Research aids
Cases and commentary
Find carefully limited case notes and the official UNIDROIT commentary pages that discuss a particular article.
These are external research aids. Case records are short notes drawn from the named publisher's abstract, not the full decision, and later treatment has not been comprehensively checked. The UNIDROIT commentary records are page finders: read the official commentary itself. Neither collection is received authority or law of this Court.
UNILEX · 2023-02-16 · Russian Federation
Trest-56 v RemStroyFasad
Arbitrazh Court of Komi Republic · A29-10328/2022
What happened: A construction customer disputed supplementary agreements signed by a person whose authority it challenged. The court examined correspondence, acceptance documents and payments.
Result: The contractor recovered payment. The court referred to Article 2.2.5 alongside Russian law when assessing authority inferred from the principal's conduct.
Limit: A third party's reasonable belief must be attributable to the principal. This domestic decision does not make an agent's own assertion sufficient or resolve every internal spending limit.
UNILEX · 2014-10-24 · Paraguay
Manzoni Wasmosy v INDERT
Tribunal de Apelación en lo Civil y Comercial de Asunción · SENTENCIA Nº95
What happened: A land authority fixed an adjudication price, then reversed its decision, increased the price and refused the beneficiary's payment.
Result: The appeals court treated the later decision as invalid. Judge Martínez Prieto invoked UNIDROIT good faith and inconsistent behaviour among supporting reasons.
Limit: The UNIDROIT discussion belongs to one member's opinion and expressly treats the Principles as nonbinding interpretive material. Public authority and domestic-law constraints still require separate analysis.
UNILEX · 2002-05-17 · Arbitral Award
Satellite equipment dispute — Lausanne partial award
Arbitration Court of the Lausanne Chamber of Commerce and Industry · Not supplied in the abstract
What happened: An equipment contract contained conflicting English and Swiss choice-of-law provisions. After a dispute arose, the parties accepted the tribunal's proposal to use the UNIDROIT Principles.
Result: The partial award found non-performance, citing confidentiality, good faith and foreseeable damages. It limited contra proferentem reasoning because both parties had reviewed the terms; damages quantum remained for the final award.
Limit: The abstract does not disclose enough confidential-information facts to establish a universal disclosure rule. Its Article 2.16 is linked here to the renumbered 2016 Article 2.1.16; the later final award includes a dissent on confidentiality.
UNILEX · 1995-09-22 · Netherlands
Ravast and Maxfield v De Ontvanger
Hoge Raad · 15754
What happened: A Dutch tax-attachment and mortgage-priority dispute raised the distinction between avoiding a transaction and terminating it. Advocate-General Hartkamp discussed cure in that comparison.
Result: The Supreme Court followed the advocate-general's conclusions. His comparative discussion cited UNIDROIT Article 7.1.4.
Limit: The judgment itself made no express UNIDROIT reference. This is a research lead on cure, not a holding that every terminated contract must be revived.
UNILEX · 2008-07-11 · Netherlands
Eiseres v Atria Watermanagement
Hoge Raad · C07/012HR
What happened: A purchaser of bulb-cleaning machinery challenged a seller's liability exclusion, relying on incorporation objections and the seller's insurance.
Result: The Supreme Court rejected the purchaser's challenge. The advocate-general cited commentary to Article 7.1.6 in discussing international acceptance of exclusion clauses.
Limit: The UNIDROIT reference is in the advocate-general's reasoning. Validity depends on applicable domestic law, incorporation and fairness; the existence of insurance does not itself settle contractual liability.
UNILEX · 2014-10-22 · Uruguay
Uruguayan shipyard fire — liability exclusion
Tribunal Apelaciones Civil 1st · SEF 0003-000176/2014
What happened: A claim for compensation followed a fire on a vessel at a Uruguayan shipyard. The repair contract restricted the shipyard’s liability to willful misconduct of its technical staff.
Result: The appeal reversed the first-instance result and upheld the exclusion in the circumstances, referring to Article 7.1.6 alongside domestic law.
Limit: The abstract describes the claimant as the vessel owner, while the supplied judgment names an insurer. Verify that discrepancy in the original. The exclusion analysis concerns commercial parties and the absence of proven bargaining-power abuse.
UNILEX · 2011-09-08 · Colombia
Suramericana de Seguros v Compañía Transportadora
Corte Suprema de Justicia · 11001-3103-026-2000-04366-01
What happened: An insurer pursued a carrier for damaged sea cargo. An intermediate appeal had reduced damages by applying the bill of lading's liability limitation.
