Please let me know if you would be interested in continuing the
negotiations.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
George Drill
General Manager
Claimant's Exhibit 7
COMMERCIAL COURT
OF MEDITERRANEO
THIRD DIVISION
On 28 June 1997 PETITIONER, Speculative Drilling, Co., a company
incorporated in Mediterraneo and having its main headquarters at 123 Water
Street, Petroleum,
Mediterraneo, petitioned this court to order RESPONDENT, Deep Well Drilling,
Inc., a company
incorporated in Equatoriana and having its main headquarters at 1 Deep Well
Place, Industrial City,
Equatoriana
- To proceed to arbitration under the arbitration clause in a contract
alleged to have been concluded between PETITIONER and RESPONDENT on 5 June
1997, and
- Not to sell the drilling rig to any third party pending resolution of
the dispute between SPECULATIVE and DEEP WELL.
RESPONDENT filed its answer in this Court on 5 July 1997. It acknowledged
the jurisdiction of this Court. It denied the conclusion of the alleged
contract, including
the alleged arbitration clause. RESPONDENT requested this Court to deny the
petition in its
totality.
On 8 July 1997 PETITIONER and RESPONDENT appeared before this court by
their attorneys. Following a hearing, RESPONDENT withdrew its request that
this Court deny the
petition in its totality. RESPONDENT agreed to an order of this Court that
the dispute between
PETITIONER and RESPONDENT as to whether PETITIONER by its telefaxed letter
of 5 June 1997
effectively accepted the offer of 13 May 1997 for the purchase and sale of
RESPONDENT's drilling
rig #23 should be determined by arbitration in accordance with Clause 7 of
the draft contract
sent to PETITIONER on
13 May 1997.
In regard to PETITIONER's request for an order that RESPONDENT not
sell the drilling rig
to any third party pending resolution of the dispute, RESPONDENT argued that
the request was unnecessary. If the arbitral tribunal found that a contract
had been
concluded, RESPONDENT would
be liable for any damages that might have been caused to PETITIONER.
Furthermore, RESPONDENT pointed out that the selling price of drilling rigs
had become volatile since
the announcement on
28 May 1997 of the existence of a large oil field. If the arbitral tribunal
agreed that no contract had been concluded between PETITIONER and
RESPONDENT, RESPONDENT was
in danger of losing
the possible profit that it might make on the sale of the rig during the
period of the order. RESPONDENT argued that the potential hardship to it
from not being permitted
to sell the rig would increase significantly the longer the order was in
force and as the date
when it no longer would have any use for the rig in Polarity approached.
PETITIONER agreed that RESPONDENT should be adequately protected against
the possible loss of profit that might ensue. It offered to post a guarantee
in the form of a
bank guarantee in the amount of E$20,000,000 issued by a suitable bank in
Equatoriana in favor
of RESPONDENT if 1)
the arbitral tribunal should determine that no contract for the sale of
drilling rig #23 had been concluded between PETITIONER and RESPONDENT, and
2) the arbitral tribunal
determined that RESPONDENT had suffered a loss in profits from not being
permitted to sell rig
#23 during the period of this order. Thereupon, RESPONDENT withdrew its
request that the order
not be issued.
On September 1, 1997 this court was notified that the required bank
guarantee in the amount
of E$20,000,000 had been issued by the Bank of Commerce of Equatoriana.
Be it understood, this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and
the dispute by virtue of the Code of Civil Procedure, article 16(c),
As to the merits, pursuant to the authority granted this Court by
Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 2214 to 2223
- PETITIONER and RESPONDENT are ordered to proceed to arbitration pursuant
to the terms of the draft contract dated 13 May 1997,
- RESPONDENT is ordered not to sell drilling rig #23 to any third party
pending resolution of
the dispute between PETITIONER and RESPONDENT by the arbitral tribunal or
until 14 April 1998,
whichever shall come first. If the arbitral tribunal has not resolved the
dispute prior to 14
April 1998, it is invited to consider whether it should issue a further
order prohibiting PETITIONER from selling the rig for some further period of
time.
