[LRAC] Journal Students & The Law - UEL MCC 2017 edition by The Legal Research & Advisory Club

PREFACE The Legal Research and Advisory Club (LRAC) exerts great effort in building an environment basing on three primary aspects: Researching – Practicing – Critical thinking through many activities which are suitable for students’ aptitude. To accomplish those objectives, LRAC has been nurturing ambitious projects for students who are passionate about law as a profession. Being students ourselves, we understand what students, especially those majoring in law, want and need. They must hone their research and advocacy skills. For such purposes, “UEL Moot Court Competition”(UEL MCC) and the “Students & the Law UEL MCC Edition” journal were created. UEL MCC is a Moot Court competition at the University of Economics and Law (UEL), Ho Chi Minh city National University. The competition is focused on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) and private international law. This year, UEL MCC 2017 was jointly organized by LRAC and the Faculty of Law’s Youth Union. The “Students & the Law UEL MCC 2017 Edition” is a compilation of materials for the competition. This special edition is published with hope that future mooters and interested students will easily find the relevant information and materials for their further studies and research. Through efforts, we always wish to contribute to motivate students to develop essential skills for legal researching and advising. Notwithstanding, knowledge is limitless while what we know is limited, so the journal may contain errors or mishaps. We are willing to receive your feedback for further better publications. We send special thanks all of the students who have continuously supported UEL MCC, “Students & the Law UEL MCC Edition” journal as well as LRAC. The Legal Research & Advisory Club

Students & the Law

Advisors Trinh Huyen Trang (K15502) Tran Ngoc Phuong Minh (K15502)

UEL Moot Court Competition 2017 Edition

Table of contents

Editor in chief Tran Thi Thu Thao (K16503C) Editorial board

1. OVERVIEW

History of Moot Court Compettion

Tran Thi Thu Thao (K16503C)

2. UEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017 (UEL MCC 2017)

Ng. Dang Minh Chau (K17502)

Nguyen Tuan Kiet (K17502)

Rules

Dao Kha Han (K17502C)

Timeline

The Judges

The Mooters

Best Memoranda

Phan Thi Thuy Trang (K17502C) Le Thi Phuong Thao (K17503) Design Ng. Dang Minh Chau (K17502)

Moot Problem

3 5

• Memorandum for the Claimant

• Memorandum for the Respondent

• Comment from Ms. Le Ngoc Bao Trang Academic advisor

Sponsors

The Journey to Championship

Feelings of the Organizing Committee

Overview

HISTORY OF MOOT COURT COMPETITION Dao Kha Han K17502C student, University of Economics and Law, HCMC National University The word “moot” originates from a Scandinavian word meaning simply a meeting. The meetings concerned were assemblies of the members of a community for legislative or judicial purposes. The word was given its present meaning in the English Inns of Court in the sixteenth century where law students would present their legal arguments on a given set of factual circumstances (often resembling real cases) before one or several senior lawyers or judges. Aspiring lawyers were thereby given experience in the art of persuasion, without having to gain such experience at the risk of inadvertently damaging a real client’s interests. Various regional, national and even international mooting competitions have developed through the years such as the renowned Philip C. Jessup international law moot court competition, established in 1959.1 The Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, also known as the Jessup, is the oldest and largest international moot competition in the world, attracting participants from over 645 law schools in 95 countries. The competition has been described as the most prestigious moot court competition in the world by a large number of organizations and universities internationally, and is one of the grand slam or major moots. The Jessup Competition was the brainchild of Professor Richard R. Baxter at Harvard Law School, who worked with Professor Stephen M. Schwebel (later President of the International Court of Justice) to create a courtroom simulation experience grounded on international law. Originally named the “International Law Moot,” the Jessup Competition held its first round at Harvard University on 8 May 1960. The round, comprised only of Harvard Law students, involved a team of two American law students, Thomas J. Farer and William Zabel, and a team of two foreign LL.M. students, Ivan L. Head of Canada and Bernard H. Clark of New Zealand. The first Jessup problem was titled, “Cuban Agrarian Reform Case.” Since then, the Jessup Competition has been held annually, and student participation has increased dramatically.2 Shortly after the first Jessup Competition, the idea of creating an organization to serve the needs of students interested in international law arose. Here are some popular cosmopolitan Moot Court Competitions: African Human Rights Moot Court Competition, Central and East European (European Law) Moot Competition, Commonwealth Moot Competition, Customs Unions or Free Trade Areas (CUFTA) Dispute Settlement Competition, D. M. Harish Memorial Government Law College International Moot Court Competition, Foreign Direct Investment International Moot Competition, Inter-American Human Rights Moot Court Competition, International Environmental Moot Court 1

European Law Moot Court, History, https://www.europeanlawmootcourt.eu/History.

International Law Students Association, History, https://www.ilsa.org/about-ilsa/history.

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 1

Competition, M.M. Singhvi Memorial Bar Council of India International Law Moot Court Competition, etc.3 The competition contents are usually related to many fields such as Criminal Law or Contract Law, Civil Rights & Cultural Heritage Law, International Human Rights Law, International Commercial Arbitration, Constitutional Law, Environmental and Energy Law, Labor and Employment Law, International Trading Law, Tax Law,... Procedural issues pertaining to jurisdiction, standing, and choice of law are also occasionally engaged, especially in arbitration moots.4 International moot competitions are generally targeted at students and only allow participants who have not qualified to practice law in any jurisdiction. However, there are a handful of international moot competitions that are targeted at young lawyers. For instance, since 2011/2012, members of Essex Court Chambers have jointly hosted a mooting competition for junior lawyers (with fewer than 3 years’ Post-Qualification Experience) in Singapore, in conjunction with the Singapore Academy of Law.5 Thanks to many benefits students acquired through moot courts such as fostering knowledge in the relevant legal fields, as well as forming many important soft skills that within three decades. This form of legal education is commonly used in many universities around the world like King’s College London, Columbia University, Berlin University,… to the famous universities in South East Asia: Hong Kong University, National University of Singapore, Malay National University, etc.6 In Vietnam recent years, there have been a number of schools, such as the Ho Chi Minh City University of Law, Hanoi Law University, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam having gained some achievements in participating moot courts competitions. Although the results are not really high, the application of moot court is limited but these are a good sign for Vietnamese law students in general.

International Law Students Associsation, International Moots, https://www.ilsa.org/listings/intlmoots.php.

LSU Law Center Advocacy Programs, List of National Moot Court Competitions, https://advocacy.law.lsu.edu/resources/list-of-national-moot-court-competitions/. 4

Essex Court Chambers, INTERNATIONAL MOOTING, https://essexcourt.com/news-events/mooting/international-mooting/.

Legal Research & Advisory Club, MOOT COURT LÀ GÌ?, https://lracuel.org/2017/07/14/moot-court-la-gi/

2 | Practice Makes Perfect

UEL MCC 2017

MOOT PROBLEM THE CASE

Disclaimer: The case is entirely fictional. PARTIES 1. UNISPORT is a Guangzhou-based athletic wear designer, manufacturer and retailer. In 1989, UNISPORT opened its first store in Guangzhou. By 2000, there were over 100 UNISPORT stores operating throughout China. In 2002, it opened its first foreign store in Tokyo, and outlets soon spread to major cities throughout Japan. In 2010, UNISPORT announced that the company would target annual group sales of USD 6 billion and pre-tax profit from operations of USD 1 billion by 2020. UNISPORT currently sponsors some top athletes including Olympic medallists. 2. VEEFOOT is a retailer of sportswear and sports equipment based in Ho Chi Minh City. Established in 2012, VEEFOOT has quickly gained significant market share by offering the most comprehensive selection in town as well as a knowledgeable support staff. BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP 3. On 31 January 2017, UNISPORT and VEEFOOT entered into sales contract no. 03/2017/MBHH (“Contract”) in which VEEFOOT purchased from UNISPORT 4,000 “high quality” futsal T-shirts for USD 20,000 paid in full by VEEFOOT. These futsal T-shirts were intended for resale to members of a futsal fan club. 4. The resale of these articles having begun by mid-March, VEEFOOT received, beginning on 24 March 2017, a dozen letters of complaint from the purchasers, relating to a significant shrinkage, in the range of 3 to 5 centimetres, of the goods after washing. 5. Having found itself in difficulties with respect to the members of the futsal fan club, VEEFOOT sent to UNISPORT a letter on 28 April 2017, in which VEEFOOT demanded the total reimbursement of the concluded sale. UNISPORT did not reply. 6. On 15 May 2017, VEEFOOT had some tests conducted by a professional inspector who observed a shrinkage of 5% following a washing of the clothes conforming to the indications contained on their tags, thus exceeding the tolerated limit of 3%, that level of shrinkage being deemed excessive by the inspector. 7. On 20 June 2017, UNISPORT interrogated the manufacturer of the fabric used in the production of the goods. The manufacturer responded that a foreseen tolerance of 5 to 7% in the shrinkage of the articles was acceptable. UNISPORT thus considered that the goods were conforming to what one could normally expect.

