Burden of Proof in International Arbitration

Author

RobertB.vonMehren

Source

RobertB.vonMehren,

BurdenofProofin

InternationalArbitration

inAlbertJanvanden

Berg(ed),Planning

EfficientArbitration

Proceedings:TheLaw

Applicablein

InternationalArbitration,

ICCACongressSeries,

Volume7Issue

(©KluwerLaw

International;Kluwer

LawInternational1996)

pp.123130

RobertB.vonMehren

(*)

I.Introduction

Ithasbecomethehallmarkofmoderninternationalcommercial

arbitrationthatarbitratorsareexpectedtobeneutraland

independent.Moreover,althougharbitralrulesplacethepowerto

decideinthearbitrator,theydonotconfereitherthepowerorthe

facilitiestogatherevidenceindependently.

(1)

Accordingly,the

arbitratorisexpectedtopresideinaneutralandevenhanded

fashionoveraproceedinginwhichthepartiesthemselvespresent

theevidenceuponwhichthearbitratorwillbasehisdecision.

Finally,inmostinternationalcommercialarbitrations,theawardof

thearbitratorisexpectedtoapplytothefactsasfoundbyhim.

(2)

Thus,theobligationswhichtheburdenofproofcreatesforthe

partiesbecomesacriticalpartofarbitralprocedure.Consideration

oftheproblemspresentedbytheburdenofproofisaninitial

questionwhichmustbemetinthedevelopmentofthestrategyto

beemployedinthearbitrationandintheplanningoftheparty's

presentationofthefacts.

II.WhatTruthdoestheArbitratorSeek?

Thearbitratormustorganizethearbitralproceedingsoastopermit

himtodeterminewhattherelevantfactsare.Ifheisproceeding

undertheICCRules,heisspecificallychargedbyArt.14“to

establishthefactsofthecasebyallappropriatemeans”.This

chargereflectsoneoftheessentialelementsofthetaskofan

arbitratorinproducingareasonedaward.Hemustdecide,onthe

basisoftheusuallyconflictingmaterialpresentedbytheparties,

whatthefactsrelevanttohisdecisionare.Hemustestablishthe

“truth”ofthematterbeforehimsothatit,togetherwiththe

applicablelegalprinciples,willproduceareasonedawardthat

decidesthecase.

(3)

page"123"

Anysystemofdisputeresolutionmusthavesomerulesorstructure

fordeterminingthetruthofthedisputebeingjudged.Theconceptof

theburdenofproofissucharule.Perhapstheneedforruleswith

respecttohowfactsaretobeestablishedislessimportantinan

inquisitorialsystemthaninanadversarialone.

(4)

However,

internationalcommercialarbitrationcannotfunctionasan

inquisition.SuchasystemrequiresthesupportoftheStatesothat

thejudgehasthefacilitiesavailablenecessarytogatherand

assessevidence.Anysuchsupportsystemisnecessarilylacking

inarbitrations.Thearbitraltribunalisthecreationoftheagreement

ofthepartiesandhaslittleornoaccesstothesovereignpowerof

BurdenofProofinInternational

Arbitration

theState.Asapracticalmatter,thetribunaldoesnothavethe

authorityorthefacilitiesavailabletoconduct–excepttoavery

limitedextent–itsowninquiryintothefacts.Asamatterof

necessity,itmustrelyonthepartiestogatherandpresentthe

evidence.Accordingly,ithasthesameneedforthestructureand

disciplinecreatedbytheprinciplesofburdenofproofasacommon

lawcourt.

The“BurdenofProof”containsthealphaandomegaoftheinquiry

intothefacts.Itimposesonthearbitratortworuleswhichcanbe

statedastwoquestions:“Whohastheburdenofgoingforward?”

and“Whohastheburdenofpersuasion?”Whichsidemust

introducethefactualinquiryintothearbitrationandwhichsidemust

presenttheevidencenecessarytoconvincethefinderoffactthat

itsversionoftheultimatefactistobeacceptedasthetruth?These

twoburdensfrequently,butnotalways,arebornebythesame

party.