(Signed)________________
Presiding Judge
Commercial Court
Third Division
15 July 1997
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTER
OF DANUBIA
Speculative Drilling, Co.
Claimant
v.
Deep Well Drilling, Inc.
Respondent
STATEMENT OF DEFENSE
MAY IT PLEASE THE TRIBUNAL
I. The Facts
- (a) Deep Well Drilling, Inc. (hereafter referred to as DEEP WELL) is
incorporated in the country of Equatoriana and has its principal place of
business at 1 Deep Well
Place, Industrial City, Equatoriana.
(b) Speculative Drilling, Co. (hereafter referred to as SPECULATIVE) is
incorporated in the
country of Mediterraneo and has its principal place of business at 123 Water
Street, Petroleum
City, Mediterraneo.
- Both DEEP WELL and SPECULATIVE are engaged in the oil business. Since
1976 DEEP WELL has been developing a field in the country of Polarity known
as Active #1. The
field has been extensively developed and by the spring of 1997 we came to
the conclusion that we
would not need our one remaining drilling rig, known as rig #23, as of
sometime late in 1998.
About this time SPECULATIVE approached DEEP WELL with a view to purchasing
our rig #23. It was
exploring in a new field in Polarity known as Active #2, and it hoped to
receive a concession to
develop the field commercially. It desired to use the rig in that
field.
- The negotiations lasted from 15 March to 9 May 1997. At the end of that
time agreement had
been reached on all of the terms except for the price. The negotiations had
been difficult. SPECULATIVE wished to be free to cancel the contract if the
Government of
Polarity did not grant it the concession. The Government was not required to
make its decision until
15 September 1998.
Eventually, agreement was reached that SPECULATIVE would have the right to
cancel the contract
until 30 September 1998, but that it would have to pay a penalty for doing
so, which would be
10% or 15% of the contract price, depending on the date.
- From the viewpoint of DEEP WELL the proposed contract remained
problematical. DEEP WELL faced the possibility that SPECULATIVE would decide
not to take the rig at
about the time that DEEP WELL would no longer have a use for it. The penalty
that SPECULATIVE would
have to pay might
not be sufficient to reimburse DEEP WELL for the cost of finding a new
purchaser and transporting the rig from Polarity. Therefore, DEEP WELL was
insistent on the price of
E$30,000,000 at which it had offered to sell the rig.
- The offer in the form of a draft contract was transmitted to SPECULATIVE
by letter of 13 May 1997. (Claimant's Exhibits 1 and 2) By its letter of 21
May 1997
SPECULATIVE rejected the
offer and made a counter-offer of E$28,000.000. (Claimant's Exhibit 3) On
3 June 1997 DEEP WELL acknowledged the rejection of the offer and withdrew
its offer of 13 May
1997. (Claimant's Exhibit 4) Subsequently, SPECULATIVE attempted to accept
the offer of
13 May 1997 by its
telefax of 5 June 1997 (Claimant's Exhibit 5), but DEEP WELL reaffirmed
its withdrawal of the offer on 6 June 1997 (Claimant's Exhibit 6).
- Subsequent to SPECULATIVE's rejection of the offer of 13 May 1997 and
the withdrawal of
the offer by DEEP WELL, on 17 June 1997 SPECULATIVE attempted to make the
first payment that would have been called for if the draft contract had been
accepted. DEEP WELL
rejected the payment. The following day, 18 June 1997, the General Credit
Bank of Equatoriana
opened a bank guarantee for E$33,000,000 naming DEEP WELL as beneficiary.
The guarantee would
also have been called
for if the draft contract had been concluded, as claimed by
SPECULATIVE.