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 3

GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE 8. The governing law and dispute resolution clause in the Contract is as follows: “Any dispute arising out of or in relation with this Contract shall be resolved by mediation at the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) in accordance with its Rules of Mediation. If the dispute has not been settled pursuant to the said mediation procedure, the dispute shall be resolved by arbitration at the VIAC in accordance with its Rules of Arbitration. The place of arbitration shall be Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The governing law of the contract shall be Vietnamese law. The language to be used in the arbitral proceedings shall be English.” ARBITRATION 9. On 1 August 2017, VEEFOOT commenced this arbitration by filling the Request for Arbitration to the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre pursuant to Article 7 of its Rules of Arbitration. On 25 August 2017, UNISPORT submitted the Statement of Defence to the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre pursuant to Article 9 of its Rules of Arbitration. 10. After the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Presiding Arbitrator conferred with the other two arbitrators and submitted the following “Hearing Agenda” for the December hearing: (i) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to resolve the current dispute? (ii) What is the applicable law to resolve the current dispute? Assuming that the CISG is applicable: (iii) Was UNISPORT’s delivery in conformity with the Contract? If no, did VEEFOOT make a proper notice of non-conformity to UNISPORT? (iv) Did VEEFOOT have the right to declare the Contract avoided? If yes, did VEEFOOT make a proper declaration of avoidance of the Contract to UNISPORT? (v) Was UNISPORT exempted from liability? After these issues are resolved, the Arbitral Tribunal plans to schedule another hearing to consider, inter alia, the amount of damages owed by either party; which party will be responsible for the cost of the hearings; and any other matters not resolved in the December hearing. All have agreed that these issues should not be raised at the December hearing.

4 | Practice Makes Perfect

UEL MCC 2017

RULES The Rules General

Rules 1 – 2

Participating Teams

Rules 3 – 5

The Moot Problem

Rule 6

The Memorandums

Rule 7

Oral Hearings

Rules 8 – 13

Assistance

Rule 14

Judging and Scoring

Rules 15 – 16

Awards

Rule 17

General 1. UEL Moot Court Competition 2017 (the “Competition”) shall be run under the auspices of an Organizing Committee, comprising representatives from the Legal Research and Advisory Club (LRAC), and representatives from the Faculty of Law’s Youth Union, which shall have the power to: i. Plan and organize the Competition; ii. Set Rules for the Competition, which interpretation should exclusively rest with the Organizing Committee; iii. Decide the criteria of participating teams and invite such teams to join the Competition; iv. Invite and appoint writer(s) of the Moot Problem, arbitrators and other persons who can assist in the Competition; v. Invite and appoint collaborators for the Competition; 2. The date for the Competition shall be December 10th 2017. The Secretary General/ Assistant Secretary(ies) will give due notice on the venue of the Competition.

i. Morning of December 10th 2017 – Semi-final Round ii. Afternoon of December 10th 2017 – Final Round Participating Teams Composition 3a. The Competition shall be open to students from University of Economics and Law (UEL). The exact number of teams in each round will be indicated in Rule 8. 3b. Each team shall consist a minimum of three Mooters and a maximum of five Mooters. Eligibility 4a. Mooters must be registered students of University of Economics and Law as of October 1st 2017. A person is ineligible to participate in the Competition if he or she has previously participated in a moot court competition at the national or international level. 4b. The Organizing Committee shall have discretion to: i. Grant exemption for requirement(s) relating

specific to the

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 5

eligibility pursuant to Rule 4a should the Organizing Committee in its view consider such requirement(s) being not applicable/practical; ii. Determine the eligibility of participating students in case of disputable circumstances; and iii. Invite (an) additional team(s) after the registration deadline (Rule 5a). The deadlines for the request of clarifications and submission of the Memorandums shall be adapted according to the circumstances. Registration 5a. Each participating team must register with the Organizing Committee via the Registration form within the Mooterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s file on or before November 15th 2017. Team Leader 5b. Each Team Leader for a participating team will be sent: i. The individual moot number assigned to each of its team; ii. Any other relevant material and information. 5c. The Team Leader for each participating team is responsible for: i. Distributing the material and information (refer to Rule 5b) to each member of its team; ii. Verifying the status of participating students (refer to Rule 4a). Communication between each team and the Organizing Committee through any person other than the relevant Team Leader for that team is at the risk of the team. Substitute Mooters 5d. A team will normally not be permitted to make any substitution of its Mooters after they have been registered under Rule 5a. 5e. In exceptional circumstances and with the express prior approval of the SecretaryGeneral/ Assistant Secretary(ies), a team may for the 6 | Practice Makes Perfect

oral hearings substitute (a) Mooter(s). 5f. The eligibility of substitute Mooter(s) will be the same as other participating students pursuant to Rule 4. The Moot Problem Selection 6a. The Organizing Committee shall have the sole power to determine the Moot Problem to be used in the Competition pursuant to Rule 1. Distribution 6b. The Moot Problem will be distributed tentatively on October 15th 2017, unless otherwise updated by the Organizing Committee. Clarifications 6c. Requests for clarification shall not be entertained unless the clarification would have material significance in the context of the Moot Problem. In particular, teams should bear in mind that the Moot Problem provides a limited set of facts. Teams should not use a request for clarification merely for convenience to obtain additional facts to those contained in the Moot Problem. The Organizing Committee shall have absolute discretion to determine whether it is necessary to respond to any request for clarification and to resolve such request in a manner in which it thinks fit. If the Organizing Committee deems it necessary to respond to a request for clarification, such clarification shall be distributed to all teams using the same method for distribution as used for distribution of the Moot Problem. Clarifications issued become part of the Moot Problem. Receipt of the Moot Problem 6d. Any team that is unable to receive the Moot Problem or any further notification in the manner distributed should notify the Organizing Committee immediately via email (uel. mootcourt@gmail.com), to arrange an alternative method of distribution.

The Memorandums Form and Length 7a. Each team shall submit two Memorandums for the Claimant and the Respondent respectively. 7b. Each Memorandum shall be typed with 1 ½ line-spacing, using ‘Times New Roman’ font in size 12. Citations must be in footnotes (not endnotes) and using proper legal citation. 7c. Each Memorandum must have two cover sheets: i. The first cover sheet must indicate (a) the names of the Mooters of the team, (b) whether the Memorandum is for the Claimant or the Respondent, and (c) the word count of the Memorandum; and ii. The second cover sheet must have on it only (a) the team’s individual moot number which was supplied to the contact person of the team (see Rule 5b), and (b) whether the Memorandum is for the Claimant or the Respondent. (The purpose of this requirement is to protect the anonymity of the teams to ensure no prejudice or bias is shown in the assessment of the Memorandums.) 7d. Each Memorandum (excluding cover sheets) shall not exceed 4000 words in length in total, excluding footnotes. Omitting space between individual words to circumvent the word limit would be subject to mark deduction at the discretion of the Organizing Committee. In the event that any team submits a Memorandum exceeding 4000 words, the Organizing Committee shall deduct marks from that team’s Memorandum score out of 200 (calculated pursuant to Rule 15a) according to the following scale: i. 1 – 100 words in excess – deduction of 10 marks; ii. 101 – 200 words in excess – deduction of 20 marks; iii. 201 – 400 words in excess – deduction of 30 marks; and

iv. Over 400 words in excess – deduction of 40 marks. In the event that any team submits a Memorandum exceeding 4500 words, that team shall be disqualified from the Competition. Submission of Memorandums 7e. Each team shall submit electronic copies for both of its Claimant and Respondent Memorandums via a single e-mail (to uel. mootcourt@gmail.com) by 11:59 p.m. GMT +7, November 30th 2017. A Memorandum may not be revised once it has been submitted. 7f. In the event that any team fails to submit both of its Claimant and Respondent Memorandums on time (pursuant to Rule 7e), the Organizing Committeeshall deduct 5 marks for each calendar day from each of the team’s Memorandum score out of 200 (calculated pursuant to Rule 15a). 7g. In the event that any team fails to submit either its Claimant or Respondent Memorandum (pursuant to Rule 7e), the Organizing Committee shall deduct 10 marks from the team’s Memorandum score out of 200 (calculated pursuant to Rule 15a) and request the team to submit its missing Memorandum. 7h. The remedies as provided under Rule 7f and Rule 7g are cumulative. Oral Hearings Semi-final Round 8a. The four (04) teams with the highest total scores of both the Claimant and Respondent Memorandums (calculation pursuant to Rule 15a) shall enter the Semi-final Round. 8b. The four (04) teams will be paired into two Groups to compete with each other, in the roles of either Claimant or Respondent by means of a random draw. 8c. The Organizing Committee will determine the pairing results in each Group by means of a random draw after the results of the Memorandums have been determined. Final Round Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 7

