（1）Claimant/counter-defendant：Seller
（2）Defendant/Counter-claimant：Buyer
仲裁地：
Placeofarbitration：
事实
FACTS
1994年，双方当事人根据某种协议规格规定签署了3份买卖一种产品的合同。在收到货运单据后，买方即按合同规定，支付了全部合同价的90%.
In1994，thepartiesconcludedthreecontractsforthesaleofaproductaccordingtocertaincontractspecifications.Thebuyerpaid90%ofthepricepayableundereachofthecontractsuponpresentationoftheshippingdocuments，ascontractuallyagreed.
按第一和第三份合同提供的产品符合协议规格，第二批货物的规格在装运前就有过争议。产品抵达目的地后重新检验，发现其不符合协议规格。为便于脱手，经过某种处理，最终买方将产品卖给了第三方，损失惨重。
Theproductdeliveredpursuanttothefirstandthirdcontractsmetthecontractspecifications.Theconformityofthesecondconsignmentwasdisputepriortoitsshipment.Whentheproductwasagaininspecteduponarrival，itwasfoundthatitdidnotmeetthecontractspecifications.Theproductwaseventuallysoldbythebuyertothirdpartiesatconsiderableloss，afterhavingundergoneacertaintreatmenttomakeitmoresaleable.
卖方提请仲裁，要求收回10%的合同余款。买方提起反诉，声称应从卖方所索费用中扣除买方估计应由卖方赔偿买方的一笔费用，即：直接损失费、财务成本费、所损失的利润及利息费。
Thesellerinitiatedarbitrationproceedingstorecoverthe10%balanceremainingdueunderthecontracts.Thebuyerfiledacounterclaimallegingthattheseller‘sclaimshouldbesetoffagainsttheamountswhichthebuyerestimatestobepayabletothebuyerbytheseller，i.e.，thedirectlosses，financingcosts，lostprofitsandinterest.
一、适用的法律
I.APPLICABLELAW
（1）Thecontractcontainsnoprovisionsregardingthesubstantivelaw.AccordinglythatlawhastobedeterminedbytheArbitratorsinaccordancewithArt.13（3）oftheICCrules.Underthatarticle，theArbitratorswillapplythelawdesignatedastheproperlawbytheruleofconflictswhichtheydeemappropriate.
（2）这是一个由不同国际的卖方和买方签署的在第三国交货的合同。买卖规定为船上交货，故风险在卖方所在国便转给了卖方。由此，卖方所在国似乎就成为与买卖关系最近的管辖地。
（2）ThecontractisbetweenaSellerandaBuyer（ofdifferentnationalities）fordelivery（inathirdcountry）。Thesalewasf.o.b.sothatthetransferofriskstotheBuyertookplacein（thecountryofSeller）。（ThecountryofSeller）accordinglyappearsasbeingthejurisdictiontowhichthesaleismostcloselyrelated.
（3）TheHagueConventiononthelawapplicabletointernationalsalesofgoodsdated15June1995（Art.3）regardingsalescontracts，refersasgoverninglawtothelawoftheSeller‘scurrentresidence.（ThecountryoftheBuyer）hasadheredtotheHagueconvention，not（thecountryoftheSeller）。However，thegeneraltrendinconflictsoflawistoapplythedomesticlawofthecurrentresidenceofthedebtoroftheessentialundertakingarisingunderthecontract.ThatdebtorinasalescontractistheSeller.Basedonthosecombinedfindings，（thelawofthecountryoftheSeller）appearstobetheproperlawgoverningtheContractbetweentheSellerandtheBuyer.
Asregardstheapplicablerulesof（thelawofthecountryoftheSeller），theArbitratorshavereliedontheParties‘respectivestatementsonthesubjectandontheinformationobtainedbytheArbitrationfromanindependentconsultant.TheArbitrators，inaccordancewiththelastparagraphofArt.13oftheICCrules，willalsotakeintoaccounttherelevanttradeusage.
二、反诉的可受理性
II.ADMISSIBILITYOFTHECOUNTERCLAIM
（5）仲裁庭认为，1980年4月11日的《关于国际货物销售的联合国公约》（通称《维也纳公约》）是现行贸易惯例的最好渊源，即使买卖双方所在国均不是公约的成员国，倘若买卖双方所在国均为公约成员国，在本案中，该公约不仅可考虑作为贸易惯例适用，而且还可作为法律适用[page]
（5）TheTribunalfindsthatthereisnobettersourcetodeterminetheprevailingtradeusagethantermsoftheUnitedConventionontheInternationalSaleofGoodsof11April1980，usuallycalledtheViennaConvention.Thisisalsoeventhoughneither（thecountryoftheBuyer）nor（thecountryoftheSeller）arepartiestothatConvention.Iftheywere，theConventionmightbeapplicabletothiscaseasamatteroflawandnotonlyasreflectingthetradeusage.
