Full title: 49 existing court cases on invalidness of arbitration agreement - If there are defects in the signing method of the agreement, the arbitration agreement is invalid (7)

Case 29. If the parties use a standard bar seal to make substantive changes to the dispute resolution clause without confirming the content through signature, seal, or other forms, and the other party does not recognize the authenticity of the clause changing the dispute resolution method, it cannot prove that the arbitration clause is the true expression of the parties' intentions. When the jurisdiction clause and arbitration clause coexist, the arbitration clause involved in the case should be invalid.

Case Name: Qian, Shen, and Dongguan Zhigong Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. Applying for Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement

Case number: (2020) Shaanxi 01 Minte 521

Reason for Judgment: In the case where the "Loan Contract" clearly stipulates the dispute resolution method that "the disputes under this contract shall be under the jurisdiction of the People's Court of the place where the collateral is located", a bar seal stating that "any disputes arising during the performance of this contract shall be submitted to the Beihai International Arbitration Court for arbitration, and the simplified procedures of the arbitration rules of the court shall be applied for trial in Dongguan. If any other agreement is inconsistent with this agreement, the agreement shall prevail" shall be affixed, Because the Beihai International Arbitration Court and the place of arbitration in Dongguan City, Guangdong Province are not related to the subject of signing the Loan Contract, the place where the collateral is located, and the place where the contract is performed; The content of this strip seal is a substantive change to the dispute resolution clause, but no party to the contract has confirmed the content through signature or seal. Shen, Long, and Qian also do not recognize the authenticity of the clause on changing the dispute resolution method in the above-mentioned contract. Therefore, the existing evidence cannot prove that the arbitration clause in the loan contract involved is the true expression of the parties to the contract. In addition, when the litigation jurisdiction clause and the arbitration clause coexist, 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, "if the parties agree that a dispute can be submitted to an arbitration institution for arbitration or to a people's court, the arbitration agreement shall be invalid", the arbitration clause involved in the case shall be invalid.

Case 30. There are a large number of parties to the contract, and the first page of the contract does not specify the specific list of personnel of either party. At the end of the contract, only one of the parties has signed, and if other personnel sign on the blank page on the back of the contract, it cannot prove that all personnel of that party are aware of and agree to the contract terms. It cannot prove that both parties have a clear intention to negotiate and submit the dispute to arbitration, and the arbitration clause of the contract is invalid.

Name of the case: Mr. Li and Chijun Slag and Gravel Transportation Co., Ltd. in Wangcheng District, Changsha City applied to confirm the validity of the arbitration agreement

Case number: (2021) Xiang 01 Min Te No. 422

Reason for Adjudication: In this case, the specific list of Party B's personnel was not specified on the first page of the contract, and only Hu signed at the end of the contract. The applicant signed on the blank page on the back of the signature page at the end of the contract, indicating that there may be a contractual relationship between the two parties. However, the contract in question was provided by Chi Jun Company, and there is no clear indication that the applicant is a party to the contract in question, nor is there evidence to prove that the applicant is aware of and recognizes the terms of the contract in question. Therefore, the existing evidence cannot prove that both parties have a clear intention to submit the dispute to arbitration through consultation, and the arbitration clause of the contract involved is invalid.

Case 31. The agreement stipulates that the dispute shall be resolved through litigation. The latter party shall add an arbitration clause in handwritten form in the blank space of the contract, without the other party's signature for confirmation. If one party fails to provide a reasonable explanation for the formation of the arbitration clause or submit corresponding evidence to prove that the arbitration clause is mutually agreed upon by both parties, it cannot be deemed that the parties have reached an arbitration clause, and the added content cannot serve as the basis for the arbitration jurisdiction contract.

Case Name: Lin Mourun, Lin Mouxuan and others applied for confirmation of the validity of the arbitration agreement

Case number: (2020) Gui 05 Min Te 173

Reason for Judgment: The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the arbitration clause in the loan contract is legal and valid. The second item of Article 9 of the Loan Contract in question clearly states that if any disputes arise between Party A and Party B during the performance of this contract, they shall first resolve them through consultation; If the negotiation fails, either party has the right to bring a lawsuit to the People's Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, where the contract is signed, that is, the contract has agreed that the dispute settlement method shall be under the jurisdiction of the People's Court. The case submitted by Gu Mouping to the arbitration tribunal involves adding an arbitration clause in handwritten form in the blank space of Article 11, which not only contradicts the agreement that the contract is clearly under the jurisdiction of the people's court, but also lacks the signature confirmation of Lin Mourun and Lin Mouxuan in the addition of the arbitration clause. Gu Mouping acknowledges that the arbitration clause was added after the signing of the loan contract involved in the case, but failed to state the added subject, time, and on-site situation. In the case where Lin Mourun and Lin Mouxuan denied reaching an arbitration clause with Gu Mouping, Gu Mouping neither provided a reasonable explanation for the formation of the arbitration clause nor submitted corresponding evidence to prove that the arbitration clause was a consensus reached by both parties, so it cannot be determined that Lin Mourun Lin Mouxuan and Gu Mouping reached an arbitration clause on the loan contract involved in the case, which cannot be used as the basis for arbitration jurisdiction and cannot force Lin Mourun and Lin Mouxuan to participate in arbitration activities as parties to the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the reason for Lin Mourun and Lin Mouxuan's application to confirm the invalidity of the arbitration clause in the Loan Contract is valid, and this court supports it.