8d. The team with the highest total score of each Group will enter the Final Round. 8e. The two teams shall compete in the roles of both Claimant and Respondent. Proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal 9. In each match, each Team shall be represented by two Mooters only. The same or different Mooters may participate in different matches arguing for Claimant and/ or for Respondent. 10a. In the event that a team fails to appear for a scheduled oral hearing, the round of the Competition in concern will proceed as an ex parte hearing in the following order: i. A bailiff will confirm the presence of both teams. ii. If one team is absent, the bailiff will inform the arbitrators and notify the Organizing Committee. iii. Once the Organizing Committee has been notified, the bailiff will then call the moot number pertaining to the absent team two times inside and two times outside the room with an interval of 30 seconds each. iv. If the team whose number is called fails to appear, the bailiff will announce to the arbitrators that there is no appearance by the team called. v. In the Semi-final Round, the oral hearing will then proceed as an ex parte hearing. The appearing team will move automatically to the next round. In the Final Round, the appearing team shall be the winning team. 10b. In the event that only one Oralist appears for a scheduled oral hearing, or one Oralist withdraws in the midst of the oral hearing, the bailiff will notify the Organizing Committee. Once the Organizing Committee has been notified, the bailiff will announce the start or continuation of the oral hearing. The oral hearing will proceed as follows: i. The single Oralist shall speak in the oral hearing in the order pursuant 8 | Practice Makes Perfect

to Rule 12 and receive an individual score from the arbitrators pursuant to Rule 15b. ii. There shall be no rebuttal or surrebuttal. iii. In the Semi-final Round the team with both Oralists will move automatically to the next round. In the Final Round, the team with both Oralists shall be the winning team. 11a. Each team shall speak for no more than 40 minutes, including reserving time for rebuttal (in the case of a Claimant team) or surrebuttal (in the case of a Respondent team). The first Oralist and the second Oralist for each team shall each speak individually for a minimum of 15 minutes. 11b. Each team may reserve up to 5 minutes for rebuttal (in the case of a Claimant team) or surrebuttal (in the case of a Respondent team). 11c. The scope of the Claimant’s rebuttal is limited to responding to the Respondent’s oral hearings, and the scope of the Respondent’s surrebuttal is limited to responding to the Claimant’s rebuttal. 11d. Each team shall indicate at the beginning of its oral argument, how long each Oralist will speak and how much time it intends to reserve for rebuttal or surrebuttal. 11e. Either the first Oralist or the second Oralist may address the Arbitral Tribunal in rebuttal or surrebuttal. 11f. The Arbitral Tribunal may, in its discretion, extend the time for each Oralist for good cause, provided that the maximum extension of time granted to any Oralist shall not exceed 5 minutes. In the Final Round, the maximum extension of time granted to any Oralist is at the discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal. 11g. Time shall be kept by a bailiff, who will indicate to each Oralist by appropriate means when they have: i. 5 minutes left; ii. 1 minute left; iii. to conclude their address forthwith. 12. The order of the oral hearings shall be: i. Claimant’s first Oralist;

ii. Claimant’s second Oralist; iii. Respondent’s first Oralist; iv. Respondent’s second Oralist; v. Rebuttal, if any (Claimant’s first or second Oralist); vi. Surrebuttal, if any (Respondent’s first or second Oralist). 13a. The oral hearings in the Semi-final is closed off from the public. The oral hearings in the Final Round is open to the public. 13b. Every courtesy shall be given to Oralists during oral hearings. Communication between team’s Oralists shall be in writing to prevent disruption, and teams and spectators shall avoid all unnecessary noise or other inappropriate behavior which distracts from the argument in progress. 13c. In each match, only the two Oralists of each team are allowed to sit at the counsel table. They shall not be permitted to communicate with spectators, or with any other external person except the arbitrators. Without limiting the foregoing, Oralists shall not be permitted to communicate with the Mooters who do not sit at the counsel table during the oral hearings. 13d. Scouting is prohibited. Persons directly associated with any team shall not record an oral hearing involving one or more teams against which their team may compete in the subsequent match(es). Violation(s) shall be brought to the attention of the Organizing Committee immediately, without disturbing the oral hearing, or immediately after the oral hearing is finished. The team concerned may be subject to mark deduction or even disqualification at the discretion of the Organizing Committee. Assistance 14. All research, writing and editing relating to the Memorandums must be work of the team’s Members registered pursuant to Rule 5a. Judging and Scoring 15a. Each Memorandum shall be assessed by two arbitrators. The arbitrators will be supplied

with copies of the Memorandums with cover sheets showing only the teams’ individual moot number. The maximum score for each Memorandum shall be 200 points, which shall be the total scores awarded by the arbitrators assessing it. 15b. The oral hearings shall be assessed by at least three arbitrators in the oral hearings of Semi- final and Final Rounds. In case the number of arbitrators cannot be consistent across all oral hearings of a particular round, due to unexpected absence of arbitrators and no substitute can be identified, the assessment of oral presentation for competing teams will be subject to available arbitrators who present at the oral hearing. 15c. The four (04) teams eligible to enter Semifinal Round will be determined by the following conditions: i. Teams with the highest total scores of both the Claimant and Respondent Memorandums shall have the priority to enter the Semi-final Round; ii. In the event that two or more teams have tied on the total scores, the team(s) with the highest score(s) of the Claimant Memorandum shall have the priority to enter the Semi-final Round. 16b. In the Semi-final and Final Rounds, the Arbitral Tribunal will decide which is the winning team based on their oral presentation without scoring. Awards 17a. The winning team and the teams of the Semi-Final Round shall be awarded a certificate and a trophy. 17b. The Memorandums from a team with the highest total scores of both the Claimant and Respondent Memorandums shall be adjudged the Best Memorandums (pursuant to Rule 15a). The team submitted such Memorandums shall be awarded a certificate and a trophy. 17c. The Organizing Committee may in its discretion decide to award alternative prizes in lieu of the prizes described above.

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 9

UEL MCC 2017

10 | Practice Makes Perfect

UEL MCC 2017

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 11

UEL MCC 2017

12 | Practice Makes Perfect

UEL MCC 2017

BEST MEMORANDA TEAM. 03 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CLAIMANT (VEEFOOT) PRELIMINARY MATTERS 1. The Tribunal have jurisdiction to resolve the current dispute Based on the Contract, the parties chose VIAC with its Rules of Arbitration to resolve the dispute incase “the dispute has not been settled pursuant to the said mediation procedure”. The action of VEEFOOT that “filling the Request for Arbitration to the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre pursuant to Article 7 of its Rules of Arbitration.” and UNISPORT’s action: “submitted the Statement of Defence to the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre pursuant to Article 9 of its Rules of Arbitration.”1 prove that mediation procedure was failed, so VIAC has the right to resolve this dispute Contractually. Moreover, at Article 11 of VIAC rules shows that “Unless the parties have agreed that the dispute shall be resolved by a Sole Arbitrator, the dispute shall be resolved by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising three Arbitrators” and article 12 shows that Tribunal including one Presiding Arbitrator and two arbitrators, so VIAC set up the Tribunal following its rules which VEEFOOT and UNISPORT agreed with in their Contract.

“Methods of settlement of disputes”2 or use “Resolution by the Arbitration or the Court”3 and “The statute of limitations for lawsuits applicable to Commercial disputes shall be two years”4, so in this case their agreement terms about resolving dispute at VIAC is legal in Vietnam. Therefore, VIAC set up the Tribunal following its rules is legal as well. In conclusion, The Tribunal obviously have jurisdiction to resolve the current dispute. 2. Applicable law UNISPORT’s and VEEFOOT’s places of business are respectively located in China and Vietnam, both of which are signatories without reservations to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (hereinafter called “CISG”). In the absence of a choice of law clause, the present dispute is governed by the CISG pursuant to Article 1.5 Moreover, CISG applies to sale of T-shirts which are not the avoided subject in Article 2.6 Therefore, CISG 1980 is applicable to resolve the current dispute.

In this case, UNISPORT and VEEFOOT agreed that the governing law of the contract shall be Vietnamese law.7 Moreover, UNISPORT and On the other hand, VEEFOOT and UNISPORT VEEFOOT are traders conducting commercial chose Vietnamese law as governing law of the activities in an independent and regular manner Contract, so this dispute under scope of regulation and having business registrations. According of Vietnamese Civil Code and Law Commercial to Article 1, 6 Law Commercial 2005, this Law governs commercial activities conducted outside which contain regulations of Contract. the territory of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in According to regulations in Civil Code and Law cases where the involved parties agree to this Law Commercial, Contracting parties are free to choose 1

Moot Problem, para.9, lines 1-4.

Article 398(g), Civil Code 2015.

Article 317, Law Commercial 2005.

Article 319, Law Commercial 2005.

Article 1, CISG.

Article 2, CISG.

Moot Problem, para. 8, lines 6-7.

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 13

for application.8 Hence, UNISPORT and VEEFOOT athletes including Olympic medalists.13 This is under the regulations of Law Commercial 2005. proves that UNISPORT is an expert in providing T-shirts and is absolutely more knowledgeable According to Article 4, Commercial Law 2005, of T-shirts than VEEFOOT. Therefore, UNISPORT Commercial activities which are not provided for in must be aware of the shrinkage of the T-shirts the Commercial Law and other laws shall comply which is a decisive factor to evaluate the quality with the provisions of the Civil Code.9 Therefore, of the T-shirts. However, the shrinkage of 5% is Civil Code 2015 is also applied to resolve the exceeding the tolerated limit of 3% under the conflict between UNISPORT and VEEFOOT. inspection of a professional inspector.14 SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS On 20 June 2017, UNISPORT interrogated 1. UNISPORT’s delivery was not in conformity the manufacturer of the fabric used in the manufacture of the goods and the manufacturer with the Contract pursuant to Article 35 CISG responded that a tolerance of 5 to 7% in the According to Article 35 CISG, the seller must shrinkage of the article was acceptable for what deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and one would normally expect.15 In facts, VEEFOOT description required by the contract and which are ordered “high quality” T-shirts. contained or packaged in the manner required by Thus, UNISPORT’s delivery was not in the contract.10 It means that the seller’s delivery conformity with the Contract. goods must conform to the quantity, quality standards agreed among the parties. 2. VEEFOOT made a proper notice of nonIn this case, VEEFOOT purchased from conformity to UNISPORT according to Article 39 UNISPORT 4,000 “high quality” futsal T-shirts for CISG USD 20,000 paid in full to resale to members of the 2.1. VEEFOOT succeeded in giving notice of futsal fan club.11 After resale, VEEFOOT received non-conformity after it was discovered according a dozen complaints from purchasers about the to Article 39 CISG shrinkage, in the range of 3 to 5 cm of the goods after washing.12 Of course, UNISPORT knew and According to Article 39 CISG, the buyer must could not have been unaware of what VEEFOOT’s give notice to the seller specifying the nature implied requirement of the “high quality” of the of the lack of conformity within a reasonable T-shirts was. As a result, VEEFOOT’s goods were time after he has discovered it or ought to have complained by purchasers. discovered it.16 In other words, the time for such notice starts to run as soon as the lack of Moreover, purchasers who do not know the conformity is discoverable and, in any case, when details of the quality standards of the goods still the buyer has actually discovered it.17 complain, which proves that UNISPORT’s goods In this case, VEEFOOT sent to UNISPORT a letter cannot be considered as high quality in Vietnam. on 28 April 2017, in which VEEFOOT demanded In addition, UNISPORT is a large company which the total reimbursement of the concluded sale.18 specializes in manufacturing sportswear and they Notice in written form has often been found has over 100 stores operating throughout China, satisfactory, and the contents of a series of letters their outlets also spread to major cities throughout have been combined in order to satisfy the article Japan and they currently sponsor some top Article 1, Law Commercial 2005. Article 4, Law Commercial 2005. 10 Article 35, CISG. 11 Moot Problem, para. 3, lines 2-3. 12 Moot Problem, para. 4, line 3. 13 Moot Problem, para. 1, lines 1-4 14 Moot Problem, para. 6, lines 2-3. 15 Moot Problem, para. 7, lines 2-4. 16 Article 39, CISG. 17 Switzerland 8 January 1997 Appellate Court Luzern. (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970108s1.htm) 18 Moot Problem, para. 5, lines 2-3. 8 9

