Thema: Brand New - JFV Grotius

NOVUM Maandblad van de Juridische Faculteitsvereniging Grotius Moot Court
26
With this as a legal background, it was up to us, as Mr. Tisk’s legal
team, to defend his decision in avoiding the contract and in getting
his deposit back from UAM. As is the case with every legal dispute,
an easy answer is hard to find. When trying to build up a case on
behalf of Mr. Tisk we came across several legal twists and turns.
The CISG, for example, offers little to no guidance on the liability
of third-parties for contractual default. For that matter, the
complexity of the articles of the CISG on the right to avoid a
contract have left many a grey-haired international litigators with
sleepless nights. As for the procedural issues, we were to manoeuver
ourselves out of the constraining and hostile framework of the New
York Convention which, notoriously, likes to keep non-signatories
out of arbitration proceedings. The bankruptcy of UAM
Distributors, in turn, related to issues of enforcement of arbitration
awards and of international public policy that have, to this day, not
been resolved, despite 5 decades of intensive scholarly debate. After
2 months of intensive research and building a water-proof case,
free of loopholes, on behalf of Mr. Tisk - the Claimant - , the tables
were turned. In just 1 month, we had to devise an equally convincing
and strong case on behalf of Universal & UAM Distributors - the
Respondents.
The issues were sophisticated and of importance to the practice of
international commercial arbitration, while related to major and
current questions of theory and doctrine. In short, a task of Greek
proportions awaited us. Luckily, the individuals in our team were
up to it and ready to put Leiden University on the map. Something
we could have never hoped for without our coaches. Mrs.
Koppenol-LaForce is after all a partner at Houthoff Buruma,
whose academic career in private international law can only be
described as outstanding. We got to experience firsthand her
commitment and devotion to her work. Besides her invaluable
guidance on academic level we had the privilege to find in her a
true mentor. Over and over again she demonstrated a willingness
to strive for and bring out the very best in us.
Our other coach, Mr. van der Steur was no less a hero to us. With
his humor and energy, he managed to bring back enthusiasm and
motiviation at a time when sheer exhaustion had us almost
paralysed. After having written 2 memoranda and our regular
exams having caught up with us, we were, to be honest, spent.
However, the oral rounds, the climax of the Moot Court, was yet
to come, so no time could be waisted. In those 2 months, Mr.van
der Steur coached us with a passion equaled only by his expertise
of public speaking. For most of us, public speaking was a myth we
gave little credence to. True to promise, Mr. van der Steur brought
us to a level that, we believe, would have made Cicero proud.
Before going to Vienna - where the oral rounds were to be held -
we got to practice a little of our oratory skills on other teams. After
a couple of emails, we convinced the team representing Groningen
University - the only other participating Dutch University - to face
us at the Amsterdam Houthoff Buruma offices. It was the first
time we got a chance to check out the competition. The tensions
were high. Houthoff Buruma had organised a panel of experienced