Примеры использования Ethylene contract на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The Ethylene Contract.
Loss of profits" under the Ethylene Contract.
The Ethylene Contract became effective on 1 September 1988.
The events referred to in clause 6.3 of the Ethylene Contract never occurred.
The Ethylene Contract comprised two parts:(a) a technology licence; and(b) engineering and other services.
The notice refers to ABB Lummus' inability to fulfil its obligations under the Ethylene Contract with effect from 2 August 1990.
The Ethylene Contract was further amended on 16 June 1990 to take account of the barter arrangement referred to in paragraphs 469 to 475.
In November 1988,Techcorp opened the letter of credit required under the Ethylene Contract and the Supply Contract at the Central Bank of Iraq.
The remaining invoice, dated 17 February 1990, relates to the second instalment of the technology licence fee payable by Techcorp under the Ethylene Contract.
On 16 June 1990, ABB Lummus and Techcorp also signed amendments to the Ethylene Contract substituting the barter terms for the original payment terms.
The Ethylene Contract covered basic and detailed engineering, procurement and construction supervision services, as well as training and commissioning advisory services.
On 31 July 1988, ABB Lummus entered into a contract with Techcorp with respect to the construction of a 420,000 MTA ethylene plant at PC-2 the"Ethylene Contract.
ABB Lummus states that the third andfourth instalments of the technology licence fee under the Ethylene Contract fell due upon the occurrence of certain events as set out below.
The barter arrangement"arose out of Techcorp's lack of access, starting in the fall of 1989,to US dollars to make payments as required under the Ethylene Contract.
Each of the Ethylene Contract, the Styrene Contract and the Polystyrene Contract contained detailed provisions stating when the licence fees and other amounts payable fell due for payment.
On 14 December 1989,Techcorp informed ABB Lummus by letter that MIM had obtained"Iraqi Higher Authority" to use Iraqi crude oil as barter for the completion of the Ethylene Contract.
ABB Lummus asserts that Techcorp insisted on the inclusion of these clauses in each of the Ethylene Contract, the Supply Contract, the Styrene Contract and the Polystyrene Contract. .
The documentation provided by ABB Lummus in support of its claim indicates that ABB Lummus gave notice to Techcorp under the frustration clause of the Ethylene Contract on 10 August 1990.
Under the terms of the barter arrangement, Techcorp was to make payments to ABB Lummus under the Ethylene Contract by means of a letter of credit to be opened by Chevron in favour of SOMO and payable to ABB Lummus.
The termination clause of the Ethylene Contract provides that ABB Lummus was entitled to be paid the"cost of materials and services normally covered in this agreement and directly related to the orderly shutdown of the work.
The claim is for labour costs, non-payroll costs andvendor engineering services rendered under the Ethylene Contract, which have allegedly not been paid by Techcorp.
The claim includes an amount claimed on behalf of ABB Lummus' Brazilian subsidiary,Setal Lummus Engenharia e Construcoes S.A.("SETAL"), to whom ABB Lummus sub-contracted part of the engineering work under the Ethylene Contract.
These provisions demonstrate that the obligations of ABB Lummus under the Ethylene Contract, the Styrene Contract and the Polystyrene Contract, and Huntsman Chemical under the Polystyrene Contract, were"divisible" in nature.
The agreement provided for the supply of oil between June 1990 and May 1991 to generate proceeds in the amount of USD 138.6 million. ABB Lummus estimated that its work on the ethylene plant would end in May 1991 andthis amount would have covered all the services it expected to perform under the Ethylene Contract.
The provisions of the Ethylene Contract referred to above gave rise to an entitlement on the part of ABB Lummus to those expenses that(a) were"directly related" to the shutdown of the ethylene plant, and(b) complied with the temporal restrictions set forth in clauses 17 and 18.
It was amended by Supplemental Agreements dated 1 September 1988(to place a"ceiling" on the number of manhours that were to be billed at the rates specified in Exhibit IV to the Ethylene Contract) and 31 July 1989 to include provisions for the procurement and delivery of equipment and materials by ABB Lummus.
The frustration clause(clause 18) provides that, in the event of the Ethylene Contract being frustrated,ABB Lummus was entitled to be paid the amounts set out in the termination clause(clause 17), as if the Ethylene Contract had been terminated under the provisions of that clause.
On 18 February 2000, the Panel issued a procedural order in which it requested ABB Lummus to provide further information concerning shipments of oil under the Memorandum of Understanding,an agreed"ceiling" on the number of man-hours to be invoiced under the Ethylene Contract and Techcorp's approval of invoices for work performed under the Ethylene Contract. ABB Lummus submitted its response to the procedural order on 17 March 2000.
ABB Lummus deploys a further argument that its claims under the Ethylene Contract, the Styrene Contract and the Polystyrene Contract fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission regardless of when the work under those contracts was performed, as its performance under the relevant contracts was"indivisible" in nature.
However, in reliance on Techcorp's representations thatfuture services would be protected by an oil lift barter arrangement, ABB Lummus continued to provide services under the Ethylene Contract until 2 August 1990. On 14 December 1990, ABB Lummus received official notification from Techcorp that MIM had obtained"Iraqi Higher Authority" to use Iraqi crude oil as barter for the completion of the Ethylene Contract. .