TC – 27

Arbitration Competition, 2024

Before

International Arbitration Center, Singapore

[PETITION / APPLICATION / CASE] NUMBER _ / [2023]

Under Singapore International Arbitration Centre

(SIAC) Rules, 2016

IN THE CASE CONCERNING [International Trade]

AND

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

Ultra Strength Power …………CLAIMANT

Company Limited

versus

Vision Power Company ………...RESPONDENT

Limited
 I. Facts of the case:
The present dispute arises out of a series of events concerning an Agreement between Ultra
Strength Power Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant") and Vision Power
Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"). The Claimant, a leading processor
of Magnesium, Nickel, and similar minerals in Faricia, entered into an Agreement with the
Respondent, a large-scale Thermal Power Manufacturing Unit in Cromania, for the supply of
semi-processed Magnesium and Nickel.
The Agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent was initiated in December 2018, with
subsequent restructuring due to the global pandemic (COVID-19) in December 2020. Despite the
challenges posed by the pandemic, both parties adhered to the amended Agreement until the
Respondent terminated it on 7th April 2022, alleging non-compliance with quality standards by
the Claimant.
Throughout the duration of the Agreement, the Claimant diligently fulfilled its obligations,
delivering goods in accordance with the restructuring terms. However, the Respondent withheld
payments for the 3 tranches, which the Claimant rightly disputed due to non-receipt of the
agreed-upon payments. The respondent without notifying the claimant, terminated the
agreement. This brings the claimant to arbitration tribunal to claim for the unpaid payments.

II. Relevant Legal Framework

The Agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent is subject to the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), as mutually agreed upon by
both parties. Furthermore, the Agreement includes a dispute resolution clause mandating
arbitration under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules, 2016.

III. Arguments on Issues Raised in the Problem:

Issue no.1:
i. Whether proceedings before this Tribunal have abated in view of the fact that the
Respondent have invoked Treaty Arbitration under the Bilateral Investment Treaty and
consequently an Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted?
It is humbly submitted that the current arbitration under the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT)
supersedes the arbitration clause in the Agreement lacks merit. The Agreement between the
parties explicitly stipulates arbitration under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre
(SIAC) Rules, 2016 (Annexture 1). Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is clear and
cannot be overridden by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
 ii. Issue II
Whether the Government of Faricia be joined to the current proceedings?
It is humbly submitted before the tribunal that the request for joinder of the Government of
Faricia is baseless. The Agreement is a private commercial contract between the Claimant and
the Respondent, and the involvement of governmental bodies is not warranted. Furthermore, the
issues in dispute are contractual in nature and do not involve governmental interests or actions.
The parties had voluntarily involved themselves in the agreement for the business purposes and
accordingly they have added the clauses, in which one of the clauses is to amend or reconstruct
the agreement with the consent of both the parties and also to resolve the dispute through
arbitration. That’s why the dispute should be only resolved between the parties and no external
third party should be entertained by the tribunal.
Furthermore, the government of Fracia is already in a war like situation and they do not have any
time to get involved in the dispute between two parties which they do not concern.
iii. Issue III
Whether the termination of the contract by the Respondent is justified and whether the parties are
entitled to receive the respective Claims as damages?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble tribunal that the Respondent's termination of the Agreement is
unjustified and in violation of the terms of the Agreement. The Claimant diligently fulfilled its
obligations under the Agreement, including delivering goods in accordance with the restructuring
terms agreed upon due to the global pandemic. Any alleged non-compliance with quality
standards is unsubstantiated and does not warrant termination without proper justification.
It is submitted that 3 trenches were already delivered to the respondent on 31.03.2022,
02.04.2022 and 06.04.2022. The payment for the further mentioned trenches were not paid fully
even after the receiving of the goods by the respondent and without paying the full amount, the
agreement was terminated on behalf of respondent.
Throughout the duration of the Agreement, the Claimant diligently fulfilled its contractual
obligations, delivering goods in accordance with the terms agreed upon by both parties. Any
disputes regarding quality standards should have been addressed through the dispute resolution
mechanism provided for in the Agreement, rather than unilaterally terminating the contract.
It is imperative for this Tribunal to uphold the sanctity of the Agreement between the parties.
Both parties entered into the Agreement voluntarily and are bound by its terms. The
Respondent's actions in unilaterally terminating the Agreement without proper justification
undermine the integrity of contractual agreements and must be remedied accordingly.
 Prayer
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that in the given facts and
circumstances of this case, it may, in the interest of justice, be pleased to:
a. The Claimant has suffered significant damages as a result of the Respondent's unjustified
termination of the Agreement. These damages include not only financial losses incurred
due to the termination but also reputational harm and disruption to business operations.
The Claimant is entitled to compensation for these damages, as per the terms of the
Agreement and applicable law.
b. The Claimant prays to the tribunal for a fair and impartial adjudication of the dispute in
accordance with the principles of law and equity, or
c. Pass any other order(s) which this Hon’ble tribunal may deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of this case.