III.TheBurdenofGoingForward

Generally,theburdenofgoingforwardrestsinitiallyontheparty

havingtheburdenofpersuasion.Thus,iftheclaimantassertsthat

therespondentbrokethecontractatissuebyfailingtoperforma

givenact,theclaimantwouldinitiallyhaveboththeburdenofgoing

forwardandtheburdenofpersuasion.Oncetheclaimanthasputin

aprimafaciecase,theburdenofgoingforwardshiftstothe

respondentwhomustrebuttheproofpresentedbytheclaimantor

facetheprospectofthisissuebeingdecidedagainsthim.

(5)

Theburdenofgoingforward,therefore,isaprinciplewhichrelates

towhenproofshouldbepresentedbyaparty.Itrestsessentiallyon

conceptsoflogicandorderlypresentation.Justasindebatewhere

theaffirmativespeaksfirstandthenegativesecond,theproponent

ofapositioninanarbitrationpresentsevidenceonthatpositionfirst

page"124" andthereaftertherespondentpresentshisproofin

rebuttal.Thesequenceofpresentationmaybetermedageneral

proceduralprinciple.

Itshouldbenoted,however,thattheburdenofgoingforwardcanbe

satisfiedwithoutactuallypresentingevidence.Forexample,itcan

besatisfiedbyapresumptionorbyanadmission;thesemethodsof

proofcanalsoinsomecircumstancesmeettheburdenof

persuasionaswell.

(6)

IV.TheBurdenofPersuasion

Thisburdenisuniversallyviewedbycommentatorsasbeingfixed

bytheissuespresentedinthecaseandbylegalprinciples.It

attachestoonepartyattheoutsetofthecaseanddoesnotshift.It

mustbemetbythepartythatbearsit,ifthatpartyistoprevailon

thatfactualissue.Arbitralrulesareforthemostpartsilentastothe

burdenofpersuasion.Art.24(1)oftheUNCITRALArbitrationRules

isanexceptionandprovides:“Eachpartyshallhavetheburdenof

provingthefactsreliedontosupporthisclaimordefense.”

Thisburdenisthusofcriticalimportance.Thearbitratorshould

applyitunlessheisfunctioningasanamiablecompositeur.In

application,twomajorissuesarise:First,whereisthestandardof

prooftobefoundand,second,whatisthecontentofthatstandard?

1.WhereIstheStandardtoBeFound?

Thisisaverydifficultquestion.Thevariousarbitralrulesgiveno

guidanceandthereareonlyafewhelpfularbitralawardsinthe

publicdomain.Certainpropositionsshouldbesetdownasa

foundationforourdiscussionofthequestion:

a. Thearbitratorderiveshisauthorityfromtheagreementofthe

parties.

b. Arbitrators,atleastincomplexinternationalcommercial

arbitrations,areusuallyskilledinreceivingandevaluating

evidence.Thesamestandardswhichapplytoajuryshouldnot

necessarilyapplytothem.

c. Subjecttotheprinciplesofequalityofthepartiesanddue

process,thearbitratorisforthemostpartfreeofrestrictive

rulesofevidencewhichapplyincourts.

Withthesepropositionsinmind,whereshouldthestandardbe

found?Thechoiceswouldseemtobeamongthefollowingthree

possibilities:

– Generalprinciplesoflaw–aconceptanalogoustolexmercatoria

– Thelawoftheplaceofarbitration.

– Thelawselectedbythepartiesorthearbitratorstocontrolthe

substanceoftheproceeding.

Eachofthesethreealternativesdeserveanalysis.Ishallconsider

thesecondandthirdalternativesfirst.

page"125"

a.Thelawoftheplaceofarbitration

Itusedtobethegeneralviewinmanyjurisdictions,including

England“thatarbitratorsareboundbythetechnicalrulesof

evidenceunlessthepartiesexpresslyorimpliedlyagreed

otherwise.”

