The Broadcasting equipment case: A CIETAC Arbitration Case Study

Tribunal	CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission)
Date of Award	1996-05-22
Docket No.	CISG/1996/25
Parties	Chinese Buyer (Claimant) v. Canada ( Seller (Respondent)
Goods/Sector	Broadcasting equipment
Key Issues	General principles; Waiver; Lack of conformity notice, timeliness; Fundamental breach; Avoidance; Conformity of goods; Restitution; Interest
CISG Articles	Art. 7(2), 25, 35, 39, 48, 49, 84(1)

Facts

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereafter, the "Arbitration Commission") accepted the case according to: - The arbitration clause in Sales Contract No. 92NLE7810 signed by Claimant [Buyer], China Nanjing __ Import & Export Company, and Respondent [Seller], Canada __ Company on 30 December 1992; and - The written arbitration application submitted by [Buyer] on 28 June 1995.

Legal Issues

This case raised the following questions under the CISG:

• Did the breach constitute a "fundamental breach" under CISG Art. 25? The tribunal assessed whether the non-performance substantially deprived the injured party of its contractual expectations — the threshold for invoking avoidance remedies.

• Was the injured party entitled to avoid the contract? Under CISG Art. 49/64, avoidance requires both a fundamental breach and proper notice under Art. 26. The tribunal examined whether these preconditions were met.

• Did the goods conform to the contract? The tribunal examined whether the delivered goods met the contractual specifications, quality standards, and fitness requirements under CISG Art. 35.

• Is the injured party entitled to interest on sums in arrears? Under CISG Art. 78, a party who fails to pay the price or any other sum in arrears is liable for interest, without prejudice to any claim for damages.

Practical Takeaways for International Businesses

1. Define breach thresholds in your contract. CIETAC applies the Art. 25 "fundamental breach" test strictly. Explicit remedies and termination triggers reduce ambiguity and protect both parties.

2. Avoidance requires proper notice. Under CISG Art. 26, a declaration of avoidance must be communicated to the other party. Failing to give timely notice can forfeit your right to terminate, even if the breach is fundamental.