国际贸易诉讼：代理约旦哈希姆王国HUSAM在华胜诉

International Trade Litigation: Acting HUSAM of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to Win a Lawsuit in China

【案情简介】

2017年，约旦哈希姆王国的HUSAM与我国河北尚某达成箱包贸易的国际货物买卖合同一致，约定交货方式为收到定金后55天工厂交货（EXW）。协议签订后，HUSAM如约支付定金。交货期届满，尚某没有履行任何交货义务。经HUSAM与尚某多次沟通，双方达成解除合同一致。尚某手书退还定金承诺一份，但嗣后仍没有按照承诺履行。

[Brief description of the case]

In 2017, HUSAM of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Mr.Shang, from Hebei Province, agreed on a contract on the sale of bags. Two parties agreed that the delivery method is 55 days factory delivery (EXW) after receiving the deposit.After the agreement was signed, HUSAM paid the deposit as promised. After the delivery period expired, Mr. Shang failed to fulfill any delivery obligation. After many communications, the two parties reached an agreement to terminate the contract. Mr.Shang hand wrote a promise to return the deposit, which was subsequently not fulfilled as promised.

【诉讼情况】

诉讼国选择和法院管辖： HUSAM长期在华经商，尚某为我国境内主体，尚某财产所在地也在我国境内，为了方便诉讼和实现债权目的，HUSAM表示在我国境内提起诉讼。HUSAM不是外交代表，本案不涉及外国国家及财产，双方也没有达成仲裁一致，故本案在HUSAM经常所在地义乌提起了诉讼。

[Status of litigation]

Choice of forum State and jurisdiction of the court: HUSAM has been doing business in China for a long time, Mr. Shang is a natural person in China, and Shang's property is also in China. In order to convenient litigation and get money, HUSAM decided to file a lawsuit in China. HUSAM was not a diplomatic person, the case was not related to any foreign country or foreign country’s property, and the parties had not agreed to an agreement of arbitration, so the case was filed before the People’s Court of Yiwu which is also HUSAM's habitual residence .

法律适用问题：合同签订时双方没有约定法律适用，约旦哈希姆王国不是《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的成员国，《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》不适用本案。本案为国际货物买卖合同纠纷，国际货物买卖合同中卖方的交货义务最能体现合同特征，卖方为我国河北尚某，故我国与本案合同有最密切联系。根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第四十一条“当事人可以协议选择合同适用的法律。当事人没有选择的，适用履行义务最能体现该合同特征的一方当事人经常居所地法律或者其他与该合同有最密切联系的法律。”之规定，适用我国法律对此案进行审理。

Application of the law: The contract didn’t have a term of application of the law. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is not a member of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), soCISGis not applicable to this case. This case is a dispute over a contract for the international sale of goods. The seller's obligation to deliver goods in an international contract for the sale of goods is the most characteristic of the contract. Mr. Shang as the seller was in Hebei Province,China, therefore China had the closest connection with the contract. According to article 41 of the application of law for foreign-related civil relations of the people’s republic of China, if the parties do not choose the laws applicable to contracts by agreement, the laws of the country of the habitual residence of the party preforming obligations can best reflect the characteristics of this contract shall apply.So this case should be tried under Chinese law.

【法院判决】诉讼中，我方认为尚某在合同约定的交货期届满没有按期交货，在HUSAM给予的宽限期内仍没有履行交货义务系根本违约，HUSAM有权要求解除合同并要求尚某承担违约责任。因HUSAM在解除合同之时没有放弃要求尚某双倍返还定金的权利，故HUSAM有权要求尚某双倍返还定金。经审理，我方的全部诉讼请求得到法院支持。

[Court judgement]

In the lawsuit, we held that Mr. Shang made a fundamental breach of contract with non-performance of the delivery and refunding within the agreed period given by HUSAM. So HUSAM hadthe right to claim rescission of the contract and asked for a compensation of double return of the deposit.The court upheld all of our claims.

【相关实体法律】

《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》

《中华人民共和国合同法》

Relevant Substantive Laws：

Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Laws in Foreign Related Civil Relations

Contract law of the people's Republic of China