The International business law is concerned with the rights of business with each other and with international organizations. Domestic law is within the state and it concern with the rights of business within the state(Bartone, 2010). The domestic and international business law is very differing in mainly two aspects first of all the law making process and the enforcement. International law is an ever expanding field that controls the internal dealing of the business. Public and private international laws are the two components of the international law. The internal laws have some curious features like legislative, executive and judicial process. These elements find their approximate analogue in the international law(Bingham, 2010). The international law is a component of domestic and municipal legal system. International law participates in the growth of the business organization. Furthermore, it can be conclude that the international law is relevant to the exercise of domestic jurisdiction(DiMatteo, n.d.).
In the fundamental principles of Islamic commerce riba is prohibited and translated as interest and extra gain from the transaction. This principle highly affects the transactional dynamics of international contracts that is under Islamic law kg nd . In the western countries the bank provided loan to the customers in a condition that they will revert back the money with the appropriate interest. Therefore, the additional transaction is added in these particular transactions in terms of value of money and value of service. These kinds of financial transactions are prohibited as riba in the Islamic law. The payment and received of interest riba is strictly prohibited in Islamic justice. The prohibition of ribs is mainly applicable for the Muslim communities(Ansari, 2007).
The word riba is derived from the rabic verb „raba‟ that means grow above. The principle prohibition of riba has several applications in the Islamic jurisprudence. In some Muslim countries the application of riba is legal like in the Untied Arab emirates it is legal but in Iran it is illegal. But in the case of banking sectors it is observed that the Iranian bank receives interest from the foreign transaction(Ferrari, 2008). The banks also paid interest; in this case the name of prohibition is changed from interest to profit. However the due to the globalization in the international market the concept of riba is only applicable when one of the parties are included in the Islamic law jurisdiction and the understanding of transactional dynamics of commercial transaction will be a extraordinary tool for the growth of the business in the Islamic countries kg nd , 2010).
A) In this specific case the shipping contract between the Armada (Singapore) and Gujarat NRE Coke Limited (Gujarat). An arbitration clause is consists in the contract, according to the clause any kind of disputes will be determined by three “commercial men who are members of the Institute of Arbitrators in London”. Therefore the rmada and Gujarat appointed two parties and these two parties will choose the third. According to the jurisdiction three awards were made by the arbitral tribunal for the consequences of hearings(Fontaine and De Ly, 2009). The first award awards deals with the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal and relying on the Arbitration Act 1996(UK Act) and it had a relevant jurisdictions. The tribunal is dismissed due to the Gujarat claim that is the two arbitrators‟ appointed by the rmada is not commercial men. According to the arbitration clause the claim was produced not in time under the UK Act. The second award deals with the identification that Gujarat had breached the shipping contract or not and then how the damages will be assessed(Gray, 2012). According to tribunal Gujarat was in breach of the contract and smartly outlined the basis of the calculation damages methods. Finally the third award is about the damages awarded to Armada. After that the Armada commenced proceedings in the Federal court of Australia to enforce the there arbitral awards in Australia.
B) There are several basic issues were illustrated in this section, Gujarat registered enforcement regarding all the three awards on the basis of five grounds(Heidemann, 2007). First of all the two arbitrators appointed by the rmada and Gujarat were not “commercial men”. Then the court decided according to the section 9 of the international Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) was not applicable because the tribunal was not operating under the arbitration agreement. Therefore, the major basis ground is not available for the both companies. s they are not “commercial men” so the tribunal composition is not appropriate under the agreement that is required under section 8(5) (e) of the particular Act. Accordingly, the second award is not binding because it is referred to the future damages when the damages are not suffered by the company. The components of future damages made the enforcement of second award contrary to public policy (section 8) and most importantly the contract is regarding the sea carriage document under the section 11 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth) so the arbitration clause will not make any affect in this particular context(Janssen and Meyer, 2009).
The federal court identified the results in favor of rmada‟s application established to a level that the three awards that express the binding upon Armada and Gujarat vary in all purpose. Gujarat has to make one of the important grounds indicated in the s 8(5) (e) and (f) because the subsection relied on by the specific party. The few grounds are made by the court first of all are lawyers “commercial men” it is included in the ground one and two. s because of the two arbitrators are not commercial men then the tribunal composition is not supported by the agreements(Knapp, Crystal and Prince, 1999). While submitting the arguments Gujarat relied on the section 8 of the IIA that outlined the recognition of the awards and in the section 9 that particularly indicates the evidence of awards and arbitration agreements. There the main issue is identified about the arbitrators appoint and the tribunal constitution. The court has the power to determine the cases of jurisdiction for itself and also not bound to follow any kinds of findings of the arbitrators. The evidence from the correspondence between Gujarat and Armada states that the parties are agreed to appointment of the two arbitrators then Gujarat waives its right objects consequently(Li, 2013). Gujarat does not stop from challenging the appointment. The another important issue that is under the three and four grounds that is the future contractual damages contrary to public policy and it is found that Armada claim for the contractual damage is premature. The proper opportunity is given to the Armada that originates the application to enforce the additional awards after making the judgment. Therefore, the second awards do not deal with the future damages of the particular company. Finally the ground five deals with Carriage of goods by sea Act. In this section the results is identified that the arbitration clause remained valid(Magnus, 2012). Therefore, these are the various principles are relied upon the court on the basis of five grounds.
C) There are various freezing orders are made by the Foster J in May 2012. After that the orders retaining Gujarat from changing, disposing, dealing with the significant value of the shareholders in the capital of Gujarat NRE limited, which will remain a related corporation until further order is provide by the court(Mitchell and Powell, 2011). Foster J also states that Gujarat fails to make a specific case in support of the variation it sought. Another important and critical command is provide by the Foster J that the variation application “only faintly pressed” at [7 ] . The decision made by the federal court is encouraging among the international parties involved in the business entire Australia. The approach is selected for this particular case is pro-arbitration. This pro-arbitration approach is highly appreciated in Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Federal court made decision in favor of Armada application and three applications also enforce for the arbitration awards in Australia(Monahan, Young and Finlay, 2006). It was a reminder for the contracting parties that Australian courts will go with the arbitration agreements and will enforce awards, which made under the agreements.
A) Able Ltd has to follow several law issues regarding the sales contact in the US. The CISG can be followed for the law of the contract. Trade regulations, customs and standards must be maintained by the company to make an effective import business to the United States(Parker, 2007). The shipping company must be selected by the company and it is depends upon the several factors the specialization in the shipping of the particular materials but in recent days most of all the ships are available with the different size and shapes of cargoes. For the import of the mining equipment‟s the special arrangement of the cargo is required. The export control is conducted under the military surveillance in the United States. The Export control Act. And the Export administration Act is applicable for importing the mining products(Picken, 2011). It is not a major requirement to analyze the laws and regulation before implementing an excellent business plan.
a. In this part the international character and need is promoted uniformly in its application that will indicate the better faith in international trade.
b. The general principles are enforcing in this particular area for the conformation for the applicable law in this purpose(Rothwell, 2011).