Court of Cassation, No. 89-15.634

Court of cassation, 1st civil Chamber, 4 December 1990, No. 89-15.634

SA SOCIMER

vs.

SA UNIDAF

According to the contested judgment stating that (Rouen, April 27 April 1989), the French company Unidaf sold 75 tons of coffee from Cameroon to the Swiss company Socimer to be transported to Barcelona. The bill of lading mentioned, on 24 April 1985, 1260 bags on board whereas in fact 924 bags had been loaded. Following its refusal by Socimer, the merchandise had to be resold. The parties having had recourse to the Arbitration Chamber of Coffee and Peppers of Le Havre, the arbitrators, by an award of 18 September 1986, ordered Socimer to pay the difference between the contract price and the resale price, for the 924 bags.

Socimer criticizes the Court of appeal for rejecting its request for annulment against the aforementioned award, since, according to the argument, on the one hand, by deciding that the arbitrators were not bound to respect the provisions of article 455 of the new Civil Procedure code nor any reasons shall be stated for their decision since they were not subject, as amiable compositeur, to those of article 1471 of the code, the court of appeal violated the same texts. On the other hand, by refusing to annul the award for violation of public policy rules on the CIF sales (Cost, insurance, and freight), the court of appeal violated article 1484 of the new Civil Procedure code.

However, first, the very statement of the contested judgment mentions that the arbitral award is reasoned, meaning that the argument is defective in fact. Second, and as per article 1504 of the New Civil Procedure code, in matters of international arbitration, recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only in cases covered by article 1502 of the code. The court of appeal’s decision was correct, notwithstanding an inaccuracy in reference to the provisions of article 1484, that a possible error of law committed by the arbitrators, who, moreover, ruled as amiable compositeurs, on the application of standard customs and practice devoid of any public policy character, could not lead to the annulment of the award; Hence it follows that the plea cannot be accepted in any of its branches.

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS:

DISMISSES the appeal;