Specification of an arbitration institution is an important expression of the willingness of the parties to arbitrate, and it is also a prerequisite for the arbitration institutions' jurisdiction over disputes. In foreign-related judicial review of arbitration cases, the court should review the validity of the arbitration agreement in accordance with the New York Convention. In international transactions, foreign civil subjects may use expressions that conform to the language norms of their countries in concluding a contract, so the court should fully consider the expression norms of the contract text when reviewing the case and make a comprehensive judgment.
An international company and a trading company in Beijing had disputes over a cotton sales contract. The International Cotton Association accepted the case and made a ruling, No. A01/2020 17, on August 21, 2020, but the trading company in Beijing failed to perform the award. The international company appealed to the court, requesting legal recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award. The trading company in Beijing argued that the arbitration institution agreed in the contract was the "ICA", and that this abbreviation could refer to multiple arbitration institutions, and it does not only refer to the International Cotton Association. And as the parties did not agree on the applicable law, the arbitration clause involved in the case should be ruled invalid.
After review, the court held that the arbitration clause involved in the case stipulated that arbitration on quality issues should be conducted in accordance with the rules of the Milan Cotton Exchange, and any other arbitration should be conducted in accordance with the rules of the ICA. As both parties are mainly engaged in the purchase and sale of cotton, and the contract involved in the case is concluded on matters related to the sale of cotton, and according to the contract, it can be inferred the parties' true will of choosing an arbitration institution. According to the arbitration rules agreed by the parties in the contract, both parties agreed to apply the rules of the Milan Cotton Exchange to quality issues and the rules of the ICA to non-quality issues. And the acronym ICA refers to an arbitration institution in the contract, it can be determined that the ICA has a specific, clear and unique reference, namely the International Cotton Association. Therefore, the argument raised by the trading company in Beijing that the parties did not agree on a clear arbitration institution was not established and nor was the submission that the parties had not agreed on a clear arbitration institution or on the applicable law. The international company submitted to the court a notarized record of emails delivered from the International Cotton Association to the trading company in Beijing, and the trading company in Beijing also recognized that the email address delivered to it by the International Cotton Association was the email address of its salesperson. Therefore, it can be determined that the International Cotton Association served and notified the trading company in Beijing, and the arbitration procedure was legal and valid. Consequently, the court determined that the ICA mentioned in the case has only one possible reference, that is, the International Cotton Association. The arbitration agreement was found legal and valid, and the service procedure was also legal so the arbitration award involved in the case was recognized and enforceable.
