Fajing [1998] No. 159, Supreme People’s Court Opinion, April 2, 1998

CIETAC:

Your letter CIETAC No. 1381 requesting for instruction has been received. On deliberation, the following reply is hereby made:

1. The joint-venture contract for Lianyungang Yunqin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd (“Joint Venture Contract”) was entered into between Guanyun Jianyin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd, Guanyun Coal Industry Company and the Seattle Fanya Investment Ltd. (USA). The Joint Venture Contract provides that the dispute shall be settled by arbitration. Although the parties missed the single wording “Economic” in the name of CIETAC, it does not affect the validity of the arbitration clause. Thus, CIETAC has jurisdiction over any dispute resulting from the performance of the Joint Venture Contract or over all the disputes relating to the Joint Venture Contract, among the abovementioned three parties.

2. The dispute relating to the real estate ownership between the Guanyun branch of the China Construction Bank in Jiangsu and Guanyun Coal Industry Company is not a dispute relating to the joint venture contract. Thus, this dispute is not restricted by the arbitration clause in the Joint Venture Contract, and the parties may bring the action before the people’s court under the relevant provisions of the Chinese Civil Procedure Law. 

3. The civil division of our court has requested the Jiangsu People’s High Court to review and report in detail on the Civil Ruling [Su Civil Final, 1997] No. 62 where it found the arbitration clause invalid and rejected the appellant’s objection to jurisdiction, based on the reason that the arbitration institution agreed upon in the arbitration clause does not exist. 

Related Links:
最高人民法院对仲裁条款中所选仲裁机构的名称漏字，但不影响仲裁条款效力的一个案例的批复意见

*The original text is Chinese and has been translated into English for reference only. If there is any inconsistency or ambiguity between the Chinese version and the English version, the Chinese version shall prevail.