Abdolhossein Shiravi,; Seyyedeh Mitra Moosavi
Abstract
This article seeks an appropriate response to the issues that the parties to international shipbuilding contracts struggle with and they are lawsuits arising from disputes related to the manner of risk distribution in these contracts as well as the variety of associated cases and their referral to arbitration ...
Read More
This article seeks an appropriate response to the issues that the parties to international shipbuilding contracts struggle with and they are lawsuits arising from disputes related to the manner of risk distribution in these contracts as well as the variety of associated cases and their referral to arbitration tribunals or international courts. Identifying existing or perceived risks in international shipbuilding contracts and the quality of management and distribution of these risks among the contracting parties have a significant impact on the life and survival of the contract and on achieving the desired result and the ultimate goal of the contract. A wide range of financial, legal, political, technical and economic risks are involved in the contract, the distribution of which must also be detailed. besides, national, regional and international legal rules and requirements in the field of maritime standards restrict and regulate the freedom of will of the parties. The main risks include design, technical or qualitative risk and financial risk. The effects and guarantees of each of these risks vary and the way out of them should be foreseen in the clauses of the contract or other similar documents in the light of the principle of sovereignty of the will and it should also be specified which party bears the burden of these risks. Risk, as the case may be, is borne by the party to the contract who has the greater capacity, power and from technical, legal or financial point of view has the capacity to compensate and procure it. Depending on the case, the design risk is borne by the design provider (owner, builder or design consultant), technical or quality risk is borne by the builder until the end of the warranty period, and financial risk is borne by the financing applicant
AhmadReza Asaadinejad; Abdolhossein Shiravi; Mehdi Montazer
Abstract
In many Petroleum contracts, the parties put renegotiation clause in order to keep longtime balance, so that if the balance disrupted, the parties should be obliged to renegotiate in order to rehabilitate the contract balance. So if renegotiation process didn’t reach result, what will happen to ...
Read More
In many Petroleum contracts, the parties put renegotiation clause in order to keep longtime balance, so that if the balance disrupted, the parties should be obliged to renegotiate in order to rehabilitate the contract balance. So if renegotiation process didn’t reach result, what will happen to the contract? Also in which circumstances the parties have right to recourse arbitration? Do arbitrators have the right to adjust the contract? In one side, keeping the balance was the first base of the agreement, and by disrupting the balance the continuation of contract would become unfair and in contrast with common intention, and on the other side, termination of the contract without party consent is impossible. In the absent of arbitration clause, one parties can recourse to the arbitration tribunal, so that the tribunal can arbitrate the case if it is deduced from implicit agreement or enforceable law that it has jurisdiction. In case of putting adjustment right for arbitrator, he can adjust it. otherwise, it can be understood from the first intention of the parties, economical logic, principles of international trade law and the principle of similarity of arbitrator and judge authorities that the arbitrator has right to use adjustment.
