No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Bergesen v. Joseph Muller Corporation. 710 F.2d 928
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0002930000071852/resource/name/firstPage-S0002930000071852a.jpg)
- Type
- Judicial Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1984
References
1 June 10, 1958, 21 UST 2517, TIAS No. 6997, 330 UNTS 38.
2 548 F. Supp. 650, 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), summarized in 77 AJIL 308 (1983).
3 This issue had been previously posed but left unresolved in the Second Circuit. See, e.g., Andros Compania Maritima, S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., A.G., 579 F.2d 691, 699 n. 11 (2d Cir. 1978).
4 See Haight, G., Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958)Google Scholar; Contini, , International Commercial Arbitration, 8 Am. J. Comp. L. 283 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 710 F.2d 928, 932.
6 Id.
7 See Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 520 n.15 (1974).
8 710 F.2d at 933.
9 See Sumitomo Corp. v. Parakopi Compania Maritima, 477 F. Supp. 737, 740–41 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
10 710 F.2d at 933.
11 No. P 627/79/ha (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, June 19, 1980).