14 | Practice Makes Perfect

39 requirement.19 Therefore, VEEFOOT made a proper form of notice. The reasonable time for giving notice after the buyer discovered or ought to have discovered the lack of conformity under Article 39 (1) CISG varies depending on the circumstances.20 Among the circumstances to be taken into account are such matters as the nature of the goods, the nature of the defect, the situation of the parties and relevant trade usages.21 VEEFOOT purchased from UNISPORT 4,000 “high quality” futsal T-shirts.22 As a basic of rule, clothe is a type of durable good and the reasonable time for giving notice should be longer. In this case, the non-conformity is shrinkage which is a latent defect that couldn’t recognize at the delivery. For this type of error, the inspection period for goods only starts when the nonconformity begins to manifest and the VEEFOOT knew or should have known about it. As analyzed above, UNISPORT had experience in providing T-shirts, so, VEEFOOT had the right to believe that UNISPORT’s delivery was in conformity with “high quality” which was agreed in the Contract. However, beginning on 24 March 2017, VEEFOOT received a dozen letters of complaint from the purchasers about the shrinkage of T-shirts. VEEFOOT did not immediately give a notice to UNISPORT because VEEFOOT thought that it was just a minor error and only some shirts had that problem. It was not until VEEFOOT had found itself in difficulties with respect to the members of the futsal fan club that VEEFOOT sent to UNISPORT a letter on 28 April 2017, in which they demanded the total reimbursement of the concluded sale.23 The reason is until 28 April, VEEFOOT made sure that UNISPORT’s delivery was not in conformity with the quality agreed among the parties. Therefore, VEEFOOT gave notice to UNISPORT. After that, UNISPORT interrogated the manufacturer of the fabric used in the production

of the goods on 20 June 2017, this action shows that UNISPORT still supposed that notification of VEEFOOT was reasonable. In summary, VEEFOOT gave a notice of nonconformity after it was discovered according to Article 39 CISG. 2.2. VEEFOOT gave notice of non-conformity to UNISPORT within a reasonable time under Article 318 Law Commercial 2005 Article 314 Law Commercial 2005 stipulates that if there is no such agreement, the time limit for lodging complaints shall be provided for six months from the date of delivery of goods for complaints about quality of goods.24 Here, VEEFOOT received dozen letters of complaints from futsal’s fan on 24 March 2017 and VEEFOOT sent to UNISPORT a letter on 28 April 2017, the notified period was four weeks. Therefore, it is considered a reasonable time to give notice of non-conformity about quality of goods pursuant to Article 318 Law Commercial 2005. In conclusion, VEEFOOT made a proper notice of non-conformity to UNISPORT within a reasonable time. 3. VEEFOOT did have the right to declare the Contract avoided under Article 49 CISG 3.1. UNISPORT’s breach constituted a fundamental breach pursuant to Article 25 CISG Firstly, a retailer cannot be expected to sell the neither low nor normal quality goods at price as the high quality goods, by doing so, he would likely to damage his own reputation.25 In the current case, VEEFOOT is the retail company which distributes products directly to customer. However, UNISPORT’s delivery of non-conforming goods resulted in VEEFOOT’s resale at a high price with normally quality good, thus it must damage VEEFOOT’s reputation.

19 France 29 January 1998 Appellate Court Versailles (Giustina International v. Perfect Circle Europe) (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980129f1.html) 20 Cf. also I. Schwenzer, Art. 39 para 16, in Schlechtriem & Schwenzer, supra note 72; J. O. Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales (1999), para. 257. 21 CISG-AC Opinion No. 2, supra note. 4, Art. 39 para. 3; Cf. also Baasch Andersen, supra note 3, V.3; U. Magnus, Art. 39 paras. 43 et seq., in Staudinger, supra note 37. 22 Moot Problem, para.3, lines 2-3. 23 Moot Problem, para. 5, lines 1-3. 24 Article 314, Law Commercial 2005. 25 CISG Advisory Council Opinion No.5 - The Buyer’s right to avoid the contract in case of non-conforming goods or documents, Comments (part 4(4.3)). (http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/CISG-AC-op5.html#1)

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 15

Secondly, in regard to substantial deprivation, it is undeniable that VEEFOOT’s expectations under the Contract were far away from what UNISPORT’s agreed in the contract - “high quality product”. A party contracting’s expectations under a contract are to be discerned form the terms of the contract and other circumstances preceding the contract, such as contractual negotiations26. In this Contract, UNISPORT agreed to send to VEEFOOT the T-shirts with high quality contractually. However, most of them were at low quality that even normal people – customers had complaint about. Additionally, VEEFOOT is substantially deprived of what he entitled to expect under the Contract if he loses his interest in the Contract.27 In common sense VEFOOT does business in distributing products directly to customers; interest is obviously VEFOOT’s expectation from the Contract. Furthermore, as VEEFOOT distribute sportswear throughout Ho Chi Minh City28 and known as “knowledgeable staff”, he would expect the futsal T-shirts could be at perfect quality to enhance his image, which can help him to gain benefit and maintain customer’s loyalty. However, the defective goods resulted such detriments; therefore, VERFOOT’s expectation were not met at all. Thirdly, in regard to the foreseeability, UNISPORT could foresee that delivery of nonconforming goods would result in losses for VEFOOT, It’s undisputed that VEEFOOT clearly mentioned in the Contract about the quality of the futsal T-shirts as “high quality”. As an athletic wear designer, manufacturer and retailer29, UNISPORT must know that crucial criterion: the difference between “high quality” and “normally expect”. Moreover, UNISPORT knew VEEFOOT was a “knowledgeable” retailer company when consulting the Contract, thus UNISPORT could foresee that VEEFOOT’s good resale at a low quality would affect his image. Therefore, he must be able to anticipate the losses resulted from the

non-conforming of the delivered futsal T-shirts. In summary, the act of UNISPORT providing VEEFOOT with non-conforming goods constitute a fundamental breach of Contract under Article 25 CISG. 3.2 Even if UNISPORT alleges VEFFOOT did not give him an opportunity to cure pursuant to article 48 (1) CISG, UNISPORT’s breach still establishes a fundamental breach 3.2.1. The buyer’s right to avoid the contract always prevails over the seller’s right to cure and, thus, the question of whether the breach was fundamental for the purpose of avoidance cannot be answered in the light of the seller’s right to cure.30 Article 48 (1) CISG permits the seller to cure any failure of performance of any contractual obligation; however, this right to cure is “subject to article 49”, the provision governing the buyer’s general right to avoid the contract. Avoidance of the contract, therefore, excludes the seller’s right to cure. Generally, it is for the buyer to decide whether or not the contract should be avoided. The buyer may exercise a right to avoid without restriction from the seller’s right to cure. This approach is supported by article 48(2) CISG according to which the seller may ask if the buyer will accept a cure31 and by Article 49(2) CISG, which evidences that the buyer need not accept the seller’s offer to cure. Additionally, it has been stated that the buyer who is entitled to avoid the contract need not wait to see if the seller will cure but may declare the contract avoided as soon as it suffers a fundamental breach.32 Thus, VEEFOOT is not obliged to give any UNISPORT opportunity to cure the defective goods. 3.2.2. Should Tribunal decide that UNISPORT’s right to cure should prevail, however, UNISPORT’s cure definitely cause unreasonable delay to

26 Franco Ferrari, Fundamental Breach of Contract under the Sales Convention -- 25 Years of Article25 CISG (https://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/ferrari14.html) 27 Ingeborg Schwenzer (ed.), Schlechtriem & Schwenzer Commentary on the CISG, 3rd ed, Oxford 2010, p.406 28 Moot Problem, para. 2, line 1. 29 Moot Problem, para.1 line 1. 30 Robert Koch, the Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the United Nations. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), part 11(f), p.227 (https://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/koch.html) 31 ICC Arbitration Case No. 7531 of 1994 (Scaffold fittings case) (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/947531i1.html) 32 Official Records of the UN Conference on CISG, Vienna, 10 March-11 April 1980.