(7)

Thisisprobablynolongerthecasewithrespectto

internationalarbitrations.Byandlarge,mattersofburdenofproof

andevidencearenotviewedtodayas“mandatory”rulesof

procedurewhichthearbitratormustfollow.

Consequently,thearbitratorisfreetoselectortorejectthe

proceduralrulesofthesitusunlessthepartieshavespecifically

agreedthatthoserulesshouldgovern.Anumberofconsiderations

militateagainstananalysiswhichrequiressuchachoice.First,the

choiceoftheplaceofarbitrationisoftenfortuitous,especiallyifthe

choiceismadebytheadministrativebody.Second,unlikethe

burdenofgoingforward,theburdenofpersuasionisbetterviewed

asamatterofsubstancethanprocedureandthusnotrequiredtobe

governedbythelawoftheforum.Itdoesnotconcerntheprocess

ofpresentingthecasebutratherthestandardofproofonwhichthe

ultimatedecisionwillrest.Thisstandardrepresentssuchan

importantconsiderationinthedecisionofthecasethatithasthe

qualityofsubstanceratherthanprocedure.

b.Thegoverninglaw

Howevertheburdenofpersuasionisclassified,therearestrong

considerationsinsupportofthepropositionthatthegoverninglaw

shouldattractthestandardofproofofitsjurisdiction.Theparties

haveeitherchosenbyagreementthecontrollinglaworthe

arbitrator,intheabsenceofchoicebytheparties,hasselectedthe

controllinglaw,usuallyonthebasisofthelawthathasthemost

contactsortheclosestconnectionwiththecase.Ifthegoverning

lawattractsthestandardofproof,thefactualaspectofthe

determinationofthedisputeismostcloselyassimilatedtothelegal

ruleswhicharebeingapplied.Thiswouldseemtoharmonizewith

thepresumedintentofthepartiesinchoosingthecontrollinglaw,

or,ifthatlawistobeselectedbythearbitrator,tobeconsistent

withtheapproachofapplyingthestandardofproofwhichhasthe

closestconnectionwiththecase.

c.Generalprinciplesoflaw

Ifthestandardofthegoverninglawisselected,anissuearisesas

towhen,ifever,thearbitratorcanproperlymodifythatstandardby

theapplicationofgeneralprinciples.Thisquestionmaybe

approachedbyconsideringahypotheticalcase.Assumethata

principalissueinaninternationalarbitrationisfraud;thatthe

arbitratorshaveconcludedthatthegoverninglawshouldattractthe

standardofproof;andthatthegoverninglawprovidesforahigher

standardofproofincivilcasesforfraudthanforotherissues.

(8)

page"126" Wouldtheapplicationofgeneralprinciplesjustifyan

arbitratorinaninternationalarbitrationapplyingtheusualcivil

standard?

Thisquestionturnsinlargemeasureonwhetherinarbitrationthe

sameresultsareexpectedanddesirableasinlitigation.Inlitigation,

whereahigherstandardisimposed,thejustificationcanprobably

befoundinnotionsofpublicpolicy.Sincefraudisinherently

criminal,thepublicpolicyargumentmightrunasfollowsina

commonlawjurisdiction:Theplaintiffinacivilcaseshouldbe

requiredtoproveitscaseagainstthedefendantbyastandard

whichiscloserthantheusualcivilstandardtothestandardof

“beyondareasonabledoubt”,whichtheStatewouldhavetomeetin

acriminalprosecution.Theclaimedimproperactsbeingclosertoa

criminalthanacivilwrong,thedefendantshouldhavetheprotection

ofthehigherstandardofproof.

Thishigherstandardofproofincivillitigationinvolvingfraudmaybe

justified,atleastincommonlawjurisdictions,bythejurysystem.