（6）《维也纳公约》已在17个国家生效，考虑用它适用于国际货物销售中的不符规格事项有通用惯例，应属合情合理。《维也纳公约》第38条第1款规定买方负有“当场检查或叫人检查货物”的责任。买方应在注意或应当注意到瑕疵后的合理期限内通知卖方货物不符合合同的规格；否则，他将丧失就上述不符规格而提起索赔的权利。第39条第1款具体规定道：
“如买方在交货后两年之内没有通知卖方，无论如何，买方都将丧失在货物不符规格问题上的申诉权利，除非此种不符规格构成了对长期担保的违背”。
（6）TheViennaConvention，whichhasbeengiveneffecttoin17countries，maybefairlytakentoreflectthegenerallyrecognizedusageregardingthematterofthenon-conformityofgoodsoninternationalsales.Art.38（1）oftheConventionputstheonusontheBuyerto“examinethegoodsorcausethemtobeexaminedpromptly”。ThebuyershouldthennotifytheSellerofthenonconformityofthegoodswithinareasonableperiodasofthemomenthenoticedorshouldhavenoticedthedefect；otherwiseheforfeitshisrighttoraiseaclaimbasedonthesaidnon-conformity.Art.39（1）specifiesintherespectthat：“Inanyeventthebuyershalllosetherighttorelyonalackofconformityofthegoodsifhehasnotgivennoticethereoftothesellerwithinaperiodoftwoyearsfromthedateonwhichthegoodswerehandedover，unlessthelackofconformityconstitutedabreachofguaranteecoveringalongerperiod.”
（7）本案中，买方在合理的期限内已对货运作过检查，因为在货物抵达之前，一位专家曾被请去检查过装船。买方也应被认定在合理的期限内，即在专家报告公布后的8天内，就产品瑕疵作过通报。
（7）Inthecircumstances，theBuyerhadtheshipmentexaminedwithinareasonabletime-spansince（anexpert）wasrequestedtoinspecttheshipmentevenbeforethegoodshadarrived.TheBuyershouldalsobedeemedtohavegivennoticeofthedefectswithinareasonableperiod，thatiseightdaysaftertheexpert‘sreporthadbeenpublished.
（8）仲裁庭认为，就本案情况而言，买方遵守了上述《维也纳公约》的要件规定。这些要件要比卖方所在国的法律的规定灵活许多。卖方所在国法律所规定的买方通知卖方的时限特别短，特别具体，在这点上，似乎是通用的贸易惯例的一种例外。
（8）TheTribunalfindsthat，inthecircumstancesofthecase，theBuyerhascompliedwiththeabove-mentionedrequirementsoftheViennaConvention.Theserequirementsareconsiderablymoreflexiblethanthoseprovidedunderwww.legaltranz.com（thelawofthecountryoftheSeller）。Thislaw，byimposingextremelyshortandspecifictimerequirementsinrespectofthegivingofthenoticeofdefectsbytheBuyertotheSellerappearstobeanexceptiononthispointtothegenerallyacceptedtradeusage.
（9）无论如何，也应当认定卖方已经丧失了援引《维也纳》第38和第39条有关产品不符规格的任何规定的权利，因为第40条规定：“只有卖方知道，或他不可能不知道，或他没有透露有关的不符规格的事实，他便不能适用第38和第39条规定”。实际看来这也是事实，因为书证和口证都清楚表明卖方知道且不可能不知道提交的货物不符合同规格规定。
（9）Inanycase，theSellershouldberegardedashavingforfeiteditsrighttoinvokeanynon-compliancewiththerequirementsofArt.38and39oftheViennaConventionsinceArt.40statesthattheSellercannotrelyonArts.38and39，ifthelackofconformityrelatestofactsofwhichheknew，orofwhichhecouldnothavebeenunware，andwhichhedidnotdisclose.Indeed，thisappearstobethecase，sinceitclearlytranspiresfromthefileandevidencethattheSellerknewandcouldnotbeunaware（ofthenon-conformityoftheconsignmentto）contractspecification.
（10）就是假定该条款可适用于本案，它无论如何也没有规定本仲裁庭应驳回反诉，即使对反诉的审理会耽误对主诉的审查。按其规定，要求抵消的反诉一般都应接受，除非仲裁庭认为同时审理反诉会过分耽误对事实的判决，因而认为把反诉同主诉分开比较恰当。在本案中，按规定说明，主诉和反诉已经进行共同审理，成为一次性裁决事项，故没有理由在将它们分割开。
（10）Thisprovision，evenassumingthatitmayapplyinthecircumstances，doesnotinanywayrequirethetribunaltorejectthecounterclaimifitsexaminationmightdelaythatofthemainclaim.Itsimplystatesthatthecounterclaimforsettingoffisalwaysadmissibleexceptonlythatthetribunalmayfinditappropriatetoservethecounterclaimfromthemainclaimlestaconcurrentexaminationofcounterclaimshouldexcessivelydelaythejudgmentonthemerits.Inthepresentcase，themainClaimandthecounterclaim，inaccordancewiththeTermsofReference，havebeenexaminedtogethersoastobethesubjectofasingleaward，andthereisnoreasontoseparatethem.[page]
（11）仲裁庭裁决如下：卖方应获得其全部所主张的金额，扣除买方在反诉中提出的抵消部分数额。
（11）TheTribunalawardedtheSellerthefullamountofitsclaimandsetitoffagainstpartofthecounterclaimfiledbytheBuyer.