16 | Practice Makes Perfect

VEEFOOT. Firstly UNISPORT was not willing to cure defective goods. Indeed, UNISPORT remain no reply to the VEEFOOT’s letter. In addition, UNISPORT were not intend to cure the product, cause instead of showing any enthusiasm action, On 20 June 2017, UNISPORT interrogated the manufacturer and asserted their products were conforming.33 3.3. VEEFOOT did not lose the right to avoid the contract as he complied with the obligations imposed by Article 82 CISG Article 82(2) (a) CISG recognizes that the buyer retains the right to declare the contract avoided if his inability to make restitution of the goods substantially in the condition in which the buyer received them is not due to the buyer’s act or omission. Here, VEFOOT’s selling the T-shirt was due to the fact that VE made effort to ask UNISPORT’s reaction so if they can return the T-shirts back by suggesting an option “total reimbursement of concluded sale”, but there were no reaction from UNISPORT .Moreover, VEEFOOT resale is his right under Article 82(2) (c) .Eventually, VE’s right-act of the goods is not due to his “act or omission” at Article 82(2) (a). 4. VEEFOOT did make a proper declaration of avoidance of the Contract to UNISPORT 4.1. VEEFOOT made a notice to UNISPORT to declare the contract avoided pursuant to Article 26 CISG Firstly, a notice of non-conformity of the goods and a notice of avoidance can be combined and expressed in one declaration34. Therefore, the letter of 28 April 2017 which included a notice of non-conformity of the goods should also be considered VEEFOOT’s declaration of avoidance. Secondly, a notice of avoidance must be communicated to the other party by appropriate means of communication. Nowadays, letter

is still the best way to do that. Furthermore, it is recommended that declaration be made in writing.35 VEEFOOT made the declaration of avoidance by fax thus fulfilled this criterion. Thirdly, such notice must express with sufficient clarity that the party will not be bound by the contract any longer and considers the contract terminated. It appears , however, that the phrase “ declaration of avoidance “ need not to be used , nor need the relevant provision of CISG be cited, provided that a party communicates the idea that the contract is presently terminated because of the other side’s breach.36 Finally, the letter was sent directly to UNISPORT, thus satisfies the requirement which is sated that the notice must be directed to other party, which normally the other party to the origin party contract.37 By the way, UNISPORT interrogated the manufacturer of the fabric used in the production of the goods on 20 June 2017, this action show that UNISPORT still supposed that notification of VEEFOOT was reasonable. Therefore, the notice VEEFOOT made on 28 April 2017 should be considered a declaration of avoidance. 4.2. The declaration of avoidance was timely pursuant to article 49(2) CISG In this case, UNISPORT might advocate that Article 38(1) CISG requires VEEFOOT to examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. Therefore, the buyer needs to comply with two periods of time: First, the period for examination of the goods and, second, the subsequent period to notify. But in this case the non-conformities is shrinkage which is a latent defect that couldn’t recognize at the delivery. For this type of error, the inspection period for goods only starts when the non-conformity begins to manifest and the buyer knows or should have known about it, so VE has the right to examine after receiving goods. Moreover, this amounts to a total period for the notification of non-conformities of

Moot Problem, para.7, lines 3-4. UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. (https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/clout/CISG-digest-2012-e.pdf) 35 Defining “Fundamental Breach” under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. (https://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/babiak.html) 36 UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. 37 UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. 33 34

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 17

4 weeks consisting of an observing period and a notification period. It is for VEEFOOT to prove that he has submitted a timely notice (CISG), Article 38, Article 39 It is undisputed that the T-shirts was delivered before mid-March 2017. It is evident from the documents that VEEFOOT complained to UNISPORT about the non-conformity of the goods for the first time on 28 April 2017. As this notice had been given after about 4 weeks after receiving the first letters of complaint, it was clearly given within a reasonable time. Secondly, in judicial practices, five weeks38 or one to two months39 has been regarded as a reasonable period of time to declare the contract avoided under Article 49(2) (b) CISG.40 Thus, 4 weeks in the case at hand is reasonable time for VEEFOOT to declare the contract avoided. In conclusion, VEEFOOT did make proper declaration of avoidance of the contract to UNISPORT in accordance with Article 26 CISG and Article 49(2) (b) CISG. 5. UNISPORT was not exempted from liability according to Article 79 CISG. Pursuant to Article 79 CISG, A party is not liable for a failure to perform any of his obligations if he proves that the failure was due to an impediment beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences.41

entered into.42 Firstly, UNISPORT was not exempted from liability according Article 294 (1) (a) Law Commercial 2005. Because there is absolutely no agreement on liability exemption case among the parties. Secondly, UNISPORT was not exempted from liability according to Article 294 (1) (b) Law Commercial 2005. Article 156 Civil Code 2015 stipulates that an event of force majeure is an event which occurs in an objective manner which is not able to be foreseen and which is not able to be remedied by all possible necessary and admissible measures being taken.43 Here, UNISPORT’s delivery was not in conformity with the “high quality” which agreed in the contract. However, UNISPORT considered that the goods were in conformity with normally expect44. This proves that UNISPORT’s delivery is completely unaffected by any objective factors. Thus, UNISPORT’s breach was not caused by an event of force majeure. Thirdly, UNISPORT was not exempted from liability according to Article 294 (1) (c, d) Law Commercial 2005. The reason is that UNISPORT’s breach was irrelevant to VEEFOOT or any third party. In conclusion, UNISPORT was not exempted from liability.

Besides, Article 294 Law Commercial 2005 stipulates on cases of exemption from liability for breaching acts, A party that breaches a contract shall be exempted from liability in the following cases: A case of liability exemption agreed upon by the parties occurs; a force majeure event occurs; a breach by one party is entirely attributable to the other party’s fault or a breach is committed by one party as a result of the execution of a decision of a competent state management agency which the party cannot know, at the time the contract is 38 Germany 1 February 1995 Appellate Court Oldenburg (Furniture case) (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950201g1.html) 39 Switzerland 18 May 2009 Bundesgericht [Federal Supreme Court] 40 UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the UNISPORT Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods , Article 49, para 23 (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090518s1.html) 41 Article 79, CISG. 42 Article 294, Law Commercial 2005. 43 Article 156, Civil Code 2015. 44 Moot Problem, para.7, lines 3-4.

18 | Practice Makes Perfect

TEAM. 03 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT (UNISPORT) PRELIMINARY MATTERS 1. The Tribunal have jurisdiction to resolve the current dispute Based on the Contract, the parties chose VIAC with its Rules of Arbitration to resolve the dispute incase “the dispute has not been settled pursuant to the said mediation procedure”. The action of VEEFOOT that “filling the Request for Arbitration to the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre pursuant to Article 7 of its Rules of Arbitration.” and UNISPORT’s action: “submitted the Statement of Defence to the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre pursuant to Article 9 of its Rules of Arbitration.”1 prove that mediation procedure was failed, so VIAC has the right to resolve this dispute Contractually. Moreover, at Article 11 of VIAC rules shows that “Unless the parties have agreed that the dispute shall be resolved by a Sole Arbitrator, the dispute shall be resolved by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising three Arbitrators” and article 12 shows that Tribunal including one Presiding Arbitrator and two arbitrators, so VIAC set up the Tribunal following its rules which VEEFOOT and UNISPORT agreed with in their Contract. On the other hand, VEEFOOT and UNISPORT chose Vietnamese law as governing law of the Contract, so this dispute under scope of regulation of Vietnamese Civil Code and Law Commercial which contain regulations of Contract. According to regulations in Civil Code and Law Commercial, Contracting parties are free to choose “Methods of settlement of disputes”2 or use “Resolution by the Arbitration or the Court”3 and

“The statute of limitations for lawsuits applicable to Commercial disputes shall be two years”4, so in this case their agreement terms about resolving dispute at VIAC is legal in Vietnam. Therefore, VIAC set up the Tribunal following its rules is legal as well. In conclusion, The Tribunal obviously have jurisdiction to resolve the current dispute. 2. Applicable law UNISPORT’s and VEEFOOT’s places of business are respectively located in China and Vietnam, both of which are signatories without reservations to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (hereinafter called “CISG”). In the absence of a choice of law clause, the present dispute is governed by the CISG pursuant to Article 1.5 Moreover, CISG applies to sale of T-shirts which are not the avoided subject in Article 2.6 Therefore, CISG is applicable to resolve the current dispute. In this case, UNISPORT and VEEFOOT agreed that the governing law of the contract shall be Vietnamese law.7 Moreover, UNISPORT and VEEFOOT are traders conducting commercial activities in an independent and regular manner and having business registrations. According to Article 1, 6 Law Commercial 2005, this Law governs commercial activities conducted outside the territory of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in cases where the involved parties agree to this Law for application.8 Hence, UNISPORT and VEEFOOT is under the regulations of Law Commercial 2005. According to Article 4, Commercial Law 2005, Commercial activities which are not provided for in

Moot Problem, para.9, lines 1-4. Article 398(g), Civil Code 2015. 3 Article 317, Law Commercial 2005. 4 Article 319, Law Commercial 2005. 5 Article 1, CISG. 6 Article 2, CISG. 7 Moot Problem, para. 8, lines 6-7. 8 Article 1, Law Commercial 2005. 1 2