- On 24 June 1997 DEEP WELL sent SPECULATIVE a letter reminding it that,
if a contract of sale of rig #23 had been concluded by the SPECULATIVE
telefax of 5 June 1997,
payment of the E$3,000,000 and establishment of the bank guarantee would
have been due ten days
later, that is on 15 June 1997. The letter also reminded SPECULATIVE that
under paragraph 3 of
the draft contract
DEEP WELL would have the right to avoid the contract. (Respondent's
Exhibit 2)
- On 28 June 1997 SPECULATIVE petitioned the Commercial Court of
Mediterraneo to order DEEP WELL
- To proceed to arbitration under the arbitration clause in the contract,
and
- Not to sell the drilling rig to any third party pending resolution of
the dispute between SPECULATIVE and DEEP WELL.
- Although DEEP WELL insisted that no contract had been formed, and that,
therefore, there was no arbitration clause, it soon became obvious that the
alternative would
be litigation in the
courts of Mediterraneo. Therefore, DEEP WELL decided to acquiesce in an
order of the Commercial Court referring the dispute to arbitration on the
same terms as those in
the draft contract.
DEEP WELL also acquiesced in an order of the Commercial Court that it should
not sell the drilling rig to any third person for sufficient time for an
Arbitral Tribunal to
be appointed and for it to consider whether a contract for the sale of
drilling rig #23 had
been entered into. The
order of the Court expires on 14 April 1998. DEEP WELL had indicated to the
Court that it believed that that would be the latest at which it would be
able to begin
orderly procedures for sale of the rig for delivery at the time it will no
longer be needed by DEEP
WELL, which was expected to be late summer 1998. The Court also took account
of the fact that
the market for drilling rigs had become volatile as a result of the
discovery of the new field in
Oceania, and that
delay in the time when DEEP WELL might be able to enter into a contract for
sale of rig #23 might mean a significantly lower price than might otherwise
have been realized.
Therefore, it conditioned its order on the issue of a bank guarantee in the
amount of
E$20,000,000 in favor of DEEP WELL to cover such possible losses. The bank
guarantee expires on 30
April 1998.
- Two events occurred subsequent to the issue of the order by the
Commercial Court that are relevant to the disposition that the Tribunal may
make of this
case.
- On 15 September 1997 the Prime Minister of Polarity stated
in a news conference that the difficult economic situation in the country
was leading his
Government to review all major capital programs. When asked whether that
might include the
infrastructure needed to develop Active #2, he replied that all major
capital programs would be
reviewed and that some that would be of great long-term benefit to the
country might need to be
postponed. (Respondent's Exhibit 1, not reproduced)
- On 26 August 1997 DEEP WELL determined that rig #23 would no longer be
needed by early spring 1998, rather than late summer of 1998 as had
previously been expected. At
the same time DEEP
WELL was approached by Oceania Oil Ltd to determine whether it had any
drilling rigs that might be available within the next year. On 17
September 1997 DEEP WELL
entered into a contract to sell rig #23 to Oceania Oil Ltd for E$40,000,000.
The contract is
conditional on DEEP WELL being free to deliver the rig by April 30, 1998. If
DEEP WELL is not able
to deliver the rig
by that date, the contract lapses.
II. The Law
A. Terms of the Arbitration
- DEEP WELL has agreed to arbitrate on the basis of the arbitration clause
in the draft contract of 13 May 1997. Therefore, it agrees that the
arbitration should be
conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and that the International
Arbitration Center of
Danubia should administer the arbitration. The arbitration will also be
governed by the UNCITRAL
Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which has been adopted by
Danubia. DEEP WELL
has participated in
establishing the Arbitral Tribunal and is prepared to proceed in accordance
with the agreed procedures.
B. Applicable law
- Both Equatoriana and Mediterraneo had acceded to the United Nations
Convention on Contracts
for the International Sale of Goods prior to the negotiations between DEEP
WELL and SPECULATIVE. Therefore, the Convention is the governing law.
Although DEEP WELL would
resist application
of the principles of international commercial contracts on the basis of
paragraph 8 of the draft contract, it would not object to their application
by the Arbitral
Tribunal if an issue were
to arise that could not be settled by the proper application of the United
Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.
