can we play the CISG song after this ?

I was sad we won't have the CISG song

It's available at cisgsong.com (with footnotes)

Many thanks Ronald

Reach out to Professor Brand at rbrand@pitt.edu!

And it's a pretty good website!

For the Pitt Law LLM scholarship ($15,000), my email address is rbrand@pitt.edu. Send me an email by next Saturday, and I'll confirm that we have the scholarship waiting for you. Best wishes for a great pre-moot!

Thanks a lot professor Brand. that is a great opportunity for all of us. really appreciate your help and support.

CISG song is on the site … check out the materials for students

Check out the site to see the entire list of participating teams

scholarship is $15,000 contact Professor Brand at rbrand@pitt.edu

Question: the standby arbitrators are they will be in as listeners?

Standby arbitrators are not listeners. They are on standby in case we need to fill a missing panel. We will have a WhatsApp group of "Standby Arbitrators" and provide notifications of openings.

you will not have to manually type anything. All are scrolling and uploaded

Will arbitrators be able to ask questions in any time to both claimant's and respondent's counsel on key subjects?

yes

Arbitrators: Check out a video under "Materials for Arbitrators" - where Professor Brand and I give you a good overview of the session procedures :)

Thank you both.

Who is the chair of my Tribunal- thanks

I seem to recall that all team memos were made available online prior to the oral rounds during my year as a mootie. will this year's memos be available as well ?

Arbitrators pick among themselves who will Chair to panel

then arbitrators will have to meet up in order to discuss these issues before the hearing

Memos will not likely be available

Thank you Mais, would we have the opportunity to do that prior to presentation by the participators

Arbitrators in each confirmed panel will be placed in a WhatsApp group prior to their session. Arbitrators have the option to pick who chairs the session via the WhatsApp Group or at the beginning of the session.

We ask that everyone also join 15 minutes prior to their session so that they are able to clear any of these issues and to confirm connectivity

Great thanks Mais for clarifying

Great. thank you Mais!

Order of pleading experienced in practice rounds is (1) Procedure: R first followed by C; and (2) Substance: C first, followed by R. Does Maria‘s presentation advise the reverse order:(1) Substance first, and (2) Procedure 2nd?

I leave this to the capable hands of Mr. Robbie

In general, as Professor Brand mentioned, procedure will go first in the oral pleadings followed by merits.

The panel began with merits because it’s the heart of the problem and because the procedural issues are related to the merits

Thank you Robert

Remember, arbitrators may request to change the order in any way they see fit! Your team should be prepared just in case

The issue is extremely topical. Article 42 CISG might raise a voluminous number of questions to both the claimant and the defendant, and pre-merit issues as well.

Will non-oralist team members be also permitted to join the zoom during pleadings?

Only the team and arbitrators be in the session. We allow one coach / faculty to join. NO OTHER PARTIES should be in the room.

The Final Round will be OPEN to all and recorded.

This is to protect the bandwidth and to avoid conflict of interest issues.

You can find more info in the ePre-Moot rules on the BCDR website http://premoot.bcdr-aaa.org/

Theory of knowledge, reception, in the light of contractual law theory, might suggest an answer to that question about corporation's knowledge.

Can a person pleading the procedure can answer the questions related to substance and vice versa during session?

They should be able to provide a preliminary answer and than likely defer to their colleagues. BUT they should know the basics for all arguments.

ok Thank You Mais

I agree with Mais. In this year’s problem the first and fourth issues and tied together in many ways. You should focus as much as possible on your submission but be able to field relevant questions when necessary

For joinder and remote examination issue under Swiss Rules how helpful is Smahi, „Due Process under Swiss Rules of International Arbitration“ on SCAI Website under Publications?

But Tribunal has not consulted with Ross Pharma because Ross does not agree. Does that mean Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under Swiss Rule 4(2)?

How persuasive is 2020 IBA Rules of Evidence, §8.2 Remote Hearing Protocol, for Tribunal to rule in favor of remote examination of witnesses or experts?

Hi Philip - the DUe Process under SCAI website may have some guidance, but does not speak directly to the remote hearing issue. I think the jurisdiction issue of 4(2) is something the pleaders should be prepared to address. For Respondent, they will presumably argue that they "consulted" with Ross by asking them whether they consented to be joined, while Claimant will likely argue that is not sufficient.

how to prove that Respondent No 2 voluntary joined as there is no evidence in the record? because there might be a question that when Respondent No 2 could joined, why not Ross Pharma

Pleaders may be able to effectively cite to IBA rule 8.2 or the new ICC rules (or any other newer guidance on this issue) as persuasive or instructive authority, and should be prepared to answer questions from the panel re: same

I believe R2 consents to joinder by being included in the response to notice of arbitration

also, by consulting the Swiss Rules mean to only take the opinions of the parties and then make the decision the way the tribunal deems necessary or it means to have the consent of the parties?