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 19

the Commercial Law and other laws shall comply with the provisions of the Civil Code.9 Therefore, Civil Code 2015 is also applied to resolve the conflict between UNISPORT and VEEFOOT. SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS 1. UNISPORT’s delivery was in conformity with the Contract pursuant to Article 35(1) CISG Pursuant to Article 35(1) CISG, the seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. Article 432, Civil Code 2015 stipulates that the quality of goods shall be agreed by the parties.10 Where parties have agreed unclearly on the quality of goods and there are no quality standards proclaimed or prescribed by a competent authority or by industry standards also, their quality shall be determined according to normal standards or separate standards in conformity with the purposes of entering into.11 Article 8, CISG also defines that the statements of a party are to be interpreted according to the understanding that a reasonable person of the same kind as the other party would have had in the same circumstances.12 In this particular situation, VEEFOOT purchased from UNISPORT 4,000 T-shirts for USD 20,000 paid in full by VEEFOOT13, which means the required quantity was in conformity with the contract. The quality of the T-shirts in the contract between UNISPORT and VEEFOOT was mutually agreed. Under the agreement, 4,000 “high quality” futsal T-shirts would be resale to members of a futsal fan club.14 However, the two parties only agreed that these T-shirts have “high quality”, but did not mention about the standards to be considered “high quality”, the agreement was obviously

unclear. In addition, there are no quality standards proclaimed or prescribed by a competent authority or by industry standards about the quality of those T-shirt. Therefore, the quality of the T-shirts will be determined according to the specific criteria in accordance with the purpose of the contract. UNISPORT’s behavior was consistent with the requirement in the contract. It was due to the fact that UNISPORT believed that when it placed in the position of VEEFOOT, it also had the same understanding. UNISPORT has over 100 stores operating throughout China, their outlets also spread to major cities throughout Japan and they currently sponsor some top athletes including Olympic medalists.15 This proves that UNISPORT has experience and prestige in this trading field. It has enough evidence to believe that it has a fulfill understanding about the quality standards for this type of goods and VEEFOOT will also understand and accept that standards. On June 20, 2017, UNISPORT interrogated the manufacturer of the fabric used in the manufacture of the goods and the manufacturer responded that a tolerance of 5 to 7% in the shrinkage of the article was acceptable for what one would normally expect. Thus, the shrinkage of those T-shirts from 5-7% is acceptable, and that of UNISPORT’s T-shirts was only 5%, which meant they also reached the “high quality” requirement of the contract.16 Moreover, UNISPORT did not need to supply goods that conform to standards in VEEFFOT’s nation. The shrinkage observing by the inspector of 5% exceeded the tolerated limit of 3% in Vietnam, but UNISPORT did not have to know and apply commercial standards in Vietnam. This is because the seller and buyer did not agree that the quality of goods must be conforming to criteria in buyer’s nation, consequently the reason that the buyer prior known the goods would be consumed in seller’s nation is not enough to force seller complying with standards in seller’s nation.17

Article 4, Law Commercial 2005. Article 432, Civil Code 2015, para. 1. 11 Article 432, Civil Code 2015, para. 2, 3. 12 Article 8, CISG. 13 Moot Problem, para. 3. 14 Moot Problem, para. 3, lines 1-3. 15 Moot Problem, para. 1, lines 2-6. 16 Moot Problem, para. 7, lines 2-3. 17 Cour supRrême allemand, 8 mars 1995, décision 123, Précis de jurisprudence de la CNUDCI concernant la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises. 9

20 | Practice Makes Perfect

Hence, UNISPORT’s delivery was in conformity with the Contract. 2. Even if UNISPORT’s T-shirts was not conformable, VEEFOOT also did not make a proper notice of non-conformity to UNISPORT Article 39 CISG requires the buyer to give notice to the seller of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.18 In this situation, VEEFOOT sent to UNISPORT a letter on 28 April 2017.19 In a case, a court has rejected a buyer’s argument that it gave implied notice of lack of conformity, holding that the notice required by article 39 must be express.20 VEEFOOT demanded the total reimbursement of the concluded sale21, which means an “implied notice” of lack of conformity. Therefore, VEEFOOT did not make a proper form of notice. In this case, UNISPORT and VEEFOOT entered into sales contract on 31 January 2017.22 The reasonable time within the buyer must give notice commences at the moment the buyer discovered or ought to have discover the lack of conformity.23 Here, VEEFOOT received a dozen letters of complaint from the purchasers on 24 March 2017.24 VEEFOOT had subjectively discovered the non-conformity on this day. Therefore, the period for VEEFOOT’s notice began on 24 March 2017. However, VEEFOOT did not give notice of nonconformity to UNISPORT through a letter until 28 April 201725, which was four weeks since the discovery of non-conformity. Four weeks was not a reasonable time under Article 39. Considering all these reasons, the notification sent to UNISPORT through a letter after four weeks cannot be considered within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 39 CISG. Hence, VEEFOOT also did not make a proper 18

notice of non-conformity to UNISPORT. 3. VEEFOOT does not have the right to declare the contract avoided under Article 49 CISG 3.1. VEEFOOT does not have the right to declare the contract avoided because UNISPORT did not create any fundamental breach of contract under Article 49, CISG Article 49, CIS stipulates that the buyer only has right to declare the contract avoided if there is the failure by the seller to perform any of his obligations under the contract amounts to a fundamental breach of contract.26 Substantial breach means a contractual breach by a party, which causes damage to the other party to an extent that the other party cannot achieve the purpose of the entry into the contract.27 In this situation, UNISPORT fulfilled its obligation and did not make any fundamental breach of contract, then VEEFOOT has no right to declare the contract avoided. A breach of contract by a party is a fundamental breach if it causes the other party to suffer damage, losing what they are entitled to expect from the contract. However, not all cases of goods that do not conform to the contract constitute a fundamental breach of contract.28 CISG 1980 does not provide for the definition of a fundamental breach, in fact, the determination will be based on: The consideration of whether the parties have the agreement on a fundamental breach of contract In case parties agreed that if the seller delivered the goods not in accordance with the contract and the strict adherence to the contract is necessary, then any breach of contractual obligations shall be considered as fundamental breach of contract. The buyer is obliged to prove whether there is any provision in the contract stipulating about that.

Article 39, CISG.

Moot Problem, para 5, line 2.

Germany 28 July 1993 District Court Aachen (Rare hard wood case) (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930728g1.html)

Moot Problem, para 5, lines 2-3.

Moot Problem, para. 3.

Alastair Mullis and Peter Huber, The CISG: A new textbook for students and practitioners, European Law Publishers, 2007, page.153.

Moot Problem, para. 4.

Moot Problem, para. 5.

Article 3, para. 13, Law Commercial 2005.

Article 49, CISG.

Article 25, CISG.

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 21

Otherwise, the buyer can not declare the seller’s behavior as a fundamental breach of contract.29 In this situation, the contract between UNISPORT and VEEFOOT did not contain the above provisions. Therefore, not all breaches of contractual obligations are considered as fundamental breach of contract, means even T-shirts delivered by UNISPORT were not really suited to the contract, it still cannot be considered as a fundamental breach of contract. - Severity of consequences caused by breach of contract According to Article 25 CISG, one of the most important factors to determine a fundamental breach is the damage caused by the breach of contract which reach the level of not allow party achieve what they expect from the contract.30 Thus, the severity of the consequences caused by the infringement is considered as a material injury which one party has to suffer as a result of the breach by the offending party. This severity mostly based on the percentage of damaged goods on the total value of the delivered goods. The percentage of damaged goods leading to the breach of contract is not the same and depends on the specific dispute. For example, the unconfirmed rates of goods in Frozen Bacon31, Frozen Meat32, Granite33 were 0.021%, 25% and 40%, respectively, which were not considered as breach of contract. From the disputes above, it can be seen that the criterion based on the loss ratio to determine a fundamental breach of contract is usually applied for the damaged goods accounted for a large proportion (over 90%) of the total value of the goods. In this situation, UNISPORT and VEEFOOT have agreed that VEEFOOT purchased from UNISPORT 4,000 “high quality” futsal T-shirts for USD 20,000 paid in full by VEEFOOT.34 On March 24, 2017,

there was just a dozen letters of complaint from the purchasers about their quality.35 Obviously, the percentage of damaged goods based on purchasers’ complaints was such a small proportion of the total value of the goods delivered. Thus, the severity of consequences caused by UNISPORT’s behavior did not reach the level of not allow VEEFOOT achieve its expectations and cannot be considered as breach of contract. - Whether the goods which are not conformable with the contract have commercial ability The purpose for which the seller and the buyer are directed is profit, only if the goods are unlikely to sell, then the purpose of the seller when entering into the contract is not achievable and constitutes a fundamental breach. In addition, only if the buyer indicates that the goods cannot be resold, then the violation of the seller is considered a fundamental violation of the contract.36 In this case, the total number of T-shirts distributed to futsal fans was 4000 shirts37 and the number of purchasers complaining was just only a dozen.38 Moreover, their behaviors only stopped at complaint, without any returning or boycott. It proved that those T-shirts were still commercially viable, in another word, VEEFOOT has no grounds to say that those T-shirts cannot be sold. Thus, VEEFOOT still achieved its purpose and has no basis to accuse UNISPORT of violating the fundamental contract. - Whether the goods being not in accordance with the contract can be “usable” In some cases, even though the goods are damaged or even severely damaged, the criteria for the usability of the goods delivered not in accordance with the contract can be used to determine basic leading to the breach of contract.

Garden Flowers case. Article 25, CISG. 31 Frozen Bacon case, Germany 22 September 1992 Appellate Court Hamm. 32 Frozen Meatcase, France 23 January 1996 Supreme Court (Sacovini/M Marrazza v. Les fils de Henri Ramel). 33 Granite case, Germany 12 October 2000 District Court Stendal. 34 Moot Problem, para.3, lines 1-3. 35 Moot Problem, para.4, line 2. 36 Shoes case, Germany 18 January 1994 Appellate Court Frankfurt. 37 Moot Problem, para.3, line 2. 38 Moot Problem, para.4, line 2. 29 30

22 | Practice Makes Perfect

If the purchaser are still able to use any damaged goods, he/she cannot invoke the criterion of contract breach to cancel the contract.39

Article 26 CISG stipulates that a declaration of avoidance of the contract is effective only if made by notice to the other party.42

In this case, although the T-shirts delivered by UNISPORT were complained about the shrinkage, they are still used. It proves that those T-shirts are still “usable” and VEEFOOT does not have the right to refer to the underlying breach of contract with UNISPORT.