Certainlyitisthejurysystemwhichexplainstheapplicationof

manyrestrictiverulesgoverningtheadmissibilityofevidence.

Shouldthesamestandardbeappliedwherethetrialisbeforewhat

isusuallyapanelofsophisticatedandexperiencedarbitrators?The

tensionhere,itseemstome,isthedesiretoachievesimilarresults

injudicialandarbitralproceedings.Personally,Iamnotclearinmy

ownmindwhetherthatdesireshouldcontrolwhereoneormoreof

thefundamentalreasonsfortheexistenceofthestandardappliesin

litigationbutnotinarbitration.

2.WhatIstheStandard?

Thestandardmostgenerallyappliedininternationalcommercial

arbitrationisprobablythe“preponderanceofevidence”.This

standardreflectsthegeneralviewthattheproponentofaposition

mustdomorethancreateanequilibriumbetweenitspositionand

thatofitsopponenttoprevail.Somehow,theproponentmustpush

itsevidencebeyondthelineofequalweighttoaweightgreaterthan

thatoftheotherside.Thisapproachisconsistentwiththegeneral

viewthattheproponentofapositiondoesnotprevailunlessit

obtainssomeedgeoveritsopponent'sposition.Thus,thestandard

tiltsslightlyinfavorofthedefendantandreflectstherather

commonnotionthatthestatusquoshouldnotbechangedifthe

contendingpositionshaveequalstrength.

Thisstandardhasvariousformulations.Thegenerallyaccepted

Americanrulecanbefoundin3E.Devitt,C.Blackmar&M.Wolff,

FederalJuryPracticeandInstructions:CivilSect.72.01(4thed.

1987),whichdiscussesthefederaljuryinstructionontheburdenof

proof:

Theburdenisontheplaintiffinacivilaction…to

proveeveryessentialelementofhisclaimbya

preponderanceoftheevidence….

(….)

To‘establishbyapreponderanceoftheevidence’

meanstoprovethatsomethingismorelikelysothan

notso.Inotherwords,apreponderanceofthe

evidenceinthecasemeanssuchevidenceas,when

consideredandcomparedwiththatopposedtoit,has

moreconvincingforce,andproducesinyourminds

beliefthatwhatissoughttobeprovedismorelikely

truethannottrue.Thisruledoesnot, page

"127" ofcourse,requireprooftoanabsolutecertainty,

sinceprooftoanabsolutecertaintyisseldom

possibleinanycase.

Indeterminingwhetheranyfactinissuehasbeen

provedbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceinthe

case,thejurymay,unlessotherwiseinstructed,

considerthetestimonyofallwitnesses,regardlessof

whomayhavecalledthem,andallexhibitsreceived

inevidence,regardlessofwhomayhaveproduced

them.

Inotherjurisdictions,theideaof“preponderanceoftheevidence”is

formulatedintermssuchasthe“superiorweightofevidence”and

establishesthatitsversionofthefactsis“morelikelytruethannot

true”.

Inarecentimportantinternationalarbitration,leadcounselfora

partyarticulatedtheapplicablestandardasfollows:“Doesthe

evidencetestedagainsthumanexperienceandcommonsense

persuadeordoesitnot?”Thearbitraltribunalacceptedthis

formulationastheequivalentofthepreponderanceofevidencetest.

Fromthepointofviewofarbitration,thefundamentalprinciple

shouldbethatthestandardtobeappliedisthatprevailinginthe

jurisdictionfromwhichthecontrollinglawistaken.This,asnoted

above,

(9)

isconsistentwiththepresumedintentofthepartieswhere

theyhaveselectedthecontrollinglaw.Thearbitratormight,

however,deviatefromthehigherstandardwherehefindsthatthe

reasonswhichexplainitsuseinlitigationdonotapplytoarbitration.

