Full title: 49 existing court cases on invalidness of arbitration agreement - If the parties sign multiple agreements involving dispute resolution, and there is inconsistency between the two, the arbitration agreement shall be invalid (12)
Case 41. If the parties have signed different agreements that jointly refer to the same legal relationship and have agreed on different dispute resolution methods such as litigation and arbitration, the arbitration clause shall be deemed invalid.
Case Name: Guangzhou Junzhiyuan Investment Management Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Feihu Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd. and others applied for confirmation of the validity of the arbitration agreement
Case No.: (2021) Yue 01 Min Te No. 885
Reason for Judgment: Based on evidence such as the "Commitment Letter", it is sufficient to prove that the "Guangzhou Commercial Housing Sales Contract (Pre sale)" (Room 302) and "Entrusted Transformation Contract" (Room 302) jointly point to the same commodity sales contract relationship. 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: "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 is invalid. However, one party applies to an arbitration institution for arbitration, except that the other party does not raise an objection within the period specified in Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Arbitration Law." (Room 302) and the "Entrusted Renovation Contract" (Room 302) respectively stipulate that the dispute resolution methods are litigation and arbitration, which should be considered as arbitration or litigation clauses. Therefore, the arbitration clauses stipulated in the "Entrusted Renovation Contract" (Room 302) are invalid.
Other reference cases: Chizhou Kaibang Real Estate Co., Ltd. and Chizhou Jiangkou Construction and Installation Engineering Co., Ltd. applied to confirm the validity of the arbitration agreement [(2021) Wan 17 Min Te No. 3]
Case 42. If the parties have reached a dispute resolution clause one after another and the previous agreement is inconsistent, it shall be deemed that the parties have made changes to the contract terms for dispute resolution. The agreement reached later shall prevail, and the arbitration agreement in the dispute resolution clause reached earlier shall be deemed invalid.
Case Name: Zhou, Sun, and others applied for confirmation of the validity of the arbitration agreement
Case No.: (2021) Yue 15 Min Te No. 6
Reason for Judgment: Although the "Loan Contract" and "Mortgage Contract" signed by Wang, Zhou, and Sun stipulated that the dispute resolution method should be submitted to the Shanwei Arbitration Commission for arbitration, both parties signed the "Loan Mortgage Contract" after signing the "Loan Contract" and "Mortgage Contract", and the contract made inconsistent provisions on the dispute resolution method with the previous contract. The signing date of the "Loan Contract" and "Mortgage Contract" is earlier, and the signing date of the "Loan Mortgage Contract" is later. It should be understood that both parties have made changes to the contract terms for dispute resolution. Therefore, according to the provisions of the Loan Mortgage Contract, in case of disputes that cannot be reached through consultation, the parties shall file a lawsuit with the people's court in the location of the real estate. Hongling Company argues that the "Loan Mortgage Contract" is only a record keeping document filed by both parties with the registration authority and does not serve as a basis for both parties to fulfill the contract. In response to this defense, this court believes that if Wang, Zhou, and Sun do not agree to the dispute resolution agreement in the Loan Mortgage Contract when signing it, they should propose a change instead of confirming and signing it. The signing behavior of the parties on the Loan Mortgage Contract should be confirmed as agreeing to the terms and conditions of the contract. Therefore, the defense reasons of Hongling Company are not accepted. This court confirms that the arbitration clause stipulated in the "Loan Contract" signed by Zhou, Sun, and Wang on December 28, 2017 is invalid.
Case 43. If different contracts held by both parties are stamped with their official seals and signatures, and there is no objection to the authenticity of the contracts held by the other party, but two contracts stipulate different arbitration institutions, it shall be deemed that both parties have not reached an agreement on the selection of arbitration institutions, and the arbitration clauses stipulated in both contracts are invalid.
Case Name: Hunan Xinzhonghong Industrial Development Co., Ltd. and Hunan Third Engineering Co., Ltd. Applying for Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement
Case number: (2021) Xiang 03 Min Te No. 34
Reason for decision: Article 5 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 two or more arbitration institutions, the parties may choose one of them by agreement to apply for arbitration; If the parties cannot reach an agreement on the choice of arbitration institution, the arbitration agreement shall be invalid. In this case, the construction contracts held by both parties were stamped with the official seals and signatures of both parties, and neither party raised any objections to the authenticity of the contracts held by the other party. In the case of the Changsha Arbitration Commission and Xiangtan Arbitration Commission, which were respectively selected as arbitration clauses in the two construction contracts, it should be considered that the two parties have agreed to select two or more arbitration institutions. Due to the inability of both parties to reach an agreement on the selection of arbitration institutions, The arbitration clause in both construction contracts is invalid.