Subject: it was apt to cover the question of law О толковании арбитражной оговорки:Such construction should start from the assumption that the parties, as rational businessmen, were likely to have intended any dispute arising out of the relationship into which they had entered or purported to enter to be decided by the same tribunal. The clause should be construed in accordance with that presumption unless the language made it clear that certain questions were intended to be excluded from the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. Clause 41 of [the contract] contained nothing to exclude disputes about the validity of the contract, whether on the grounds that it was procured by fraud, bribery, misrepresentation or anything else. Accordingly it was apt to cover the question Соответственно, в нем содержался ответ на вопрос о том, мог ли договор быть заключен посредством подкупа... Соответственно, на основании этого пункта можно было сделать вывод о том, был ли договор заключен посредством подкупа или нет... Спасибо. |
|
link 29.08.2018 19:17 |
'apt' can have three different meanings: The first meaning (which applies here) is 'fitting'/'appropriate'/'suitable', as in: The second (which doesn't apply here) is in the construction '(is/are) apt to [+infinitive]' and means 'tends to'/'has a tendency to'/'usually [does sth]', as in: The third meaning (which also doesn't apply here) is (of people) 'intelligent and quick-learning', as in: 'to cover' here = 'to include'. |
|
link 29.08.2018 19:39 |
Пункт содержит ответ на вопрос, был ли договор заключён путём подкупа? Трудно себе представить такое Не может ли это быть безличным предложением: следовательно, было уместно рассмотреть вопрос... ? Без контекста не видно |
You need to be logged in to post in the forum |