In this situation, VEEFOOT has not announced the cancellation of the contract to UNISPORT. It only demanded the total reimbursement of the concluded sale on April 28, 2017, without making any proper declaration of avoidance to UNISPORT to show that the contract had been canceled.43

Hence, UNISPORT’s behavior is not considered to be a fundamental breach of contract and VEEFOOT has no the right to terminate the contract.

Hence, VEEFOOT did not make a proper declaration of avoidance of the contract to UNISPORT.

3.2. VEEFOOT lost right to declare the contract avoided because of not declare the contract avoided in a reasonable time under Article 49(2) (b) Article 49(2)(b) stipulates that in cases where the seller has delivered the goods, the buyer loses the right to declare the contract avoided if he did not declare the contract avoided within a reasonable time after he knew or ought to have known of the breach. In this particular situation, VEEFOOT did not declare the contract avoided in a reasonable time. In fact, VEEFOOT knew of the non-conformity since 24 March 2017 because of the complaints of its purchasers40 but it did not make any announcement about that problem and any declaration the contract avoided for UNISPORT. The reimbursement requirement of VEEFOOT sent on 28 April 201741 can be considered a declaration the contract avoided. Thus, VEEFOOT lost its above right because of not declare the contract avoided in a reasonable time. 4. Even if VEEFOOT has right to declare the contract avoided, it also did not make a proper declaration of avoidance of the contract to UNISPORT under Article 26 CISG 39

Globes case. Germany 27 February 2002 District Court München.

Moot Problem, para.4, line 2.

Moot Problem, para.5, lines 2-3.

Article 26, CISG.

Moot Problem, para. 5, lines 2-3.

Moot Problem, para. 2.

Moot Problem, para. 7, lines 2-3.

Moot problem, para. 5.

5. UNISPORT was exempted from liability Article 80 CISG stipulates that a party may not rely on a failure of the other party to perform, to the extent that such failure was caused by the first party’s act or omission. According to Article 38, 39 CISG and Article 44, Law Commercial 2005 requires time for examine and announce goods that are in conformity with contract. VEEFOOT is a knowledgeable staff44, but it did not find out about what called “high quality” in international market. Moreover, the shrinkage of those T-shirts from 5-7% is acceptable, and that of UNISPORT’s T-shirts was only 5%, which means they also reached the “high quality” requirement of the contract (7% means “low-quality” in normal expectation”).45 VEEFOOT also did not test the T-shirts immediately after receiving complaints and notify to UNISPORT despite the large quantities of goods in a reasonable time under Article 38, 39.46 As mentioned above, the activity of UNISPORT did not breach any clauses in the contract: the quality of T-shirts are “high” and conform to international standards. Hence, UNISPORT was exempted from liability.

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 23

COMMENT FROM MS. LE NGOC BAO TRANG - ACADEMIC ADVISOR The UEL Moot Court Competition of this year turns out to be the first moot court competition in the University of Economics and Law and the owners of best memorandum title this year have never had a brush with this type of writing. That said, they transcended their limits and presented the best memorandum to the readers. They stood out from others by both format and content fronts. Generally, the best memorandum maintains a good 'look' and impresses judges primarily. They adopt a pronounced roadmap at the outset and clearly set out the logical progression in the arguments. Especially, they are able to locate the issues underlying in the Moot Problem, gradually unwind the legal knotand structure their writing in a very easy-understanding way. The procedural and substantive sections are both submitted beautifully by way of IRAC (Issue - Rules - Application Conclusion) with good construction of sentences and paragraphs. They make good attempt to have an extensive legal research to identify applicable laws and relevant facts. As they build sufficient background and utilise their analysis skills to apply laws and facts, their memorandum purports to be very persuasive and reliable. By using plain and concise language, they successfully avoid verbiage and keep the sentences as simple as they are deemed necessary. In UEL Moot Court Competition 2017, submissions are scored on 6 criteria: (i) knowledge of facts and law, (ii) p roper and articulate analysis, (iii) e xtent and use of research, (iv) c larity and organization, (v) citation of sources and (vi) grammar and style. Knowledge of facts and law are the utmost priority for judges to consider, then analysis and research. The team are veryintelligent to pick the strongest argument they have and back them with huge citation of qualified sources which relatively prove the extent and depth of their research.They are ahead other teams by their skills of reading laws and applying facts. However, there isno right o r wrong answer to the moot problems which is indeed one of the interesting aspects of moot court competitions – that every time you hear students arguing the problem, they address different legal issues and interpret the facts differently. As discussed with other judges in the competition they agreed with me that the variety of responses to the question encourages students to consider the legal aspects in more ankles, to explore further readings on these topicsandto start to have an understanding of how to approach a legal problem. This should enable students to feel more untroubled to access a fictional moot scenario in any environment, and indeed, to understand how a court or arbitration will look at the legal aspects of actual proceedings. Further, any writing is sharpened by practice. Ultimately, it should assist students to feel better able to grapple with the legal issues by day-by-day practicing.

24 | Practice Makes Perfect

UEL MCC 2017

SPONSORS APOLAT LEGAL Established in 2014, APOLAT LEGAL is a legal practice providing a broad range of legal services in multiple practice areas for domestic and international clients. The firm commits to delivering and commercial response to the legal requirements of business throughout Vietnam, particularly in Ho Chi Minh city. APOLAT LEGAL’s lawyers quickly become recognized for their legal expertise and are highly regarded for their commerciality, determination, and connections. They are directly involved in all matters, consulting and working closely with clients in small focused team to promptly and effectively fulill client’ needs. All of the firm’s lawyers are members of Vietnam Bar Federation. The firm’s team of lawyers in Ho Chi Minh City specialize in most of all legal practice areas in Vietnam including: Enterprises and investment; Labor and Employment; Intellectual property; Real Estate and construction; Health; Culture, Sports and Tourism; Information and Communication; Natural resources and Environment; Transport; Resident and immigration; Industry and Trade; Education and Training; Finance and Banking; Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Each practice area is covered with six principal legal services: Regular Legal Consultancy; Dispute Resolutions; Building Regulatory Systems; Enterprise Establishment; Drafting Legal Documents and Translation; Legal Training. APOLAT LEGAL’s reputation for excellence is reflected in the identity of the firm’s clients. Some past and current VIP clients, which the firm worked with such as: LG Electronics, PGT Holdings, Central Group, Mayekawa, Opticon,... Mita Natural Cosmetics Co.Ltd - where guides and shares beauty secrets, lifestyles, fashion trends, is always ready to consult and provide natural cosmetic products for the beauty needs.

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 25

Academic Sponsors CISGVN was formed in 2010, originated from an effort by VCCI's International Trade Policy Advisory Committee to lobby the Vietnamese government to join CISG in order to promote Vietnam's integration into international trade law. CISGVN successfully organized a series of seminars on "Interpretation and application of CISG in the international contract for the sales of goods. In 2016, CISGVN published the 101 Q&A on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG) which immensely help lawyers and businessmen understand the Convention. Right now, CISGVN is focusing on their new project which is compiling and reviewing 101 case law of CISG. The project will surely help with the implementation of CISG in Vietnam. Media Sponsors

The Organizing Committee is very thankful to our sponsors and hopes that the competition shall continue to receive your support. We would like to wish our sponsors will develop and gain more success in the future.

26 | Practice Makes Perfect

UEL MCC 2017

THE JOURNEY TO CHAMPIONSHIP Nguyen Tuan Kiet (K17502) & Phan Thi Thuy Trang (K17502C) Students of University of Economics and Law, HCMC National University

“Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is a progress; working together is a success” (Henry Ford). Team spirit moving forward is one of the great strengths to make a success. This is the lesson we learned from the conversation with the team winning the first prize of UEL Moot Court Competition 2017 (UEL MCC 2017). Please listen to the sincere and helpful sharing of all members of the team! Team 04 - First Prize: Ms. Tran Thi Ngoc Lan Ms. Nguyen Thi Hoang Nguyen Ms. Le Nguyen Hong Nhung Ms. Ngo Minh Thy

Good morning, ladies. Congratulations to your team on winning the first prize of UEL MCC 2017! It is certain that you have many thoughts and feelings to share with everyone after the competition. So how does your team feel after becoming champion? Ms. Lan shared: “After becoming champion of UEL MCC 2017, the first thing I want to do is send my warmest thanks to the Legal Research & Advisory Club (LRAC) and the Faculty of Law's Youth Union who jointly organized the competition for us and for all UEL students to broaden our mind. I also want to express my deep gratitude to my teammates who were always by my side and encouraged me to keep moving forward all the time. Being champion, we feel extremely cheerful and happy. Everything happened just like a dream. Before the final round, we did not think that our team would be champion because we are the only second year students who do not have any experience pảticipating in competitions. However, our team 04 actually won the first prize. It was beyond our expectations.” Why did your team decide to take part in UEL MCC 2017? What did you learn when participating in the competition? Ms. Nguyen said: “At first our goal was only to be more confident and gain more knowledge from other teams who not only excel in academic knowledge but also speak fluent English. My team wasn’t pressured by the competition, on the contrary, we were very excited and comfortable during the process of the competition. We tried our best because the UEL MCC 2017 was a good chance to gain experience and challenge ourselves. That is the reason why we decided to participate in the competition.” Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 27