Result: The Colombian Supreme Court restored the first-instance damages. It relied on domestic limits on contractual exclusions and cited Article 7.1.6 in support.
Limit: This is a decision under Colombian carriage law. Read it alongside decisions upholding commercial exclusions; citation of the same UNIDROIT article does not produce the same result regardless of facts.
UNILEX · 2022-04-22 · Colombia
B&B Consortium v INVIAS — roadworks payment
Consejo de Estado · --
What happened: A roadworks consortium claimed unpaid work certificates and interest from Colombia's roads authority. The contract included a limitation protecting the authority.
Result: The Council of State maintained the breach finding while adjusting payment and interest awards. Its comparative analysis cited Article 7.1.6 when explaining limits on exclusions.
Limit: The court's discussion of intentional harm limits the clause's potential reach; it should not be restated as a finding that intentional harm was proved in this dispute.
UNILEX · 2000-09-18 · International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
Joseph Charles Lemire v Ukraine — settlement award
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) · ARB(AF)/98/1
What happened: An investor and Ukraine settled a broadcasting investment dispute after arbitration began. Their agreement included interpretation and implementation provisions drawn from UNIDROIT.
Result: The settlement was recorded as an award. Its agreed provisions covered matters including cure, additional time and hardship.
Limit: This records what the parties agreed. It is not an adjudicated holding that a particular attempted cure succeeded or that hardship was established. Earlier numbering is mapped to current articles only for navigation.
UNILEX · 1997-07 · Arbitral Award
ICC Award 8873 — construction hardship
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 8873 · 8873
What happened: A contractor sought renegotiation after unforeseen construction difficulties increased costs. The parties had chosen Spanish law, but the contractor argued that UNIDROIT hardship rules were trade usages.
Result: The tribunal rejected that route to applying the Principles, finding the hardship provisions did not then reflect current international trade practice.
Limit: This 1997 award addresses its own choice-of-law clause and the trade-usage argument made then. It does not rule out expressly choosing the Principles or establish their present status in every forum.
UNILEX · 1997-05-05 · Arbitral Award
Iran Ministry of Defense v Cubic Defense Systems — ICC 7365/FMS
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 7365/FMS · 7365/FMS
What happened: Military-equipment contracts governed by Iranian law were disrupted by the Iranian revolution. The parties also agreed that general international principles and trade usages could supplement that law.
Result: The tribunal used UNIDROIT to inform hardship, implied obligations and termination consequences, but refused to let a suggested international interest rule contradict an unambiguous Iranian provision.
Limit: Supplementary use has limits. The award did not replace the chosen domestic law wholesale. Its old restitution provision has since changed and is not silently equated with the current text.
UNILEX · 2013-11-13 · Lithuania
V. D. and others v AB DNB bankas
Supreme Court of Lithuania · 3K-3-523/2013
What happened: Borrowers facing increased interest after the financial crisis sought revised repayment terms and withheld performance when the bank refused.
Result: The Lithuanian Supreme Court rejected adaptation: a fundamental change in contractual equilibrium had not been established. It also rejected a right to withhold performance, citing domestic law and UNIDROIT.
Limit: Financial difficulty alone does not establish the required change. A request to renegotiate should be distinguished from an independently justified right to suspend performance.
UNILEX · 2012-09-04 · France
D21 v Gabo
Cour d'Appel de Reims · 11/02698
What happened: A heating-unit seller refused delivery at the agreed price after raw-material costs rose by 4–16%. It requested renegotiation; the buyer sought damages and a contractual penalty.
Result: The Reims appeal court found hardship unproved and rejected a right to suspend on that basis. It also rejected the buyer's inadequately supported monetary claims.
Limit: This is not a universal numerical hardship threshold. The court did not decide that UNIDROIT was incorporated as a trade usage. Breach and proof of recoverable loss remain separate questions.
UNILEX · 1997-01-20 · Arbitral Award
Russian International Arbitration Court Award 116 — sales termination
International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation · 116
What happened: A Russian organization and a Hong Kong company entered a sales contract without a governing-law clause. Once a dispute arose, they authorized UNIDROIT for questions not expressly regulated by the contract.
Result: The tribunal recognized termination and addressed restitution and the price difference on a replacement transaction.
Limit: The short abstract gives little detail about the breach or replacement transaction. It cannot establish that any breach is fundamental or that any replacement price is recoverable. The older restitution article is not presented as the current text.
UNILEX · 2009-12-16 · Switzerland
Swiss Federal Supreme Court 4A 240/2009 — material breach
Bundesgericht · 4A 240/2009
What happened: A chemical-supply contract chose domestic Swiss law and allowed termination for material breach uncured after notice. The tribunal found non-performance insufficiently material to justify termination.