3.WaysinWhichtheStandardCanBeMet–TheUseof

Presumptions

Theburdenofpersuasioncanbemetdirectlybydocumentary

evidenceandoraltestimony.Itcanalsobemetbyadmissionsof

thepartiesorthroughpresumptions.

Thequestionofpresumptionsisadifficultone

(10)

andonewhichthe

authorcouldonlyapproachwithintheframeworkofAmerican

practiceandauthority.Adetailedanalysisofpresumptionsis,

moreover,outsidethescopeofthispaper.However,ashortreview

confinedtoAmericanpracticeisusefultoexplainthetheoryof

presumptionsandhowtheyoperatewithintheframeworkofthe

burdenofproof.

Apresumptionisasubstituteforevidentiaryproof.Aclassical

example,oftenusedinAmericantreatises,isthepresumptionthat,

ifthepostingofaletterhasbeenproved,itsreceiptwillbe

presumed.

(11)

Theeffect,therefore,istosatisfytheburdenofgoing

forwardandtomeettheburdenofpersuasionastothefactof

receiptoftheletter.Theburdenofrebuttalisshiftedtotheother

partywhichmustintroduceevidencetoovercomethepresumption

ofreceipt.Sincetheburdenofpersuasioncannotbeshiftedand

remainswiththeproponentofreceipt,iftheevidenceofnonreceipt

persuadesthefinderoffact,theproponentofreceiptwillloseon

thisissueunlessitinturnsubmitsfurtherevidencetoshowreceipt.

Thepresumptionofreceiptsettlesthatissueunless page

"128" anduntiltheotherpartyputstheissueintocontentionby

submittingevidenceofnonreceipt.

Anotherexampleofpresumptionisthedoctrineofresipsaloquitur

(thethingspeaksforitself).Thisisappliedinthecommonlawto

manysituationsincludingthatofthebailee.Wheregoodshave

beencommittedtoabaileeandhavebeenlostorreturnedina

damagedcondition,thebaileeisliableforthedamagecausedbyits

negligence.Thebailorbyprovingtheundamagedconditionofthe

goodsupondeliverytothebaileeandthedamagedconditionupon

theirreturnbythebaileetriggersthepresumptionthatthedamage

hasbeencausedbythebailee'snegligence.Thisplacesuponthe

baileetheburdenofproducingevidenceofsomeothercauseofthe

damage.

(12)

Ininternationalcommercialarbitration,however,thepresumptionor

adverseinferencewhichismostoftenencounteredisthatinvokedif

aparty,knowntohaveadocumentinitspossessionorcontrol,

refusestoprovidethedocumenttothearbitraltribunal.

Unlikeacourt,thetribunalhasnosovereignpowertocompel

production.Itspowerislimitedtoitsuseofthefactofrefusalasa

factorinitsdecisionofthecase.Examplesoftheinternationaluse

ofthispresumptionoradverseinferencearefoundinthe

jurisprudenceoftheIranUnitedStatesClaimsTribunal.InWilliam

J.LevittandIslamicRepublicofIran,etal.,AwardNo.5202103,

para.6466,ChamberThreesummarizedthebasisforitsuse:

64.Basedontheforegoing,theTribunalfinds,as

foreshadowedbysomeofitsproductionOrders,that

theRespondentshavefailedtosubmitthemajorityof

thedocumentsrequestedandhavedonesowithout

supplyingadequatereasonsforthisfailure.Itbears

emphasisthattherequesteddocumentswereones

thattheyhadreferredtointheirownpleadings.Their

oftencontradictoryandevasiveexplanationssuggest

deliberatenoncomplianceratherthananinabilityto

produce.TheintroductionbytheRespondentsof

exhibitsnotpreviouslyfiledinsupportoftheir

counterclaimslendsfurthersupporttothissuggestion.

