| 问题 | 仲裁申请书【中英文对照】 |
| 释义 | 【法律教育网】 APPLICATION FOR ARBITRATION 申诉人：MM公司 The Plaintiff： M. M. Corp. 地址： Address： 被诉人：VV有限公司 The Defendant： V. V. Co.， Ltd. 地址： Address： （一）事实依据： I. Statement of Facts： 申诉人MM公司和被诉人VV有限公司之间的争议的原因在于被诉人没有履行于1992年5月14日缔结的由其提供8，000公吨铝锭的470E和471E号合同义务。 This dispute existing between the Plaintiff， M. M. Corp. and the Defendant， V. V. Co.， Ltd was brought about by the Defendant\'s failure to commit itself to the contracts 470E and 471E concluded on the 14th of May， 1992 for the supply of 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots. 根据上述两个合同规定，8，000公吨铝锭本应在1992年7月至12月期内从欧洲数个港口全部发出，月装货量按合同具体规定执行。本公司，即申诉人，于1992年6月7日通过中国银行伦敦分行开出了E25520和E25733两张信用证。 According to the stipulations of the said contracts， 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots should have been completely delivered from European ports during a period from July to December， 1992， and each month a quantity specified thereby should have been shipped. This Corporation， the Plaintiff， issued letters of credit E25520 and E25733 on the 7th of June， 1992 through the Bank of China， London. 鉴于上述两个合同分别规定将汉堡、鹿特丹和安特卫普及汉堡和鹿特丹作为各自的发货港，故申诉人曾多次发电传给被诉人，要求其将发货港的具体名称及预备发货的时间告知申诉人，以便本公司派船。然而，被诉人对申诉人的电传却采取躲避态度，一直不予答复。 As these two contracts stipulate Hamburg/Rotterdam/Antwerp and Hamburg/Rotterdam respectively for the port of loading， the Plaintiff had therefore sent faxes on many occasions to the Defendant， asking them to advise the Plaintiff of the exact name of this Corporation to send vessels. But， the Defendant had failed to reply to those faxes dispatched by the Plaintiff by taking an evasive attitude. 直到申诉人电传和写信一再催促，并经我方驻某某城商务代表处协助洽商，被诉人才于1992年11月26日通过我方驻某某城商务代理处递交给申诉人一封信函，通知申诉人新的装货安排。按照这个新的装运安排，8，000公吨铝锭须在1993年1月6日期间内才能全部发出。 It was not until the Plaintiff sent faxes and letters time and again to urge on and with the help of our Commercial Office in [ ] city to negotiate with the Defendant， that the Defendant finally forwarded a letter on the 26th November， 1992 to the Plaintiff through our Commercial Office in [ ] city， informing the Plaintiff to the new arrangement for shipment. As being indicated by this new arrangement for shipment， the delivery of 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots would have to be completed within a period from January to June， 1993. 尽管被诉人不按合同所规定的时间履行交货义务已使申诉人损失惨重，但申诉人仍接受了由被诉人提供的新的装货安排。然而，被诉人却违反允诺，再次拒不履行由自己提出的新的装货安排，致使本公司蒙受了更大的损失。 In spite of suffering significant losses caused by the Defendant\'s failure to fulfill its contractual obligation， the Plaintiff still accepted the New arrangement for shipment presented by the Defendant. Whereas the Defendants had neither kept its original promise nor committed itself again to the subsequent arrangement for shipment put forward by itself， thus bringing even greater losses to the Plaintiff. 尽管如此，为让被诉人具有最后一次履行允诺以执行合同的机会，申诉人于1994年11月16日通过一名英国律师[ ]先生向被诉人转交了一封信函，说明准许被诉人在收到该信函起的45天之内履行其提交合同所规定货物的义务，如被诉人不履行义务，申诉人将依据上述两合同第16条的规定，正式将该争议提交对国际贸易易仲裁委员会仲裁，要求被诉人赔偿本公司遭受的一切损失。 Nevertheless， in order to enable the Defendant to meet its contractual obligation ultimately， the Plaintiff passed a letter on the 16th of November， 1994， through a British lawyer named Mr. [ ] to the Defendant， stating that the Defendant was permitted to meet its obligation to deliver the contracted goods within 45 days from the date it received the said letter， and that if the Defendant failed to do so， the Plaintiff would， according to the provision of Clause No. 16 of the contracts， formally submit the dispute to the F. T. Arbitration Commission for arbitration， asking the Defendant to compensate for all the losses sustained by this Corporation. 被诉人收到我信函的日期为1994年11月28日。45天期限截止之日为1995年1月12日，该期限如今已过，但被诉人根本没有履行其合同义务，也没有提出任何解决该争议的建议。他们甚至还在1995年2月7日写信无理指责申诉人在原信用证过期后没有开具新证，并由此说其不再具有其承诺提交合同所规定的铝锭的责任。 