PERM STATE NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

NINETEENTH ANNUAL

WILLEM C. VIS INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION MOOT

30 March – 5 april

2012

VIENNA

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

Mediterraneo Elite Conferences Services Ltd, Claimant

V.

Equatoriana Control Systems Inc, Respondent

FACULTY OF LAW

PERM STATE NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

___________________________________________________

Roman Ishmukhametov ^. Ksenya Poplevina ^. Mariam Islamova ^. Yuri Ustinov ^. Vlada Ovchinnikova ^. Irina Maimust ^. Nikita Marin

Table of contents

Index of Authorities......................................................................................................... I

Index of Cases & Awards............................................................................................... V

Abbreviations.................................................................................................................. x

STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................ 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...................................................................................... 3

Argument......................................................................................................................... 5

I. The nature of the relationship between dr. Mercado and the presiding arbitrator gives rise to a conflict of interest and dr. Elisabeth mercado is to be dismissed from this arbitration

A. The Presiding Arbitrator and Dr. Mercado’s teaching at the same university constitutes a conflict of interest that gives rise to a justifiable doubt in Professor’s impartiality

B. The Presiding Arbitrator and Dr. Mercado’s encounters in previous arbitrations constitutes a conflict of interest

C. The relationship between Dr. Mercado and the Presiding Arbitrator’s wife and children constitutes a conflict of interest

II. It is legally possible to remove Dr. Mercado from the present arbitration.

A. The fact that there is no expressed authority to remove counsel under the parties’ agreement, the Model Law or the CIETAC Rules, does not mean that there is no such opportunity as such.

III. If CLAIMANT DOES NOT AGREE TO REMOVE DR. MERCADO WE ARE, INDEED, FORCED TO CHALLENGE THE PRESIDING ARBITRATOR.

IV. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT BREACH THE CONTRACT FUNDAMENTALLY

A. Late delivery cannot be considered as a fundamental breach of contract according to the Article 25 CISG and commentary to it.

V. RESPONDENT SHOULD BE EXCUSED FROM LIABILITY UNDER THE ARTICLE 79 DUE TO IMPOSSIBILITY TO OVERCOME AND FORESEE THE IMPEDIMENT

A. Late delivery and installation of master control system was caused by the impediment to performance which was beyond the Respondent’s control.

B. The Respondent should be exempted from liability due to good faith conduct

VI. RESPONDENT SHOULD BE EXCUSED FROM LIABILITY UNDER THE ARTICLE 79 (2)

A. Article 79(2) is applicable to the present case

B. In accordance with CISG provisions, the Respondent in order to be exempted from liability under Art. 79(2) should prove that “third party” to the Respondent should be also exempted from liability under Art. 79(1) because of failure to perform its obligation due to the impediment occurred beyond its control.

C. Specialty Devices could not overcome the consequences of impediment occurred

D. It is justified to claim that D-28 chips might have been supplied before fire occurred.