Result: The Supreme Court rejected challenges to the award. Reference to CISG and UNIDROIT helped interpret the contractual expression under Swiss law; the court did not treat it as applying an excluded foreign law.
Limit: The decision concerns the contract's wording and a Swiss setting-aside challenge. It does not authorize disregarding chosen law or withholding an opportunity to address every unexpected legal theory.
UNILEX · 1997-12 · Arbitral Award
ICC Award 8817 — distribution, practice and mitigation
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 8817 · 8817
What happened: A Spanish and Dutch distribution relationship broke down amid payment delays and a competing commercial relationship. The contract did not choose a governing law.
Result: The tribunal awarded damages for termination and unfair competition. It cited UNIDROIT on established practices and mitigation alongside CISG Articles 9 and 77.
Limit: The award's Article 1.8 meant practices under the earlier edition; its current navigation counterpart is 1.9, not today's inconsistent-behaviour Article 1.8. The abstract does not quantify a mitigation deduction.
UNILEX · 2000-08 · Arbitral Award
ICC Award 9651 — equipment and precontractual fraud
ICC International Court of Arbitration 9651 · 9651
What happened: An Indian buyer alleged that a German equipment supplier had induced contracts by fraud. It argued that Indian law should govern negotiations despite the Swiss-law clause.
Result: The tribunal read the choice-of-law provision as extending to formation disputes, referring to UNIDROIT interpretation principles and comparative treatment of deception.
Limit: The abstract establishes the governing-law ruling, not that fraud was ultimately proved. The historical Article 3.8 is cross-linked to current Article 3.2.5 for research.
UNILEX · 1996-09-04 · Arbitral Award
ICC Award 8540 — agreement to negotiate
ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 8540 · 8540
What happened: A pre-bid agreement required a telecommunications supplier and cable manufacturer to negotiate in good faith if a bid succeeded. Negotiations failed after the supplier won the project.
Result: Applying New York law, the tribunal treated the negotiation commitment as enforceable and ordered negotiations to resume within the preliminary agreement's parameters. UNIDROIT supported its reasoning.
Limit: An enforceable commitment to negotiate is not an obligation to accept every proposed term or proof that the contemplated final supply contract already exists.
UNILEX · 2020-05-04 · Italy
TAR Campania 1614 — avoidable relocation impediment
T.A.R. Campania · 1614
What happened: A tobacco shop received permission to relocate on a force-majeure rationale after eviction notice. Nearby shopkeepers challenged that permission.
Result: The court annulled the measure, noting three years available to find suitable premises in the original area. It cited UNIDROIT when defining an impediment that could not reasonably be avoided or overcome.
Limit: This is an administrative authorization dispute, not a supply-contract damages holding. Its useful comparison is avoidability, not a universal three-year rule.
UNILEX · 2004-03-04 · Arbitral Award
Ad hoc distribution award — acquiescence and settlement talks
Ad hoc Arbitration (Place unknown) · Not supplied in the abstract
What happened: A manufacturer challenged a distributor's purchases and competing sales after a long commercial relationship. It had known of competing sales without objecting.
Result: The tribunal rejected the belated competing-sales complaint as inconsistent with the manufacturer's conduct. It separately found that rejecting proposed settlement terms did not itself breach good faith.
Limit: Good faith does not require agreement to proposed settlement terms. Acquiescence depends on the actual conduct and knowledge proved; this award does not waive every future contractual right.
CLOUT · 2010-11-03 · United Kingdom
Dallah v Pakistan Ministry of Religious Affairs
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom · [2010] UKSC 46
What happened: A trust contracted with Dallah, but an award was subsequently made against Pakistan's government. Dallah sought enforcement in England.
Result: The Supreme Court refused enforcement because the government was not bound by a valid arbitration agreement under the French-law analysis applicable in that proceeding.
Limit: The enforcement court independently examined consent; the tribunal's jurisdiction ruling did not settle it. This records the English proceeding, not the separate French outcome or a universal rule that nonsignatories can never be bound.
CLOUT · 2013-10-31 · Singapore
PT First Media v Astro Nusantara
Court of Appeal of Singapore · [2013] SGCA 57
What happened: An arbitral tribunal joined entities that had not signed the arbitration agreement. First Media did not bring the available immediate court challenge to the preliminary jurisdiction ruling.
Result: The appeal court permitted a later jurisdiction defence to enforcement and refused enforcement for the joined entities, while allowing enforcement for the original parties.
