there are two discussion posts below. i need a response to each of these discussion posts. just a few sentences each. bringing up a couple of points and whether you agree or disagree and why, it needs to be respctful and in a positive way.
In my opinion The Federative Socialist Soviet Republic of Russia, that was the successor government should be responsible to finish the remaining payments to Miga. According to our text parties must decide in advance whether the arbitration decision will be final and binding and not subject to review by any courts. (page 869).
From the information in the question it clearly states that the agreement called for binding arbitration of any disputes at the Chamber of Commerce of Stockholm, Sweden, under Swiss law, and subject to enforcement in court in New York. I believe Miga was absolutely in the right for bringing suit to enforce the arbitration award. It seems as though this situation is black and white however RSFSR seems to think there is some gray area. As stated in the text the European Union allows for members to enact certain laws or regulations. There is also the allowance of national authorities to choose the form and means of implementation. Without these set policies it may seem that Miga may not have strong ground to stand on, however they are able to enacted and it is clear that they (Miga) have a strong case.
This is truly an interesting case; I believe that the company Miga should be awarded the full amount awarded by the Chamber of Commerce of Stockholm, Sweden arbitrator of $275 million. The reasons why I side with Miga, revolve around the fact that a government enters into an agreement on behalf of the people in that nation, therefore it does not matter who governs the country the current government is liable for debt as well as responsible for collecting outstanding revenue. This company took all the necessary legal action to ensure that the USSR and RSFSR would have a neutral arbitrator in Sweden, however to enforce the ruling, Miga chose a court who will take pleasure in ensuring payment. This was a very well thought out line of credit.
I believe Miga is negligent in the fact that they should have drafted and confirmed a new agreement with the RSFSR government in 1991 since they were the new government. However this does not eliminate the binding ruling and the arbitration process since the country never declined the delivery of the goods.
I would definitely rule in the favor of Miga and ensure that payments be made.
|Due By (Pacific Time)
||02/06/2015 08:30 pm