The “Supply Contract” with Road Diggers Pte Ltd

at
Categories
Tags

Heavy Duty Pty Ltd (“Heavy Duty”) is an Australian company involved in the production of power tools. It enters into a contract (the “Supply Contract”) with Road Diggers Pte Ltd (“Road Diggers”), a company incorporated in Singapore which sells tools to the construction industry in Singapore and Malaysia. The Supply Contract is governed by the law of England and Wales and contains an arbitration agreement, as follows:
“All disputes arising under this Supply Contract shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the ACICA Rules of Arbitration (2021).”
The Supply Contract’s substantive terms are that Heavy Duty will supply 500 jackhammers to Road Diggers, and Road Diggers will pay AUD 1,000,000 (in two instalments). The jackhammers will be used by Road Diggers in the construction of a new freeway from the south of Singapore Island to the straits of Johore in the north (“the Freeway Project”).
Before entering into the Supply Contract, Heavy Duty had provided Road Diggers with a brochure which purported to set out a record of its past experience in supporting major infrastructure projects. This brochure contained the false claim that it had provided jackhammers that had been used by the Thai Government in the construction of the major
road between Bangkok and Phuket. Because this was similar to the Freeway Project, Road Diggers had confidence that Heavy Duty was the right commercial partner to choose. The Supply Contract was therefore signed, and Road Diggers made an initial payment of AUD 500,000 to Heavy Duty.
After the jackhammers have been delivered, Road Diggers begins using them but the jackhammers malfunction. Specifically, the sharp end of the jackhammer which is used to break open the rocky ground surface fails, with the result that the 500 jackhammers purchased under the Supply Contract are useless. Road Diggers complains to Heavy Duty that the jackhammers were not designed to the right specification; it withholds payment of the remaining AUD 500,000 and demands that the initial payment be refunded. For its part, Heavy Duty rejects Road Diggers’ claim, and demands payment of the outstanding AUD 500,000.
Meanwhile, Road Diggers learns from a business partner in Thailand that a different company (not Heavy Duty) had provided the jackhammers for the road construction project between Bangkok and Phuket, and that Heavy Duty’s claim on its brochure was therefore false.
Road Diggers institutes proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking reimbursement of its AUD 500,000, plus compensatory damages of AUD 1,000,000 to cover costs caused by the delay to the Freeway Project, as well as unspecified punitive damages. It argues that the Supply Contract is void ab initio. In response, Heavy Duty argues that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, that the dispute should be referred to international arbitration, and that punitive damages cannot be awarded.
Question 1.A: How should the Supreme Court of New South Wales decide whether it should exercise jurisdiction over the dispute or whether the dispute should be referred to international arbitration?

Assume that the Supreme Court of New South Wales refers the dispute to international arbitration under the ACICA Rules. Heavy Duty is represented by the Sydney law firm “Smith and Chan LLP”, and appoints a Melbourne-based barrister, Maria Koukoulas QC, as its party-appointed arbitrator. Road Diggers is represented by the Singaporean law firm “Raffles & Lee LLC”, and appoints Jonathan Wang SC, a Singapore lawyer in independent practice, as its party-appointed arbitrator. Professor Gabrielle Kwan, a professor at the University of Hong Kong, is appointed as the presiding arbitrator.
Ten months after the constitution of the Tribunal, Road Diggers learns from informal sources that Maria Koukoulas QC is routinely appointed as arbitrator by Smith & Chan LLP. After making further discreet inquiries (from sources which are not in the public domain), it emerges that Ms Koukoulas has accepted six arbitral appointments from Smith & Chan LLP in the past five years. Internet searches also reveal that Ms Koukoulas is listed as a “friend” on the Facebook page of Barry Smith, the lawyer at Smith & Chan LLP who is acting for Heavy Duty in the arbitration, and that they are connected on “LinkedIn”.
And a perusal of Barry Smith’s (public) Instagram account suggests that he and Ms Koukoulas regularly see each other in a social setting. Road Diggers is concerned about these revelations.
At the same time, Heavy Duty discovers that Jonathan Wang SC had, some five years earlier, authored an article on the availability of punitive damages, expressing a view that “punitive damages are always available in international commercial arbitration where there is unacceptable conduct by a commercial party, irrespective of the applicable law.” This makes Heavy Duty concerned about Mr Wang’s views.
In addition, Road Diggers is anxious that information about the dispute be kept confidential.
Question 1.B: What can Road Diggers and Heavy Duty do about their concerns regarding Ms Koukoulas QC and Mr Wang SC? What procedure (if any) should be followed, and which body (if any) would make the decision? And what should Road Diggers do (if anything) to maintain confidentiality related to the arbitration?

 

Sample Solution 

Transient memory is the memory for a boost that goes on for a brief time (Carlson, 2001). In reasonable terms visual transient memory is frequently utilized for a relative reason when one can’t thoroughly search in two spots immediately however wish to look at least two prospects. Tuholski and partners allude to momentary memory similar to the attendant handling and stockpiling of data (Tuholski, Engle, and Baylis, 2001). They additionally feature the way that mental capacity can frequently be antagonistically impacted by working memory limit. It means quite a bit to be sure about the typical limit of momentary memory as, without a legitimate comprehension of the flawless cerebrum’s working it is challenging to evaluate whether an individual has a shortage in capacity (Parkin, 1996).

 

This survey frames George Miller’s verifiable perspective on transient memory limit and how it tends to be impacted, prior to bringing the examination state-of-the-art and outlining a determination of approaches to estimating momentary memory limit. The verifiable perspective on momentary memory limit

 

Length of outright judgment

The range of outright judgment is characterized as the breaking point to the precision with which one can distinguish the greatness of a unidimensional boost variable (Miller, 1956), with this cutoff or length generally being around 7 + 2. Mill operator refers to Hayes memory length try as proof for his restricting range. In this members needed to review data read resoundingly to them and results obviously showed that there was a typical maximum restriction of 9 when double things were utilized. This was regardless of the consistent data speculation, which has proposed that the range ought to be long if each introduced thing contained little data (Miller, 1956). The end from Hayes and Pollack’s tests (see figure 1) was that how much data sent expansions in a straight design alongside how much data per unit input (Miller, 1956). Figure 1. Estimations of memory for data wellsprings of various sorts and bit remainders, contrasted with anticipated results for steady data. Results from Hayes (left) and Pollack (right) refered to by (Miller, 1956)

 

Pieces and lumps

Mill operator alludes to a ‘digit’ of data as need might have arisen ‘to settle on a choice between two similarly probable other options’. In this manner a basic either or choice requires the slightest bit of data; with more expected for additional complicated choices, along a twofold pathway (Miller, 1956). Decimal digits are worth 3.3 pieces each, implying that a 7-digit telephone number (what is handily recollected) would include 23 pieces of data. Anyway an evident inconsistency to this is the way that, assuming an English word is worth around 10 pieces and just 23 pieces could be recollected then just 2-3 words could be recalled at any one time, clearly mistaken. The restricting range can all the more likely be figured out concerning the absorption of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the qualification being that a lump is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can differ generally (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option enormous pieces right away, fairly that as each piece turns out to be more recognizable, it tends to be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and appointed to lumps.

Transient memory is the memory for a boost that goes on for a brief time (Carlson, 2001). In down to earth terms visual momentary memory is frequently utilized for a relative reason when one can’t search in two spots without a moment’s delay however wish to look at least two prospects. Tuholski and partners allude to transient memory similar to the attendant handling and stockpiling of data (Tuholski, Engle, and Baylis, 2001). They likewise feature the way that mental capacity can frequently be unfavorably impacted by working memory limit. It means a lot to be sure about the ordinary limit of momentary memory as, without a legitimate comprehension of the unblemished mind’s working it is hard to evaluate whether an individual has a shortfall in capacity (Parkin, 1996).

 

This survey frames George Miller’s verifiable perspective on transient memory limit and how it tends to be impacted, prior to bringing the exploration forward-thinking and representing a determination of approaches to estimating momentary memory limit. The authentic perspective on transient memory limit

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.
Hi, how can I help?