Limit: The court separately examined waiver and estoppel. Its choice-of-remedies reasoning does not authorize ignoring every objection deadline; distinguish a passive enforcement defence from an active challenge and check forum law.
CLOUT · 2020-06-01 · United States of America
GE Energy v Outokumpu Stainless USA
Supreme Court of the United States · 590 U.S. 432 (2020); No. 18-1048
What happened: A subcontractor sought arbitration under agreements it had not signed. The appellate court treated the Convention as barring reliance on domestic equitable estoppel.
Result: The Supreme Court reversed that categorical barrier: Article II does not foreclose domestic-law grounds for referring nonsignatories to arbitration.
Limit: The case was remanded to determine governing law and whether estoppel actually allowed enforcement. It did not hold that every affiliate, subcontractor or agent can compel arbitration.
CLOUT · 2021-06-25 · Australia
Hub Street Equipment v Energy City Qatar
Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia · [2021] FCAFC 100
What happened: A claimant obtained court appointment of all arbitrators without first following the contractual party-appointment procedure. The respondent stayed away. Proceedings also used a different language from the agreement.
Result: The appeal court refused enforcement because the tribunal had been constituted contrary to the agreement, despite the seat court's appointment order.
Limit: The language defect was treated separately and had not caused material prejudice. The decision distinguishes a fundamental appointment defect from another procedural irregularity; neither nonparticipation nor a seat-court order answers every enforcement question.
CLOUT · 2019-05-09 · Singapore
Rakna Arakshaka Lanka v Avant Garde Maritime Services
Court of Appeal of Singapore · [2019] SGCA 33
What happened: The parties agreed to withdraw arbitration, but proceedings continued without the respondent's participation.
Result: The court set aside the award: the settlement ended the tribunal's mandate.
Limit: The treatment of an unchallenged preliminary ruling concerned a nonparticipating respondent with a valid objection. Do not generalize it to participating parties.
CLOUT · 2019-11-18 · Singapore
ST Group v Sanum Investments
Court of Appeal of Singapore · [2019] SGCA 65
What happened: Arbitration occurred in Singapore although the relevant agreement selected Macao. The objecting parties did not participate.
Result: The court refused enforcement of the award made at the wrong seat.
Limit: Two jurisdictions adopting the Model Law does not make their seats interchangeable. Participation and waiver require separate examination.
CLOUT · 2020-02-28 · Singapore
China Machine v Jaguar Energy
Court of Appeal of Singapore · [2020] SGCA 12
What happened: A contractor challenged an award over restricted document access and rolling disclosure.
Result: The appeal failed; procedural fairness was assessed contextually with deference to reasonable tribunal decisions.
Limit: Assess what the tribunal knew at the time. Raise concrete difficulties promptly; a full opportunity does not mean unlimited time.
CLOUT · 2023-06-30 · Hong Kong SAR, China
C v D — pre-arbitration conditions
Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong · [2023] HKCFA 16
What happened: A satellite-contract party argued that arbitration began before contractual negotiation requirements were fulfilled and sought court review as a jurisdictional defect.
Result: The court unanimously dismissed the appeal. A majority used the jurisdiction/admissibility distinction; the agreement submitted the precondition dispute to the tribunal.
Limit: The contractual language controls. Parties may clearly make a condition jurisdictional. The minority agreed with the result but considered the distinction unnecessary; do not present the majority's framework as unanimous reasoning.
CLOUT · 2012-03-09 · United Kingdom
Golden Ocean v Salgaocar Mining Industries
Court of Appeal of England and Wales · [2012] EWCA Civ 265
What happened: A guarantee was negotiated through a chain of emails. The final message used the broker's given name and did not repeat all the guarantee terms.
Result: The court accepted the email chain as writing and the name as an authenticating signature for the statutory guarantee requirement.
Limit: The CLOUT footnote expressly says English legislation need not enact UNCITRAL texts. Signature intention, connected documents and authority matter; an automated footer or every unsigned exchange is not automatically sufficient.
CLOUT · 2005-01-13 · Singapore
Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com — appeal
Court of Appeal of Singapore · [2005] SGCA 2
What happened: Buyers ordered large quantities of printers advertised online at a mistaken price far below their value. The retailer refused delivery.
Result: The appellate court upheld the finding of actual knowledge and the contracts' invalidity for unilateral mistake. It also discussed equitable relief where unfair conduct accompanies constructive knowledge.
Limit: Electronic formation does not displace domestic validity rules. Constructive knowledge alone was insufficient for the equitable route. This predates the 2024 Automated Contracting Model Law and does not apply it.