法律英语范本.doc

XX LawyerSCU,Shuangliu countyChengdu,Sichuan10 October 2012Mr. Ang Yong TongRegistrarSingapore International Arbitration Centre 3 St Andrews RoadThird Level City Hall Singapore 178958Dear Mr.Ang:I represent Equapack, Inc.for case of Equapack, Inc. v. Medi-Machines, S.A.The CLAIMANT Equapack, Inc. states that the statement made by RESPONDENT has no lawful basis in accordance with CISG and SIAC Rules.We strongly convinced that the rules had been declared in the contract should be observe and apply.Sincerely,_CounselEquapack, Inc.STATEMENT OF CLAIMANT1.The operating speed of Model 14 machines did not conform to the customary expect.(1) Tribunal appointed expert engineer Eur.Ing. Franz van Heath-Robinson to test Model 14 which was delivered to Equapack but that had not been used for the packaging of salt.His report said the fact that the metal parts of the product paths within the machine are not highly polished leads to the lower rate for the finer product. With polished product components in the product paths could achieve the rate of 180 bags per minute of finer products.Hence, the Model 14 machines could be used in production line packaging, the production rates for products other than coffee beans were noticeably below the average industry rate of 180 bags per minute for both coarse and fine products.2.Respondent violated some related articles of CISG and breached of contract(2) According to CISG,article 35(1) the seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity,quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract.However, Mr. Drake in his letter of 3 July 2002 (Claimants Exhibit No. 2) stated that the Model 14 machines would be the appropriate machines to purchase for use in packaging “a wide range of products” with no expressed limitation in regard to salt. (3) CISG, article 35(2)(a) states that “Except where the parties have agreed otherwise, the goods do not conform with the contract unless they:(a) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used.”The six Model 14 auger-feeder packaging machines were not “fit for the purposes for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used”, as called for by CISG, article 35(2)(a), in that they could not pack the full range of coarse and fine bulk commodities into retail packages.(4) As indicated in the witness statement of Mr. Swan (Claimants Exhibit No. 5) the telephone conversation between Mr. Drake and Mr. Swan was recorded. At this point it can be said that Mr. Swan had mentioned salt. He said “Its a good thing we are getting such a versatile machine from you. A2Z wants us to get going on packaging their stuff. They have everything in mind from large beans to salt to fine powder and we are going to have to do it all. Some of this is stuff weve never handled before, but I am sure well do fine with your machines to help us.” According to CISG,article 35(2)(b) “the goods are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract, except where the circumstances show that the buyer did not rely, or that it was unreasonable for him to rely, on the sellers skill and judgement”. Therefore,the word made by Mr. Swan illustrate Equapack informed Medi-Machines the special purpose clearly,that is to say Equapack had met its obligations.Medi-Machines, S.A. as an top-ranking manufacturer,has rich industry experience in producing packaging equipment.When he hears any sensitive words like “salt” should react at once,rather than people repeates the word again and again until the language is sufficient to alert himself.3.Claimant has sufficient reason to avoid the contract (5) During the phone call on 24 June 2002(Claimants Exhibit No. 1),Equapack explicitly commanded The machines could be expected to be used over a wide range of products,nevertheless,Respondent offered us six Model 14 auger-feeder packaging machines which has been discontinued,that means if there is something wrong with these machines, Claimant could not find the same model machines to replace them and Equapack must purchase new machines to finish his work.Obviously, Respondent was irresponsible for the contract.(6) Equapack had been packing small quantities of products with older machines for some time. However,it had never been called upon to pack salt and did not know and had no reason to know that salt is so corrosive that it can not be putted into Model 14 machines, only machines made of stainless steel could package it.The six Model 14 auger-feeder packaging machines were not fit for the particular purpose of packaging salt.Equapack did not know and had no reason to know that this was a special purpose, Medi-Machines did know that the Model 14 machines were not appropriate for packaging salt. As a manufacturer of such equipment the Respondent had special knowledge that was not had by Equapack. It neither inquired of Equapack at the time of contracting whether the machines might be used for packaging salt nor reacted when it found out that they would be used for packaging salt.(7) From beginning to end, Respondent had not supply Claimant with the instruction book or instruction manual of their products.The information of machines on website could not alert Claimant payed enough attention to it.Meanwhile, Cla