Latest News
Mitsubishi motors corp V. Soler Chrysler plymouth Inc
Case summary
Mitsubishi Motor Corps V. Soler Chrysler – Plymouth Inc
A Japanese company and Soler Chrysler International (dealer of cars) decided to enter into a joint venture which came to be known as the Mitsubishi Motors. Their aim was the distribution of cars through the Soler Chrysler’s dealers outside the US territory. Once there was a fall in the demand of cars in the market, therefore soler Chrysler asked for the permission to “transship the cars to the US and Latin America, for which the appellant denied.
The Soler Chrysler decided to take this matter to the US district court in order to compel the parties for the arbitration and persuade them, for the sales agreement. “Respondent alleged that the dispute involved antitrust clause (division of markets resulting in the restraint of trade) which are not arbitrable.”
In this case the majority in Supreme Court of US decide that “concerns of the international comity, respect for the capacities of foreign and transnational tribunals and sensitivity to the need of international commercial system for predictability in the resolution of disputes required that the parties agreement be enforced even assuming that the contrary result would be forthcoming a domestic context.”
The mere presence of an antitrust clause does not make sure the invalidation of the chosen forum on the presumption that the arbitration clause is tainted.
The majority was also of the opinion that it is unreasonable to assume in the beginning of a dispute that “international arbitration will not provide an adequate mechanism.” The international arbitration owes no prior allegiance to the norms related to the law of a particular state. Therefore it is not obligatory to vindicate their legal dictates. However the tribunal is bound to understand the intentions of the parties. “Having permitted the arbitration to go forward, the national courts of the United States will have the opportunity at the award enforcement stage to ensure that the legitimate interest in the enforcement of the antitrust laws has been addressed.”
- name of the case
- facts of the case
- judgement by the court
