专用设备订购合同欠缺具体的技术规定导致的争议之审理与评述——仲裁员办案札记

本文所涉案件，当事人似乎始终没有认识到争议的主因。需方认为，核心事议在于交付的设备没有达到约定的质量标准，构成违约。洪方认为，设备按照合同约定经试机并已经通过验收，符合约定；是需方要求超出合同的约定，在售后服务期间，对放弃兼容的反悔，拒付尾款，构成违约。仲裁员详尽论述本案的核心问题或争议的起因是双方没有对案涉设备约定具体的质量标准或技术要求，从而导致发生争议，没有既存的具体标准，难以对设备进行鉴定。文中，笔者还提及了自己的失误，以及对仲裁机构限制代理人数规定与某些涉及不能体现仲裁特点的表象之困惑与思考。

In the author＇s judgment, the parties to the case referred in this article in the course of the proceedings have never realized the main course of the dispute. The Buyer holds that the key issue is that the equipment provided by tile Seller is not up to the criteria agreed by the parties, so the Seller is in breach of the contract. The Seller persists that the equipment has passed the inspection and accepted and it has been in line with the agreed criteria; it is the Buyer that is in breach of the agreement in the course of the after-sale service, going back on his word of giving up the compatibility function of the equipment, refusing to pay the balance and therefore being in breach of the contract. In the article the author as one of the arbitrators of the tribunal in dealing with the case goes into the details of the key issues or disputes, trying to prove that the main reason for the case is that the parties in their contract without providing concrete quality criteria or technical requirements, therefore disputes arising from it. Without concrete criteria to be followed, a third party could not re-inspect the equipment. The author also discloses his fauh as an arbitrator; comments the provisions of some rules of some arbitration institution, such as limiting the number of agents or failing to reflect the characters of arbitration; reveals his confusion over those phenomena.