Mr. President and the member of the Tribunal , we are on behalf of Claimant , SUPERB , and we wish to have the following conclusion in this arbitration

• To decide that SUPERB has legal authority to sell the control system on 4^th April

• To decide that CONTROLS has the obligation to pay damages for SUPERB as a

• To order that RELIABLE should not be joined in the arbitration.

Well, the Claimant, SUPERB, insists that there are 4 big issues to be discussed .

They are: 1. The RESPONDENT, CONTROLS should pay damages to SUPERB.

2. SUPERB has the right to avoid the contract

3. SUPERB has the right to sell the control system.

4. RELIABLE should not be joined to this arbitration.

Now, we are going to explain these in one by one:

The 1^st issue is: The RESPONDENT, CONTROLS should pay damages to SUPERB.

In other word: CONTROLS has the obligation to pay damages as a result of the

delayed installation of the control system.

The reason is that C could have over come the impediment.

S insists they made the additional period because C failed to made installation

by 16 Sep.

S submits they made the concession for C to make installation.

But C did not complete installation so, S was suffered from that damages .

In short, S’s damages was occurred by C’s failure and so C should pay

damages.

To explain the reason why C should pay the damages is because C can not be exempted under Article 79(1) CISG.

To exercise the right under article 79(1), C should fulfilled the three impotant matters.

Second, the impediment was unable to foreseen.

Third, the impediment was unable to overcome.

And SUPERB argues that the situation of CONTROL does not apply to the third part of these factors. In short, C could have over come the impediment.

from Procedral order No.2 Factual Question No.14, it says :

There were three other firms potentially available to do work in Mediterraneo at that time. If CONTROLS approached them in August, all these three could have

made an installation team for S. And also not impossible even if the approach from CONTROLS was made after 2 September. They all agreed that the job would take two weeks if there were no problems.

S insists that under its obligation of the contract between S and C ,C should have worked more subjectively to overcome the impediment. It is true that RELIABLE was faced with difficulty, but CONTROLS itself was able to overcome the difficulty by finding another firm.

Since C failed to fulfilled the third factor required in Article 79(1).

S insists CONTROLS is not qualify under this to be exempted from paying

damages as a result of delayed install by 9 October.

To conclude the issue one, because C could have overcome the impediment and S was suffered for damages caused by C’s delayed installation, C can not be exempted for paying this damages.

For the 2^nd issue, my colleague { } will have a speech .

Let me turn to the the 3^rd issue: SUPERB has the right to sell the control system

SUPERB insists he has the right under Article 88 CISG to sell the control system..

To qualify under Article 88(1), SUPERB must apply to Article 86. And to apply article 86, it is more clear to talk from Art. 81 , so there are 2 parts to talk in this isuue.

Part a: is about Art.81

Part b: is about Art.86 and 88

SUPERB insists he applies to all of these, and may exercise the right to sell the system by Article 88(1)

Talking about the part a.:

Article 81(1) says, "Avoidance of the contract releases both parties from their

obligations under it, subject to any damages which may be

due."

This means , both SUPERB and CONTROLS may released from own

obligation since SUPERB avoided the contract on 9 October.

And from this "release" both begins to have obligation to make restitution of control system and advance payment those have been performed before.

SUPERB, who had paid its $400,000 to CONTROLS, can require the

reimbursement of this advance payment under Article 81(1).

In addition, this reimbursement must have done concurrently under Art. 81(2), and therefore S may exercise the right to retain the system until both parties’ restitution have done concurently.

Turn to the reason b.

About Art. 86 and 88

Article 86(1), says

" IF the buyer has received the goods and intends to exercise any right under the contract or this Convention to reject them, he must take such steps to preserve them as are reasonable in the circumstance, "

S argues that its situation corresponds to this Art 86(1).

First, SUPERB has received the control system on 20 August.

Second, SUPERB intends to reject this control system by avoiding the

contract and requiring to make restitution concurrently by Art.81.

Therefore SUPERB applies to Article 86(1) by avoiding the

contract on 9 October, and is entitled to preserve the control

system. In short, it was a duty of S to preserve the system in

accordance with Art.86(1).

Since S was bound to preserve the system under Art.86, S should have granted the right under Art. 88. Because C made unreasonable delay in taking back their system even though they received the notice from S on 13 March which shows S’s intention to sell the system. Therefore these circumstances apply to Art.88(1) and S has the right to cell the system.

In this issue , SUPERB also insists that it sold the system by appropriate means

In here, "appropriate means" is sufficient if it is taken honestly and is made by reasonable means of mercantile.

was a fair price for a system sold by a broker experienced in the sale of

similar equally equipment. S was the one who has no skill about the

control system , and so the only way to have the self-help sale for S was that

using the experienced broker. The amount suggested by C of $290,000 was

just an estimate and it does not corresponds to the value of the system in

Mediterraneo.

Consequently, from all above, SUPERB may say it was authorized to sell the control system on 4 April and it was by appropriate means

Let me talk about the 4^th issue: RELIABLE should not be joined to this arbitration

4^th issue is: RELIABLE should not join to this arbitration.

There are 2 reasons for this and they are:

• there exists only one contract which was made between S and C.. S has no contract with R , and R is under the honor of C, therefore it is enough for S to make its claims against C.
• Even if C claims by using Article 79(2)(b), C insists that R does not applies to this Article,, because C does not applies to Article79(1)

SUPERB insists that there is no need for R to be join in this arbitration.

Because,

SUPERB can not have the right to claim directly to RELIABLE who is not

the party to the contract between SUPERB and CONTROLS.

Therefore RELIABLE should not join to this arbitration.

On the basic of the all explained reasons ,we would like to ask , Dear arbitrators to give the following 4 demands to CONTROLS as your judgement.

.

• To decide that SUPERB has legal authority to sell the control system on 4^th April

• To decide that CONTROLS has the obligation to pay damages for SUPERB as a

• To order that RELIABLE should not be joined in the arbitration.