Ms. Nguyen also said: “After the competition, I think we should improve some important soft skills and also keep calmer when facing problems. Moreover, we also need to enhance academic knowledge as well as English fluency. It’s hearty to say that UEL MCC 2017 was a really good chance for us not only to gain experience in writing Memorandum but also debating in Oral Hearings, which were necessary in improving and developing helpful skills in the future. Additionally, members of my team had a great time, with beautiful memories throughout the competition. I think that is the most important thing for us in this competition.” Did your team have any memorable memories during the competition to share with us? Ms. Nhung said: “The time when we established the group and practiced together was such a beautiful period in my student life at UEL. For someone else, his/her memorable memories maybe more significant events. But for me, the time when we were working and practicing together to prepare for the competition was special and sweet enough for a busy student like me. After the competition, we understand each other very well. So now, we are close friends and good teammates.” In the competition, which round does your team think to be the most successful as well as the most difficult one? Ms. Thy shared: “I think it was really hard to make the comparison between these rounds. Each round had its own difficulties because this was the first time that UEL MCC was held, especially for writing the memorandum, we had to learn how to write it as well as find out the main key to the moot problem. Everything was so unfamiliar to us. We had to try a lot to overcome difficulties. In the competition, I think the final round was maybe the most successful and satisfied part. After the semi-final round, we had learned many useful things and received a lot of advice from the arbitral tribunal. Thanks to those advice, we won “ourselves” in the final. Winning ourselves is the best success. We deserve this success because of our effort.” Did your team ever get into trouble or have difficulties during the competition? If yes, by what means did your team overcome them? Ms. Nhung shared that her team absolutely had met a lot of problems when participating in the competition. At first, they were worried as they didn’t have much academic knowledge as well as soft skills. But afterwards, all members share the same thought that they participated in the competition to learn more knowledge and gain experience so they tried their best to overcome difficulties. For instance, they didn’t know how to write a memorandum so the only way was to search, research and learn. Besides that, they were well-prepared with the memorandum and practiced many times over. Therefore, they felt a bit more confident to show their presentation directly to arbitrators. Your team was very excellent to have a good Oral Hearing round with confident English speaking skill in the competition. So would you mind sharing with all the students some useful and effective learning English tips? Ms. Lan shared that she learned English on her own. She often learns English by listening to English music on TV or via videos on the Internet. Sometimes, she chats with foreigners to practice speaking skill. Moreover, she and her roommates usually speak English like a way to learn and relax. In her opinion, the keys to master English are studiousness and passion. Keeping moving forward and never giving up. I'd very appreciate it if your team could share your feedback with us to improve UEL MCC 2018? Ms. Thy shared: “Honestly, UEL MCC 2017 is a good chance for every student who enjoys learning Law to experience, challenge and learn. For me, I felt that your organization was good. I was very 28 | Practice Makes Perfect

impressed that lots of UEL students were interested in the competition. However, in my opinion, it could be more successful if organizers had used more the media in the final round. They would not help only the participants but also the audience understand and interact with each other. Because the competition was in total English, some viewers not good at English couldn't understand what participants were saying. It’s necessary to give each audience the case materials to follow the content of the dispute. I know that this was the first time LRAC and the Faculty of Law’s Youth Union had held UEL MCC 2017 so there were other defects. However, in general, the competition was very impressive and successful. We hope that UEL MCC 2018 will be more professional and successful”. Could your team give advice on your experience in UEL MCC 2017 for students who intend to participate in the competition next year, please? Ms. Thy advised students who intend to participate in UEL MCC 2018: “Firstly, team spirit is actually the most important key. Your team should be united, unanimous and try your best for what you want to achieve later instead of focusing on the results. Secondly, you need to control your feeling and keep calm when facing any trouble, especially presenting in front of the arbitrators. Be yourselves and perform just like what you had prepared before. Lastly, your outfit plays an important role. A formal one will help you feel more professional, confident, and also create a good first impression to other people. I hope my advice can help you to be well-prepared for UEL MCC 2018”. Finally, would your team kindly share with us your plan in the future? Ms. Nguyen shared: “I want to challenge myself with an International Humanitarian Law (IHL) competition next time. Moreover, I have been making great effort to improve and master my English and my expertise to attend other competitions. We hope a new year with renewed spirit and new skills will make this year more successful”. Thank you so much for the interview! We hope your team will always keep beautiful memories regarding UEL MCC 2017 and succeed in not only your learning but also your life with your passion and enthusiasm.

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 29

UEL MCC 2017

FEELINGS OF THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE LRAC MOOT COURT JOURNEY Tran Ngoc Phuong Minh - Chief Executive K15502 student, University of Economics and Law, HCMC National University Being a law student and member to the Legal Research & Advisory Club (LRAC), the first time I heard of Moot Court was in October 2016. The former LRAC Head of Research Department was going to participate in International Humanitarian Law Moot Court Competition 2016 National Round so she narrated to me and fellow members about the fundamentals of Moot Court, the skills needed, the experience… We were enraptured. LRAC started its journey by translating a guidebook on International Moot Court published by the International Bar Association in the first Students and the Law journal. Through Moot Court, LRAC activities and connections gradually broaden. In early 2017, we were invited to CISGVN moot training and a Mini-moot Competition hosted by the HCMC University of Law International Youth Club (IYC). We also conducted the “ABC to Moot Court” Workshop so as to give ourselves and other students an overview on Moot Court. Thrilled with the newly acquired knowledge and skills, we set an ambitious goal of organizing the first ever Moot Court Competition for UEL students. Throughout 2017 summer, LRAC-ers vigorously prepared plans, proposals, agendas and other documents. We had the guidance of former UEL mooters, UEL professors and students so as to organize a proper competition. In order to rally the highest number of participants, as well as spreading Moot Court activities among students, we invited the Faculty of Law’s Youth Union to jointly organize the competition with us. They readily agreed. In short, on October 15th 2017, UEL Moot Court Competition 2017 jump-started with first posts on the official fanpage. For LRAC, UEL Moot Court Competition was a dream former UEL students place in us, a task given by professors and something we owed to ourselves to create a better legal-practicing environment for UEL students. It was a long, hard and fulfilling journey. ... On a more personal note, I feel blessed playing a major role in LRAC Moot Court Journey. I was the one who greedily looked up all information relating to Moot Court, was the one who lead LRAC to championship in IYC ULaw Mini-Moot Competition 2017. Last but not least, I was the Chief Organizer of UEL Moot Court Competition 2017. It has given me the chance to do things I have never done, to talk to people I daren’t before. Looking back, UEL Moot Court Competition 2017 was my proudest accomplishment in these three university years. By participating in 10th GNLU International Moot Court Competition 2018 and being a mooter myself, I know how much hard-work and dedication a law student needs to participate in a Moot Court Competition. I wish to impart my love and knowledge for mooting to fellow UEL students. I hope that in the following years, Moot Court shall become an integral part of a UEL law student life.

30 | Practice Makes Perfect

IN LIFE... ANYONE GROWS UP Vuong kim Tai K15504 student, University of Economics and Law, HCMC National University There are things school can not teach me, but while working in the Organizing Committee of certain competition or program, I learned about different walks of life. Many people say that there is no use joining in youth unions, however, it is their own misconceptions that make them unable to grow The challenging program I did is called "UEL Moot Court Competition 2017". I have learned three things from it. First, cooperation. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s important to find the balance and equality between the parties when cooperating. The Faculty of Lawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Youth Union and the Legal Research & Advisory Club gave me a complete lesson on it. Second, in Eastern culture, people always seriously consider the word ''Endurance''. It only shows when you are really determined to do something, and show more clearly when facing your own weaknesses. And finally, "Team spirit" is the most important factor I want to mention. Only when you work in a team, you can understand yourself and your own value. Being a part of a team can teach you limitless lessons. Not every challenging program gives you valuable lessons. It's a chain of linked events, and for me, I never stop learning, experiencing as long as my teammates stay beside me. MOOT COURT - THE PRIDE OF US Le Thi Phuong Thao K17503 student, University of Economics and Law, HCMC National University For me, UEL Moot Court Competition 2017 was the first experience with the role of an organizer. The period of organizing the competition was really a meaningful experience. In working process, all the members had to work very hard to make a contest perfect as possible. Moreover, we wished to create a fair, useful academic competition for all students. I guess the competition was successful as I had expected. The thing that made us happiest was receiving many positive comments and thanks from the students after the competition. In addition, through the competition, I co-worked with new friends and talented people, which gave me opportunities to gain more professional knowledge and improve my soft skills. I realised that opportunities come from challenges. It is important that if no one bravely pioneers to overcome that challenge, all we want can not be come true. We wish UEL Moot Court Competition will bring many interesting and useful academic playground for students. We hope that the next UEL Moot Court Competition will be more better.

Students and The law (UEL MCC 2017 Edition) | 31

The Legal Research & Advisory Club (LRAC) operates under the jurisdiction of the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union of the Faculty of Economics Law, University of Economics and Law, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City. Objective: LRAC exerts great effort in building an environment basing on three primary aspects: Researching – Practicing – Critical thinking through many activities which are suitable for students’ aptitude. Mission: Motivate students to develop essential skills for legal researching and advising by creating an effective and professional practice space, whereas students are not only the recipients but also the ones maintaining and strengthening these motivations. Contact: Website: http://www.lracuel.org/ Fanpage: http://www.fplracuel.facebook.com/ Email: lracuel@gmail.com