C. The offer dated 13 May 1997 was revocable
- Article 16(2) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods provides that "an offer cannot be revoked: (a)
if it indicates, whether
by stating a fixed
time for acceptance or otherwise, that it is irrevocable;". The letter of
13 May 1997 by which
DEEP WELL extended the offer stated "In light of our extensive
negotiations, we expect to hear
from you by 10 June." This was the expression of an expectation and did not
constitute a fixed
time for acceptance of the offer. It was not the type of statement that
would make the offer irrevocable. Therefore, DEEP WELL was free to withdraw
the offer at any time,
as it did in its letter of 3 June 1997.
D. SPECULATIVE rejected the offer in its letter of 21 May 1997
- The SPECULATIVE letter of 21 May 1997 stated that the price of
E$30,000,000 for the rig contained in the offer of 13 May 1997 "is just too
much." SPECULATIVE went on
in the letter to offer E$28,000,000 for the rig and said that "we would ask
you again to
consider it." Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for
the International Sale of
Goods makes it clear
that a reply to an offer that contains different terms relating, inter
alia, to the price constitutes a rejection of the offer and a counter-offer.
Article 17 states that
"An offer, even if
it is irrevocable, is terminated when a rejection reaches the
offeror."
E. Even if a contract was formed, the late payment of the E$3,000,000 and
the late establishment of the bank guarantee authorized DEEP WELL to avoid
the
contract
- Paragraph 3 of the draft contract provided that "If either payment is
not made or the bank
guarantee is not established as provided in this contract, Seller shall have
the right to avoid
the contract." Paragraphs 1 and 2 provide that the first payment and the
establishment of the
bank guarantee are to take place "within ten (10) days of the conclusion of
the contract." If SPECULATIVE were to be held to have accepted the offer on
5 June 1997 by its
telefax, both the payment and the bank guarantee would have had to have been
completed by 15
June 1997. However, they took place on 17 and 18 June 1997. Therefore, by
the terms of the
contract DEEP WELL had the right to avoid the contract, which it did by its
letter of 24 June 1997.
(Respondent's Exhibit 2)
F. Even if the arbitral tribunal were to find that a contract exists
between DEEP WELL and SPECULATIVE, it should not order DEEP WELL not to sell
rig #23 to any third
party
- The situation has changed markedly since DEEP WELL sent its offer to
sell the rig on 13 May
1997 and since SPECULATIVE sent its telefax purporting to accept the offer
on 5 June 1997.
- The market price of drilling rigs immediately increased by approximately
15 percent on the
announcement of the new oil field in Oceania on 28 May 1997. That appears to
be the major reason that SPECULATIVE attempted to accept the DEEP WELL offer
of rig #23 for
E$30,000,000.
- The announcement by the Prime Minister of Polarity on 15 September 1997
that the Government
would review all major capital programs and that some that would be of
great long-term benefit
to the country might need to be postponed increases significantly the
likelihood that SPECULATIVE will avail itself of paragraph 6 of the draft
contract and cancel the
contract at sometime
prior to 30 September 1998.
- The potential harm to DEEP WELL by ordering it not to sell rig #23 to
any third party awaiting the decision of SPECULATIVE as to whether it will
take the rig or cancel
the contract has increased enormously since the offer was made on 13 May
1997 or the order of
the Commercial Court was entered on 15 July 1997. On the one hand the rig
will be surplus to
DEEP WELL's needs
approximately four months earlier than had been expected. On the other hand
the contract to sell the rig to Oceania Oil Co. for E$40,000,000 is
conditional on DEEP WELL
being free to deliver
the rig by April 30, 1998. If DEEP WELL is not able to deliver the rig by
that date, the contract lapses. In the turbulent nature of the current
market for drilling rigs
it is impossible to
estimate the likelihood of securing a replacement contract on equivalent
terms.
- Therefore, may it please this Tribunal
- To declare that no contract of sale of rig #23 exists between DEEP
WELL and SPECULATIVE, and, in the alternative
- If the Tribunal were to find that a contract of sale of rig #23 exists
between DEEP WELL and SPECULATIVE, to reject the request of SPECULATIVE that
- DEEP WELL be ordered to deliver the drilling rig to SPECULATIVE if
SPECULATIVE should decide to take the rig in accord with article 5 of the
contract.
