Full title: 49 existing court cases on invalidness of arbitration agreement - If there is ambiguity in the arbitration clause in the contract and both parties cannot reach a consensus, the arbitration clause shall be invalid (5)
Case 22. The dispute resolution clause of the agreement involved in the case stipulates both arbitration and legal means of resolution. However, if the resolution through legal means involves filing a lawsuit with a people's court or resolving the dispute through other legal means, the arbitration agreement is invalid due to violation of legal provisions.
Case Name: Wu's Application for Zhao's Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement
Case No.: (2020) Shaanxi 01 Minte No. 155
Reason for adjudication: Article 7 of the Agreement signed by Mr. Wu and Mr. Zhao stipulates that "if there is a dispute between the two parties during the performance of the agreement, it shall be settled through consultation first. If the consultation fails, the two parties shall have the right to apply to Xi'an Arbitration Commission for arbitration or solve it through legal channels." Article 7 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the China stipulates that: If the parties agree that a dispute can be applied for arbitration by an arbitration institution or sued by a people's court, the arbitration agreement shall be invalid. However, if one party applies for arbitration by an arbitration institution and the other party fails to raise an objection within the time specified in Article 20 (2) of the Arbitration Law. The parties agree in the arbitration agreement that if a dispute arises, they have the right to apply for arbitration by the Xi'an Arbitration Commission or resolve it through legal channels. The channels for resolving disputes through legal channels should include litigation, arbitration, and mediation under the auspices of professional institutions. Although the agreement does not use the term 'suing', resolving disputes through legal channels includes suing the people's court or resolving disputes through other legal channels. In this case, after Zhao applied to the arbitration committee for arbitration, Wu raised objections within the statutory deadline. According to Article 7 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the China, the arbitration agreement is invalid.
Case 23. If the dispute resolution method stipulated in the contract includes both judicial authority resolution and arbitration, it shall be deemed that both parties have not formed a clear agreement to request arbitration, and this agreement shall be invalid.
Case Name: Application for Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement between Shaanxi Kaidi Siman Hotel Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Muzhiyuan Furniture Co., Ltd
Case number: (2019) Shan 01 Min Te 476
Reason for adjudication: Article 11 of the furniture processing (customized) contract signed by the applicant and the respondent stipulates that: "In case of any dispute arising from the performance of this contract, both parties shall settle it through consultation. If the consultation fails, it shall be settled through arbitration in the local judicial authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Contract Law of the China."
The method of resolving contract disputes agreed upon by both parties includes both judicial authorities and arbitration, and judicial authorities and arbitration belong to two different institutions. Judicial authorities cannot use arbitration to resolve disputes, and it should be considered that the parties have not formed a clear agreement to request arbitration due to their lack of understanding of the nature of arbitration. In accordance with the provision that the arbitration agreement shall have the expression of intention to request arbitration in the second paragraph of Article 16 of the Arbitration Law of the China, the arbitration clause involved in the case shall be deemed as unfounded. Therefore, this court determines that the agreement is invalid.
Case 24. If both parties agree to arbitrate in a certain place, and if it is different from submitting it to an arbitration institution in a certain place, it shall be deemed that both parties have only agreed on the place of arbitration and have not agreed on an arbitration institution. If both parties have not reached a supplementary agreement on the arbitration institution, the arbitration clause shall be invalid.
Case Name: Nanning Qishun Paper Industry Co., Ltd., Guangxi Jindaxing Paper Industry Co., Ltd., and Yang Moude's Application for Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement
Case No.: (2020) Gui 01 Min Te No. 1
Reason for decision: Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the China stipulates that if the arbitration agreement stipulates that the arbitration shall be conducted by an arbitration institution in a place where there is only one arbitration institution, the arbitration institution shall be deemed as the agreed arbitration institution. The prerequisite for the application of this law is that the parties agree in the arbitration agreement to be arbitrated by an arbitration institution in a certain place. According to Article 7 of the "Working Capital Loan Contract" signed by the parties involved in this case, it is agreed that in the event of a dispute, the dispute shall be resolved through arbitration in Nanning. There is a semantic difference between "arbitrating in Nanning" and "submitting to Nanning's arbitration institution for arbitration". The latter explicitly refers to arbitration by Nanning's arbitration institution, as Nanning only has one commercial arbitration institution, it can be considered as a clear agreement on an arbitration institution. The former only specifies that the arbitration point is in Nanning. According to the arbitration rules of some existing arbitration institutions in China, they do not exclude the possibility of arbitration in other places based on the actual situation of the case. Therefore, only agreeing on the arbitration location cannot be considered as agreeing on the arbitration institution at the same time. In view of the fact that both parties have not reached a supplementary agreement on the arbitration institution, according to Article 18 of the Arbitration Law of the China, the arbitration clause in this case should be deemed invalid.