65.AsthisChamberdeterminedinArthurJ.Fritz&

Co.andSherkateTavonieSherkathayeSakhtemanie,

etal.,AwardNo.4262763,para.42(30June1989),

reprintedin22IranU.S.C.T.R.170,180,‘itisan

acceptedprinciplethatanadverseinferencemaybe

drawnfromaparty'sfailuretosubmitevidencelikely

tobeatitsdisposal.’There,theTribunalconcluded

thatitmusttakeintoaccounttheparty'sfailureto

produceordereddocumentsinweighingtheevidence

that page"129" wasbeforeit.SeealsoINA

CorporationandTheGovernmentoftheIslamic

RepublicofIran,AwardNo.1841611,p.14(13Aug.

1985),reprintedin8IranU.S.C.T.R.373,382.

66.Accordingly,whiletheTribunaldoesnotaccept

theClaimant'srequesttogranta‘defaultjudgment’,

theTribunalmustinterprettheincompleterecordwith

respecttotheclaimandthecounterclaimsinthelight

oftheRespondents'failuretocomplywiththe

Tribunal'sproductionOrders….

Theexistenceofthisnegativeinferenceanditsappropriateusein

internationalcommercialarbitrationareofgreatimportancetothe

properconductofsucharbitrations.Theinferenceprovidesa

sanctiontothetribunalthatis,atleastinpart,asubstituteforthe

powertocompelproduction.

V.Conclusion

Arbitration,asaprocessfortheresolutionofdisputesthrougha

neutralandimpartialinquiryintothefactsandthelawapplicableto

theparticulardisputebeforethearbitrator,requiresaframeworkfor

thepresentationofevidenceandtheresolutionofdisputedfactual

issues.Thisframeworkhasinlargemeasurebeendrawnfrom

judicialexperienceandhasbeenmodifiedinimportantrespects

particularlyinsofarastherulesofevidenceareconcerned.

Includedwithinthisframeworkisthesubjectofthispaper–the

“BurdenofProof”.Thisconcept,whichplaysacriticalroleinjudicial

proceedingsandisultimatelyrootedinlogicandcommonsense,

operatesinthefieldofarbitration.Ithastwobranches–onewhich

affectstheorderofpresentationofproofandonewhichgovernsthe

standardtobeappliedbythearbitratorinestablishingthefacts

uponwhichthefinalawardwillrest.Theseare,respectively,the

burdenofgoingforwardandtheburdenofpersuasion.Ofthese,the

latterisofthegreatersignificanceandessentialtotheprocessof

decisionmaking.

Theburdenofpersuasionshouldfollowthecontrollingsubstantive

lawwhetherthatlawhasbeenchosenbythepartiesorselectedby

thearbitrator.Itisappropriatetoattachthatburdentothegoverning

legalprinciplesunderwhichthedecisionofthearbitratorwillbe

reached.Sincemostarbitralawards,likemostjudicialdecisions,

decidemixedquestionsoffactandlaw,theassimilationofthe

principlesforfindingthefactstothoseforfindingthelawis

desirable.

Ininternationalcommercialarbitration,thepowerofthetribunalto

drawnegativeinferencesfromthefailureofapartytoproduce

evidenceinitspossessionorcontrolisapartialsubstituteforthe

powerofacourttorequiredocumentaryproductionfromparties

beforeit. page"130"

*

MemberoftheBaroftheStateofNewYork;OfCounselto

DebevoiseandPlimpton,NewYork;ViceChairman,International

LawAssociation;Member,ExecutiveCommitteeoftheBoardof

Directors,AmericanArbitrationAssociation;MemberoftheICC

InstituteofInternationalBusinessLawandPractice.

1

Thisgeneralpropositionissubjecttosomeexceptions,e.g.,the

arbitratormayhavethepowertoappointexpertsandtovisitthesite

ofimportantfacilities.

