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 (13)
Case 44. Although the court of jurisdiction agreed upon by the parties in the supplementary agreement violates the exclusive jurisdiction provision, this clause has already excluded arbitration jurisdiction when both parties agree on the dispute resolution method of the contract, and clearly expressed their intention to submit to the court for litigation resolution. The correctness of the specific court of jurisdiction agreed upon in the contract does not affect the establishment of the parties' intention to exclude arbitration jurisdiction.
Case Name: Changsha Xingheshun Real Estate Co., Ltd. and Changsha Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. Applying for Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement
Case number: (2021) Xiang 01 Min Te No. 42
Reason for Judgment: Arbitration is a way in which both parties to a dispute reach an agreement before or after the dispute arises and voluntarily choose to submit the dispute to an arbitration institution for arbitration to resolve the dispute between both parties. In this case, after the parties signed the Construction Contract of Construction Projects in Hunan Province, they signed the Supplementary Contract of General Contracting for the same project and agreed to "sue the People's Court of Yuhua District, Changsha City in case of disputes." Although the dispute resolution clause agreed in the Supplementary Contract of General Contracting for Construction Projects was wrong with the specific jurisdiction court, However, this clause has already excluded arbitration jurisdiction when both parties agree on the method of dispute resolution in the contract, and clearly expressed their intention to submit to the court for litigation resolution. The correctness of the specific jurisdiction court stipulated in the contract does not affect the validity of both parties' intention to exclude arbitration jurisdiction. In summary, the new dispute resolution method reached between the applicant Xingheshun Company and the respondent Changjian Company regarding the Heshun Yanghu No.1 Phase II general contracting project is binding on both parties. The arbitration clause stipulated in the "Hunan Province Construction Project Construction Contract" signed by both parties on April 15, 2014 has been changed and is no longer binding on both parties.
Case 45. If the two contracts signed by the parties are inseparable and form a whole, the latter should be deemed as enriching and improving the former. If the latter changes the dispute resolution method to litigation, the arbitration agreement agreed upon by the former should be deemed invalid; If it is unclear whether the true intention of both parties is to modify the arbitration clause agreed upon by the former through the latter, then the agreement can be applied for arbitration to the arbitration institution or sued to the people's court, and the arbitration clause should be deemed invalid.
Case Name: China Construction Second Bureau Third Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. and Nanchong Dinghe Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. Applying for Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement
Case No.: (2020) Yu 01 Min Te No. 10
Reason for judgment: The arbitration clause in the Contract shall be deemed invalid in accordance with the law, and the reasons are as follows:
1、 Regarding the relationship between the "Contract" and the "Supplementary Agreement", the former is the basis for the latter to sign, while the latter is the enrichment and improvement of the former. The two are inseparable and form a whole.
2、 The Supplementary Agreement has changed the dispute resolution method to litigation, and the arbitration agreement should be deemed invalid in accordance with the law in this case.
The dispute between the two parties in this case lies in the validity of the arbitration agreement, which falls within the scope of hearing cases that confirm the validity of the arbitration agreement. Based on the indivisibility of the "Contract Contract" and the "Supplementary Agreement", although the "Contract Contract" stipulates a dispute jurisdiction arbitration clause, the parties agree in Article 6 of the "Supplementary Agreement" that disputes arising from the performance of the "Supplementary Agreement" shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court in the place where the project is located. Both parties have made changes to the dispute jurisdiction clause of the "Contract Contract". Article 2 of the Supplementary Agreement stipulates that "the construction content, contracting scope, pricing method, payment method, breach of contract liability, contract disputes, warranty period and other clauses or matters not mentioned in the supplementary agreement shall be executed in accordance with the main contract." This includes multiple matters such as "contract disputes", which are agreed to be executed in accordance with the main contract, namely arbitration. At the same time, Article 6 separately stipulates that the dispute resolution method is litigation. From the perspective of the drafting style of the articles, Article 2 and Article 6 should belong to the relationship between general clauses and special clauses. Even if there is a conflict between the provisions of the two clauses, Article 6 of the special clauses should apply in principle.
To put it further, due to the indivisibility of the Supplementary Agreement and the Contract, even if it cannot be clearly stated that the true intention of both parties is to modify the arbitration clause in the Contract through the Supplementary Agreement, However, the dispute resolution method stipulated in Article 6 of the Supplementary Agreement is litigation, and the arbitration method stipulated in Article 2 of the Contract and the Supplementary Agreement has already resulted in the fact that both arbitration and litigation are agreed upon in the same contract. 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 for litigation, the arbitration agreement is invalid", the arbitration clause of the Contract should also be found invalid in this case.
Case 46. (1) Although the name of the arbitration institution agreed upon in the agreement is not standardized, combined with the names of various local arbitration institutions, there are similar institutions in terms of expression to the agreed arbitration institution. Other arbitration institutions have significant differences in name expression, which will not generate the understanding of the dispute arbitration institution between the parties involved in this case. Therefore, it can be determined that the agreement regarding the arbitration institution is clear. (2) If one party acknowledges the unilateral intention of the other party to waive arbitration and fails to reach a supplementary agreement, the previously signed arbitration clause shall be deemed invalid.
Case Name: Qiqihar Dadi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., Jiao Moutao and others applied for confirmation of the validity of the arbitration agreement
Case No.: (2020) Hei02 Minte No. 17
Reason for decision: Article 20 of the Arbitration Law of the China stipulates that if a party disputes the validity of the arbitration agreement, it may request the arbitration commission to make a decision or the people's court to make a ruling. In Commitment 1 issued by Zhang Mouwei and Qiqihar Dadi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dadi Company) to Jiao Moutao, it is agreed that the arbitration institution is "Beijing Arbitration Commission". Although the name expression is not standardized, combined with the names of the three arbitration institutions in Beijing, only "Beijing Arbitration Commission" is similar in expression to the agreed arbitration institution, while the other two arbitration institutions have significant differences in the expression of their names, Based on the original intention and wording of the agreement between both parties, although the name of "Beijing Arbitration Commission" is not entirely accurate, it will not create an understanding that the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission or the China Maritime Arbitration Commission is the dispute arbitration institution of the parties involved in this case. Moreover, the parties' application for arbitration to the Beijing Arbitration Commission has been accepted, and commitment 1 states that "Beijing Arbitration Commission" can be determined as "Beijing Arbitration Commission", Therefore, the agreement regarding the arbitration institution in Commitment 1 should be clear.
On May 8, 2020, Jiao Moutao issued Commitment 2 to Dadi Company, confirming that Commitment 1 is invalid and permanently waiving all rights enjoyed by Jiao Moutao in Commitment 1. He promised not to file arbitration or litigation claims based on the content of Commitment 1 for any reason thereafter. Based on this, after Commitment 2 was made, Jiao Moutao had already expressed his intention to waive the arbitration clause of Commitment 1. Now, Dadi Company recognizes Jiao Moutao's waiver of intention, which should be deemed that after Jiao Moutao issued Commitment 2, both parties have no agreement on the arbitration matters, and both parties have not reached a supplementary agreement, According to Article 18 of the Arbitration Law of the China: "If the arbitration agreement does not stipulate or clearly stipulates the arbitration matters or the arbitration commission, the parties may supplement the agreement; if the supplementary agreement cannot be reached, the arbitration agreement is invalid", and because Jiao Moutao issued Commitment 2, the parties did not stipulate the arbitration matters, the arbitration clause in Commitment 1 shall be deemed invalid.