The date on which the Defendant received our letter was the 28th of November， 1994. The deadline of the 45 days period was on the 12th January， 1995， which has now passed， but the Defendant has done nothing at all to meet its contractual obligation， nor has it produced any proposal for the settlement of this dispute. It has even gone so far as to make a false charge through a letter dated the 7th of February， 1995， against the Plaintiff with failure to open a new letter of credit after its expiry， and has therefore assumed no responsibility whatsoever for its commitment to delivery for Aluminum Ingots concluded. 该争议的真实情况是：在收到被诉人1992年11月26日提供的新的装货安排之后，申诉人曾多次用传真和信函催促被诉人通知我方装货港的具体名称及货物已备好待运，但被诉人却对我方的电传和信件拒不答复，且拒绝承担合同义务，致使我方无法履行派船手续和提供合法信用证。显而易见，违约责任应完全由被诉方自己承担。我方现正式向对国际贸易易仲裁委员会提出申请，要求对本争议进行仲裁。 The true nature of this dispute is evident in the following fact： After the receipt of the new arrangement for shipment presented by the Defendant on the 26th of November， 1992， the Plaintiff sent many faxes and letters requesting the Defendant to inform the Plaintiff of the exact name of port of loading and the Advice of Goods ready for shipment， while the Defendant gave no answer at all to the Plaintiff\' faxes and letters and refused to meet its obligations under the contracts entered into， thus making it impossible for the Plaintiff to proceed with the procedures of sending vessels and extending the validity of letters of credit. Obviously， the liability for the non-execution of the contracts rests entirely with none other than the Defendant itself. The Plaintiff is therefore applying formally to the F. T. Arbitration Commission for arbitration of this dispute. 申诉人提出总金额为748，000英镑的索赔主张。 The claimed amount called for by the Plaintiff comes totally to ￡748，000. （二）索赔理由： 6，000公吨纯度为99.5%的铝锭，根据470E号合同，其价格为每吨152英镑，而当时（1993年6月29日）的市场通价为每公吨243至248英镑，价差为每公吨93.50英镑，6，000公吨铝锭的总价差为561，000英镑。 6，000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots of 99.5% purity， under contract 470E， were priced at ￡152 per metric ton. The market price prevailing at that time （the 29th of June， 1993） ranged from ￡243 to ￡248 per metric ton. The Price difference per metric ton is ￡93.50， giving a total difference of ￡561，000 for 6，000 metric tons. 另有2，000公吨纯度为99.7%的铝锭，按471E号合同的规定，价格为每吨154英镑，当时（1993年6月29日）的市场通价为每公吨245至250英镑，价差为每公吨93.50英镑，故2，000公吨铝锭的总价差便为187，000英镑。 Another 2000 metric tons of 99.7% purity Aluminum Ingots， under contract 471E were priced at ￡154 per metric ton. The market price on the 29th of June 1993， was between ￡245 and ￡250 per metric ton. The price difference per metric ton indicates ￡93.50， resulting in a total difference of ￡187，000 for 2000 metric tons. 上述两个合同规定的8，000公吨铝锭的总价差为784，000英镑（即561，000英镑加187，000英镑）。 The above-mentioned two contracts aggregate a sum of ￡748，000 （=￡561，000 ￡187，000） for the price difference of totally 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots. 申诉人在此除要求被诉人赔偿因违约而造成的总额为748，000（七十四万八千）英镑的损失之外，还要求负担此次的全部仲裁费用。 The Plaintiff hereby requests that it be compensated by the Defendant not only with an amount of losses totaling ￡748，000 （in Pound Sterling of Seven hundred and Forty Eight Thousands） caused by the Defendant\'s failure to execute the contracts concluded， but also with all costs arising from this arbitration. 随仲裁申请书附上3，740（三千七百四十）英镑，折合人民币15，729（一万五千七百二十九）元，用作仲裁费，预付《对国际贸易易仲裁委员会规则》第6条所规定之费用。 Enclosed ￡3，740 for filing fees （in Pound Sterling of Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty）， equivalent to the Chinese currency RMB15，729 （Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Nine Yuan）， paid in advance in compensation for the costs of arbitration in accordance with Clause 6 of the F. T. Arbitration Commission. 附件：委托指定仲裁员声明书 Enclosure： Statement of Appointing Arbitrator 申诉人：MM公司 M. M. Corp. 1995年5月20日 May 20， 1995 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律咨询问答库收录2074234条法律问答词条，基本涵盖了全部常用法律问题的释义及解析，是法律学习是实务的有利工具。