2

Ininternationalarbitrations,thedecisionofthearbitratoris

generallycontainedinareasonedawardwhichconsidersboththe

factsandtheapplicablelaw.Thearbitratormayactasanamiable

compositeur,ifthepartiesagreetogivehimthatpower.
3
The“truth”foundinbothjudicialandarbitralproceedingsis
relativeratherthanabsolute.Itisderivedfromtheevidence
presentedbythepartiesandisdependentuponthestandardof
proofappliedtotheevidence.Thus,thesameevidencecould
produceoneresultinacriminalcaseinacommonlawcountry
wherethestandardofproofis“beyondareasonabledoubt”anda
differentresultinacivilcasewherethestandardisthe
“preponderanceoftheevidence”.
4
Adistinctionhasoftenbeendrawnbetweenthecommonlawand
thecivillawjudicialsystems,theformerbeingcalledadversarial
andthelatterinquisitorial.Recently,thiscategorizationhasbeen
calledinquestionandithasbeennotedthattherearemany
similaritiesbetweenthetwosystems.See,ICCInstituteof
InternationalBusinessLawandPractice(Pub.No.440/8,1990),in
particular,M.DEBOISSESON,ComparativeIntroductiontothe
SystemsofProducingEvidenceinCommonLawCountriesand
CountriesofRomanLawTradition,pp.100etseq.
5
Ofcourse,ifthearbitratorconcludesthattheproofpresentedby
theclaimantdoesnotmeettheburdenofpersuasion,the
respondentwillprevailevenifheremainssilent.
6
SeeIV.3,infra.
7
J.STEYN,“England'sResponsetotheModelLawofArbitration”,
1993FreshfieldsArbitrationLecture,p.12,citingMUSTILLand
BOYD,CommercialArbitration,2nded.,p.352.ItisLordJustice
Steyn'spositionthatthisviewisnolongeraccepted.Seeid.atpp.
1215.
8
Insomejurisdictions,theruleisthatfraud“mustbeprovedto
existbyclearandconvincingevidenceamountingtomorethan
merepreponderance,andcannotbejustifiedbymerespeculation.”
Otherformulationsarethatfraudmustbeestablishedby“aclear
preponderanceoftheevidence”orby“clear,preciseandconvincing
evidence”.
9
SeeIV.1,supra.
10
See9WIGMORE,Evidence,Chapter89(Chadbournerev.
1981).
11
ThegeneraldeteriorationoftheUnitedStatesPostalSystemis
suchthatthispresumptionmaynotbevalidforthe1990's.Itdoes,
however,illustratetheprinciple.
12
ThefirstcasewhichIevertriedturnedonthedoctrineofres
ipsaloquitur.ItwasacaseintheSmallClaimsCourtfortheDistrict
ofColumbiainthespringof1948.IwasatthetimeaLawClerkto
JusticeStanleyF.ReedoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.
TheplaintiffwasmyAuntwhohadhadapianomovedandwho
claimedthatithadbeendamagedinthecourseofmovingthrough
thenegligenceofthemovingcompany.Iputheronthestandand
examinedherontheconditionofthepianobeforedeliverytothe
truckingcompanyanduponreturntoher.Ithenputinevidenceon
thequantumofdamage,invokedthedoctrineofresipsaloquitur
andrested.Themovingcompanycouldnotexplainthecauseof
damageandthecourtreturnedajudgment(asmallone)inmy
Aunt'sfavor.

©2016KluwerLawInternationalBV(Allrightsreserved).
KluwerArbitrationismadeavailableforpersonaluseonly.Allcontentisprotectedbycopyrightand
otherintellectualpropertylaws.Nopartofthisserviceortheinformationcontainedhereinmaybe
reproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,orusedforadvertisingorpromotional
purposes,generaldistribution,creatingnewcollectiveworks,orforresale,withoutpriorwritten
permissionofthepublisher.
Ifyouwouldliketoknowmoreaboutthisservice,visitwww.kluwerarbitration.comorcontactour

Salesstaffatsales@kluwerlaw.comorcall+31(0)172641562.