- DEEP WELL be ordered not to sell the drilling rig to any other party
prior to the determination to be made by SPECULATIVE in accord with article
6 of the
contract.
For Deep Well Drilling, Inc
(Signed)______________
Attorneys
23 September 1997
Respondent's Exhibit 1
Press release of Press Conference
Prime Minister of Polarity,
15 September 1997
[Not reproduced, Relevant substance in
Respondent's Answer, paragraph 9]
Respondent's Exhibit 2
DEEP WELL DRILLING, Inc.
1 Deep Well Plaza
Industrial City
24 June 1997
Mr. Harvey Wells
General Manager
Speculative Drilling, Co.
123 Water Street
Petroleum City
Mediterraneo
Dear Mr. Wells:
I refer to our previous correspondence in regard to rig #23.
It is understandable why you continue to insist that a contract
exists
between our two firms
for the sale of the rig. You should note, however, that if a contract had
been concluded as a
result of your telefax of 5 June 1997, payment of the E$3,000,000 and
establishment of the bank
guarantee would have been due ten days later, that is on 15 June 1997. The
payment was not credited to our account until 17 June, and was refused by us
as being too late,
and the bank guarantee was not opened until 18 June.
As you know, paragraph 3 of the draft contract was very specific that
we
would have the right to avoid the contract if either the payment or the bank
guarantee had not
been accomplished by the date specified in the contract.
I regret that our relations have deteriorated to the extent they
have.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
George Drill
General Manager
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTER
OF DANUBIA
Speculative Drilling, Co.
Claimant
v.
Deep Well Drilling, Inc.
Respondent
PROCEDURAL ORDER No. 1
I wish to commend the parties for their cooperation in planning
for this arbitration. There is agreement that the Tribunal must be ready to
give at least a
provisional award prior
to the expiration of the order of the Commercial Court of Mediterraneo on
14
April 1998. Because of the various commitments of the members of this
Tribunal and of counsel
it has not been possible to fix a date for any oral hearing that may be
necessary prior to 4
April 1998. Therefore, argument will be scheduled for 4 April 1998, lasting
as long as may be
necessary through 9 April 1998.
The facts in the dispute do not appear to be in conflict. Therefore,
the
facts as alleged by
the two parties will be accepted as being correct until further notice.
Furthermore, the facts
appear to be sufficiently clear for the parties to present their case and
for the Tribunal to
reach an award. Nevertheless, it has been agreed that a limited period for
further factual inquiry might be useful through the Secretary of the
Tribunal. The parties may
submit their questions to the Secretary of the Tribunal at Pace Law School
up to and including
Friday, 24 October 1997. Replies to these inquires will be distributed to
counsel by November 3,
1997. If additional factual inquiries appear to be necessary after the
exchange of memoranda
and the oral hearing, the Tribunal will issue a further order at or
following the hearing.
Since the Tribunal will have the opportunity to hold only one set of
hearings prior to the expiration of the order of the Commercial Court of
Mediterraneo, it has been
decided that the memorandum to be submitted by counsel should discuss
both
- Whether a contract exists between Deep Well Drilling, Inc. and
Speculative Drilling, Co. for the sale of drilling rig #23, and
- If such a contract exists, whether the Tribunal should grant the relief
requested by Speculative Drilling, Co.
The hearing in April 1998 will also be devoted to both questions.
The memorandum for Claimant, Speculative Drilling, Co. will be due at
the
Secretariat of the
Tribunal in Vienna, Austria on 9 December 1997 in 25 copies accompanied by
a properly labeled
diskette. The memorandum for Respondent, Deep Well Drilling, Inc. will be
due at the Secretariat of the Tribunal in Vienna, Austria on 13 February
1998 in 25 copies with
diskette.
(Signed)______________
President of the Tribunal
3 October 1997