The Reasoned Award
You are the sole arbitrator in a sale-of-goods dispute. The claimant, a buyer, alleges that 12,000 units of industrial sealant failed to meet a contractual viscosity specification and claims 780,000 in consequential losses, including lost production and a penalty paid to its own customer. The respondent seller concedes that 3,000 units were non-conforming but argues that the buyer accepted them, failed to mitigate, and in any event cannot recover the penalty because it was not a foreseeable loss. At the hearing the buyer's expert gave evidence on viscosity; the seller's expert did not attend for cross-examination because of illness, and the tribunal admitted his written report over the buyer's objection. The tribunal finds for the buyer on liability for all 12,000 units but is divided on quantum: it is satisfied that 300,000 in lost production is proved, is not satisfied that the penalty was foreseeable, and considers the mitigation argument weak but not frivolous. The award must be issued within three weeks.
1. Draft the structure and content of the reasoning on liability, addressing the admission of the absent expert's report and the finding on all 12,000 units.
Read the worked answer
The liability section should proceed in four steps.
First, state the contractual standard and the burden. The buyer must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the units fell below the specified viscosity. Identify the specification, the sampling method and the testing protocol, and record which party bore the burden on each issue.
Second, deal with the absent expert. The tribunal admitted the written report over objection. The reasoning must explain why: the report was served in time, the expert's evidence was relevant, the illness was documented, and the buyer had the opportunity to put written questions and to make submissions on weight. The tribunal should expressly state that it has discounted the report's weight because its author was not exposed to cross-examination, and should identify which conclusions it relies on and which it does not. A failure to explain this discount is a classic ground of challenge, so the reasoning must be transparent.
Third, resolve the 12,000-unit finding. The seller conceded 3,000 non-conforming units. For the remaining 9,000, the tribunal must explain what evidence supports a finding of systemic non-conformity rather than an isolated batch. If the buyer's expert tested a sample drawn across the whole production run and the seller's discounted report does not undermine the sampling method, the tribunal can find the whole run non-conforming, but it must say so expressly and must address the seller's contrary evidence rather than ignore it.
Fourth, address acceptance. The seller's argument that the buyer accepted the goods must be met on the facts: when did the buyer know, what did it do, and does the contractual notification regime or the applicable sale-of-goods law treat continued use as acceptance? The reasoning should state the conclusion and the facts that drive it.
2. Draft the reasoning on quantum, including the treatment of the penalty, mitigation and the partially proved loss.
Read the worked answer
The quantum section should separate the heads of loss and give a reasoned conclusion on each.
Lost production: the tribunal is satisfied that 300,000 is proved. The reasoning should identify the evidence relied on (production records, replacement cost, downtime calculations), explain why the figure is accepted, and note any element the tribunal has trimmed and why. A round figure with no arithmetic trail invites challenge.
The penalty: the tribunal finds it was not foreseeable. The reasoning should state the applicable test for consequential loss, identify what the seller knew or ought to have known at the time of contracting about the buyer's downstream obligations, and explain why the evidence falls short. If the contract contains a clause allocating consequential loss, the reasoning must construe it rather than apply a default rule. The tribunal should also address whether the penalty was caused by the breach at all, since causation and foreseeability are distinct and either can defeat the claim.
Mitigation: the tribunal considers the argument weak but not frivolous. It should therefore be addressed, not dismissed in a sentence. Explain what a reasonable buyer would have done, whether the buyer did it, and whether any failure increased the loss. If the tribunal finds no failure to mitigate, say so and give the reason. If it finds a partial failure, quantify the reduction.
The reasoning should close with a reconciliation: the amounts claimed, the amounts allowed, the amounts rejected and the arithmetic linking them to the operative part. The dispositive section must match the reasoning exactly; a mismatch between reasoning and award is a common and avoidable defect.
3. The award is due in three weeks and one tribunal member wishes to add a general comment criticising the seller's quality systems. Advise on whether to include it and on the risks in the draft.
Read the worked answer
The general comment should be omitted. An arbitral award is a determination of the parties' dispute, not a report on a party's business. Observations that go beyond the issues can be read as a finding, may prejudice the seller in future dealings, and give the losing party an argument that the tribunal decided matters outside the scope of the reference. If the quality systems are relevant to whether the non-conformity was systemic, address them in the liability reasoning and tie the observation to the issue; otherwise leave them out.
The draft carries three other risks. First, the absent expert: the discount must be visible in the reasoning, not merely in the tribunal's deliberations. Second, the 12,000-unit finding must be supported by evidence that covers the whole run, not extrapolated silently from the 3,000-unit concession. Third, the arithmetic must reconcile exactly, and the operative part must award only the sums the reasoning supports.
On timing, three weeks is enough if the tribunal fixes the structure now and circulates a full draft to all members before the deadline. The presiding arbitrator should set a date for comments that leaves at least five working days for revision, signature and service. Rushing the reasoning to meet the deadline is the surest way to create a challengeable award.