Ross Pharma by selecting Swiss Rules in Ross agreement, agreed on the possibility of joinder. which means it's implicit agreement. But now it reject its joinder. So which of them should be given the value?

prof. I had participated in Hannover pre- moot and one of the arbitrator give the consent issue the importance and he ask me so much about it and another arbitrator told me that I don't have to talk about the consent at all because it's better to prove that Ross should join under the circumstance ?Now I feel lost! shall I talk about the consent less than circumstances or never argue it at all ??

these are all the great questions to ask the pleaders, there's always two sides to these issues.

@Zamira, if you look at pg 28 of the file you will see that Respondent 2 “refrains from contesting the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal”

To Fadak: Consent is fundamental to any arbitration and must be considered. The question here becomes: "what did each party signing each contract consent to?"

@Fadak there is no right answer there. You should be prepared to argue your best argument, but if the panel or an arbitrator would prefer to hear one argument over another argument, then you should be as flexible as possible to makes sure you answer the arbitrators questions

@Fadak, consent is key to any arbitration and as the Swiss rules mention the tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances. It’s important to address them together.

Ok thank you so much \

EVERYONE - an important thing to remember is that you will have many different opinions and questions from different arbitrators. You need to take into consideration all feedback you receive but always make sure YOU are making YOUR best argument

thanks @Cimmino

sure

Ross Pharma by selecting Swiss Rules in Ross agreement, agreed on the possibility of joinder. which means it's implicit agreement. But now it reject its joinder. So which of them should be given the value?

The scope of the word "place" in Article 25 (1) of Swiss Rules can be disputed, should the remoteness of the arbitration proceedings be contested by any parties?

@Nilofar - Ross agreed that a "third-party" could be joined to ITS proceeding, but did they also agree that THEY could be joined to another dispute? I think that's the important question when we talk about implicit consent.

I'm fairly certain we will be hearing the arguement that teh word "place" can and maybe interpreted as the "Platform" using which the arbitration is conducted.

@Nilofar - remember to consider that choosing the Swiss rules is an implicit agreement to grant the tribunal the POWER to order joinder, however it doesn’t necessarily mean that choosing Swiss rules means agreement to any dispute of any party. Further, as Liz points out, did Ross agree to be joined or only agree to request joinder of third parties?

That's also an issue: should there be a debate on the scope of the word "place", in the light of the current pandemic situation, wouldn't that jeopardize the cost-effectiveness of the arbitral procedure?

@cimmino and Taylor

thank you so much. I will consider this while arguing 🙂

regarding the pleadings: Is it allowed to record them?

Only Final Round will be recorded.

Ok. Thank you.

Remote examination issue raises issue of parties‘ intention. Should counsel argue CISG Art. 8

Is it best-suited: to tackle "power" rather than "jurisdiction" in the joinder issue?

Or should counsel argue party intention is governed by UPICC Art 4 as governing contract law?

a save chat option is avialable as well for anyone who wants to save the chat

I actually saved the chat. Can be saved!

How to save chat ^

Thank You guyz

Thank you so much !

Dear All, find above the group chat available for download

thanks to all round table participants

Arbitrators please wait for one more piece of important information

I have a question on arbitrator's evaluation: how free actually is the arbitrator's criteria?

Apologies we are a bit over time

Terrific session today! Thanks to all for your inputs!

Arbitrator Roundtable is a law professor „issue spotting“ paradise🙏

By the way, thank you very much to the professions. It was very illustrating and raised a lot of questions. To response those questions and issues will be indeed a challenge to both participants and arbitrators.

Thank you Mais, this would be very helpful.

Thank you!

sorry, where is the checklist?

Thank you so much!

Greetings from Venezuela! The best of luck to every team, and thank you for such an honor!

Many thanks Mais and all.. Good luck to all.

thank you all for this amazing session and good luck to all- from Pakistan

Thank you everyone, it was amazing session just like the previous years :))

thank you so much

Great session and round table! Thank you.

thanks for the nice words. they are really encouraging.

Thank you so much

thank you Prof. Flechtner for sharing this with us when we are prevented from meeting. Feels like Vienna!!

That was a masterpiece.

👍Harry

thank you

thank you for this event!

Thank you so much

thank you !!

Thank you

Thank you and good luck for everybody!!