). |
| see also : |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
