Dispute over reduced payments on several invoices due to the produce being incorrect in size, count, or in deteriorated condition.
The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has developed a series of articles summarizing past arbitration decisions. These articles will help members understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in a dispute.
The DRC Dispute R&S states that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies, are not included. A reminder that the DRC’s sole role is to administer the arbitration process; the DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.
ABSTRACT
The arbitration decision addresses a dispute between parties from Mexico and Canada. The dispute began when Respondent issued short payments for various transactions, claiming that some shipments related to those transactions had problems, such as poor quality, incorrect product sizes, or incorrect quantities. The Claimant disagreed with these claims.
The arbitrator concluded that there was not enough evidence to support the Respondent’s arguments for reducing payments on certain transactions.
This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.
CASE: DRC File #18232 – Parties Domiciled – Mexico and Canada
SUMMARY OF FACTS
From June 2005 to August 2005, the Claimant sold a series of loads of mangoes to the Respondent.
The Claimant initiated this arbitration case because he believes the Respondent had not fully paid for these loads as outlined in the invoices and still owes him a total of US$9,544.00. Additionally, he claims the payments he received were late, which entitles him to interest. He is also seeking reimbursement of US$600.00 for the costs associated with filing this claim.
The Respondent disputes these allegations. In his Statement of Defence, he asserts that two of the loads were short in quantity, that the wrong sizes were shipped for two other loads, and that one load was compromised by excessive heat, leading to quality loss. As a result, he has made payments to the Claimant that reflect the actual value of what he received.
It seems that the two parties have engaged in extensive telephone conversations about the various loads at different times. However, neither party has documented any verbal agreements with written evidence, such as signed faxes, resulting in confusion about what was discussed and when.
Need Help Navigating Fresh Produce Trade Disputes?
Contact the DRC for information on memberships and expert guidance on preventing and resolving disputes.
Reach out to us today at info@fvdrc.com or visit www.fvdrc.com/contact to discover how we can help you
trade with confidence anywhere in the world.
