Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorGilabert Gascón, Albano
dc.contributor.otherPetit Lavall, María Victoria
dc.contributor.otherUniversitat Jaume I. Departament de Dret Privat
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-20T07:08:17Z
dc.date.available2017-10-20T07:08:17Z
dc.date.issued2017-06-20
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10234/169466
dc.descriptionTreball Final de Grau en Dret. Codi: DR1052. Curs acadèmic: 2016/2017ca_CA
dc.description.abstractThis paper will cover the Jaume I University participation in the IX Edition of MOOT Madrid, an International Competition of Arbitration and Trade Law organized by the Carlos III University of Madrid and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNICTRAL). The MOOT is a competition which joins Universities from all around the world. From a fictional case, the participants have to prepare a statement of claim, a statement of defense and then prepare the exposition and defense of the case, as in a real Court of Arbitration could take place. The competition lasts from November until April. In November the case is published and then the teams must start to write the statement of claim. This part must be delivered in January. During these months, our functions were focused on searching jurisprudence and doctrine and write the statement of claim. After that, a statement of claim drafted from an anonymous University is handed to our team and, in accordance to it we had to write down the replay to that statement. Once both documents are properly delivered, ends the theoretical part and the practical part starts. We have to prepare the trial which takes place in Madrid, in April and with that the competition ends. Regarding to Jaume I University experience in this competition, this year has been its fourth participation, adding again new awards in the theoretical part. The team has won two prizes: the second place in the Albert H. Kritzer Prize and the first place in the statement of defense. The case of the last edition has been a fictional case written by Pilar Perales Viscasillas and Tatiana Arroyo Vendrell with the collaboration of David Ramos Muñoz, teachers of the Carlos III University. The case has been written also with the collaboration of Carlos Pascual Pons, Daniel Vargas and Jaime Pingarrón. The characters of the case are inspired in Spanish literary books. Particularly in this edition has been chosen the names of the live and work of Gabriela Mistral, a Chilean poetess who won the Nobel Prize. Analyzing the controversy, it happened between LAGAR II, S. A. (onward, LAGAR II) and TALA, S.A. (onward, TALA). LAGAR II, our represented, is a company belonging to the multinational group called LAGAR which principal establishment is in the State of Andina. LAGAR Group is one of the most important iron and steel and mining producer on national and international level, in particular of steel, with applications in different industries such as automotive and construction, with presence in more than 60 countries and more than 200.000 employees. TALA is a company founded in accordance with the law of Cervantia, with registered office in Cervantia. It’s a company which produces and distributes aluminum. It is the first in the State of Magallanes with almost the 60 per cent of market share of aluminum type 100456A. Furthermore is one of the leading companies in the world followed by MIREYA Group and ALUWORLD Group. TALA has production factories of aluminum in many countries, being relevant to the present process its production factories of aluminum in the State of Magallanes. LAGAR II signed January 1, 2.014 a contract of exclusive supply with TALA in execution of a prior agreement of joint venture between both companies, called LAGATALA. The purpose of both contracts was to provide a new material technologically advanced to DANA, which is the leading manufacturer in the automotive industry of Magallanes. The material is made up of aluminum and steel and it is very flexible and highly resistant. It has been created by DANA’s researchers for the manufacture of cars with a safer structure as well as to be used in the aerospace sector. The joint-venture had was intended to the construction of a processing plant of aluminum and steel in Magallanes. TALA provided aluminum ingots, while LAGAR II contributed with the “know how” and the steel. Once produced the material, it was sent to DANA in order to be manufactured. During the years 2.014 and 2.015, the supply of TALA to the joint venture occurred without incident. However, since the beginning of 2016, TALA stopped the aluminum supply in accordance with was agreed. By that reason, LAGAR II has had high problems to fulfil its obligations with DANA.Due to the vagueness of the answers given by TALA to fulfill its obligations, June1, 2.016, LAGAR II resolved the supply contract as well as the joint venture contract. Furthermore, in order to avoid breaching its contractual obligations, LAGAR II had to buy aluminum from other companies that produced it in Magallanes. So LAGAR II celebrated two purchases with the MIREYA group and a purchase with the ALUWORLD group. By this reason, the cost of production was increased. Furthermore, the defendant acquired the 50,36 per cent of STEELARC company, which is one of the world’s leading producers of steel by oven and a direct competitor of LAGAR II. As a result and, especially, because of the concern that TALA will not commit in the future the obligations assumed, the plaintiff requests the Arbitral Court: 1) First, to declare that both the supply contract of January 1, 2014 and the previous joint venture agreement between LAGAR II and TALA are subject to the CISG. Otherwise, if the Court considers that the joint venture contract cannot be governed by the CISG, Cervantia Law should be applied and not UNIDROIT principles. In any case, the UNIDROIT principles can be applied to complement the CISG. 2) Secondly, TALA has breached its obligation to provide timely aluminum and TALA's acquisition of 50.36% of STEELARC's capital constitutes a breach of the joint venture agreement. These contractual breaches justify the resolution of both contracts: the supply contract and the joint venture agreement. 3) Thirdly, on the one hand, the strike of TALA’s workers does not in any case prevent the resolution of the supply contract for just cause. On the other hand, as the strike does not constitute a case of force majeure, LAGAR II has the right to demand compensation for the damages incurred, in addition to the payment of the penalty clause agreed in the supply contract. 4) In fourth place, it has not been established that TALA holds a dominant position in the aluminum market No 100456-A, so there can be no abuse. In any case, exclusive purchasing agreement contained in the supply contract contributes to promoting the technical progress of whose benefit participating consumers and cannot therefore, be declared void. 5) Finally, LAGAR II is not obliged to comply with the policies and commitments assumed by TALA in relation to the environment. Even if it were, this part would not have violated any commitment with the environment. Secondarily, otherwise, such breach of the supply contract cannot be regarded essential, nor demand compensation for damages, since the respondent has not proved its existence nor the amount. Indeed, they are indirect damages excluded by the supply contract.ca_CA
dc.format.extent68 p.ca_CA
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfca_CA
dc.language.isospaca_CA
dc.publisherUniversitat Jaume Ica_CA
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/*
dc.subjectGrau en Dretca_CA
dc.subjectGrado en Derechoca_CA
dc.subjectBachelor's Degree in Lawca_CA
dc.titleCaso MOOT 2017: demanda (parte de Derecho Sustantivo)ca_CA
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesisca_CA
dc.educationLevelEstudios de Gradoca_CA
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessca_CA


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem