CASE LAW NO. 42/2021/AL

On the Consumer’s Right to Choose the Court for Dispute Resolution in Cases where Standard Form Contracts contain Arbitration Clause

Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on February 24^th, 2021, and published under Decision No. 42/QĐ-CA dated March 12^th, 2021, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

First-instance Judgment No. 54/2018/DS-ST dated November 16^th, 2018, by the People’s Court of Nha Trang City, Khánh Hòa Province, regarding the civil case of “Service Contract Dispute” between the plaintiffs, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S, and the defendant, V Tourism Co., Ltd.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraph 9 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Case Background:

The standard form contract executed with the consumer contains a clause selecting foreign arbitration for dispute resolution. When a dispute arises, the consumer files a lawsuit in a Vietnamese court.

– Legal Resolution:

In this situation, it must be determined that the consumer did not choose arbitration and has the right to choose a Vietnamese court for resolution.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Article 38 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights 2010;

– Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010;

– Clause 3, Article 26; Clause 1, Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015;

– Clause 5, Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HĐTP dated March 20^th, 2014, of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court guiding the implementation of several provisions of the Law on Commercial Arbitration.

Keywords:

“Standard form contract with foreign arbitration clause”; “Consumer”; “Choice of Vietnamese court”.

CASE DETAILS

According to the complaint dated December 8^th, 2017, the written statement, the conciliation record, and at the trial, the authorized representative of the plaintiffs, Mr. Trần Đức P, presented the following the following:

On February 26^th, 2017, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S executed a Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 with V Tourism Co., Ltd.

Accordingly, the value of the Timeshare Contract was VND 388,110,000; vacation week: Week 16; type of vacation apartment: Type A.

As of March 15^th, 2017, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S had deposited VND 300,488,000.

At the time of executing the contract, due to time constraints, Mrs. T and Mr. S did not thoroughly read the Timeshare Contract. On April 26^th, 2017, after receiving an email from V Tourism Co., Ltd., Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S reviewed the executed contract and found several unreasonable terms, leading them to proactively propose terminating the contract, but V Tourism Co., Ltd. denied this request.

Therefore, to protect their rights, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S filed a lawsuit in court, requesting the court to declare the Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, null and void and V Tourism Co., Ltd. to refund them the amount of VND 300,488,000.

Their reasons were as follows:

– V Tourism Co., Ltd. deceived customers by organizing tourism seminars without fulfilling the seminar content; regarding the project investor, an Israeli billionaire, Mr. I; about the investment capital to build trust in those wishing to purchase timeshares to secure contracts and deposits.

– V Tourism Co., Ltd. advertised the product as designed according to an Asia-Pacific award-winning model, but the actual construction did not follow the advertised model; there were discrepancies between the advertised model and the actual model; the vacation apartment was designed for only two people, but it was advertised for five people; the project was located in Nha Trang.

– V Tourism Co., Ltd. violated legal prohibitions as a foreign-invested enterprise is not allowed to take Vietnamese people abroad; misappropriated the deposit funds.

– The construction operation of the project fell behind schedule, causing damages to those who purchased timeshares.

According to the written statements, the conciliation record, and at the trial, the authorized representative of the defendant, Mrs. Phạm Thị Kiều H, presented the following:

On February 26^th, 2017, V Tourism Co., Ltd. executed Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 with Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S. The form and content of the contract were entirely lawful. The contract signatories were fully competent and authorized, not coerced, and voluntarily signed the contract.

The reasons given by the plaintiffs as the basis for declaring Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 null and void are not accepted by V Tourism Co., Ltd. for the following reasons:

First, the plaintiffs’ claim that the Company deceived consumers is a subjective and erroneous assessment. The Company asserts that it did not fabricate or provide false information to consumers. V Tourism Co., Ltd. has two contributing members: Mr. Dương Tuấn A and Company E. Company E is among the enterprises controlled and owned by Mr. I and his companies. Thus, Mr. I is an investor in the Company, investing through the companies he controls.

The initially registered charter capital was VND 105 billion and currently stands at VND 486 billion. This capital contribution by the investors into the project company complies with Vietnamese law. The project’s investment capital is USD 300 million or higher, representing the estimated total project investment value, including but not limited to: land lease costs, investment, construction, project management and operation, management expenses, and office costs.

Second, during the introduction session, the Company clearly explained that this was a timeshares purchase, not a real estate purchase, thus avoiding any contract confusion. When dealing with customers, the Company clarified and specified in the contract which vacation week and type of hotel the purchase pertained to.

Third, our Company does not transport customers abroad. Instead, if customers prefer not to vacation domestically, they can exchange vacation weeks with other customers to vacation abroad. This is solely a customer activity; our Company does not engage in the business of sending Vietnamese people abroad but merely supports customers.

Fourth, regarding the deposit, the law does not restrict agreements on the use of deposits. The Company’s use of the deposit does not violate any legal prohibitions.

Fifth, the construction progress and official opening date are clearly stipulated in Article 8 of the Contract, which states 36 months from the date of the issuance of the project’s final construction permit, with an additional possible 6-month extension. The final permit was issued in October 2018.

If the plaintiffs continue with the executed Timeshare Contract, the defendant may consider offering a discount or other benefits.

In court, the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Nha Trang City concluded that the Nha Trang City People’s Court had adhered to the correct procedures and civil procedural laws during the case proceedings and at trial. The parties had fulfilled their procedural rights and obligations, and the procedural documents were properly served. However, to clarify whether V Tourism Co., Ltd. is permitted to transact and transfer timeshares rights, the Procuracy suggested the Trial Panel temporarily suspend the trial to gather additional documents.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] After reviewing the documents in the case file, which were examined at trial, and based on the trial’s examination, the Trial Panel concludes:

[2] At trial, the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Nha Trang City suggested temporarily suspending the trial to collect documents to determine whether V Tourism Co., Ltd. is allowed to transfer the timeshares or timeshares weeks before completing the project. This suggestion is unnecessary, as this is not a property transfer contract but a service contract in the tourism sector and essentially a deposit contract for timeshares. Up to the trial date, no official document restricts V Tourism Co., Ltd.’s right to take deposits for timeshares. Therefore, the Trial Panel will continue the case in accordance with general regulations.

[3] On December 17^th, 2017, Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T filed a lawsuit against V Tourism Co., Ltd. at the Nha Trang City People’s Court, requesting the court declare Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, null and void and compel V Tourism Co., Ltd. to refund the deposit amount of VND 300,488,000. This amount was the deposit Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T paid to V Tourism Co., Ltd. for timeshares.

[4] At trial, the plaintiffs maintained their lawsuit request, asking the court to declare Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, void and to compel V Tourism Co., Ltd. to refund the deposit amount of VND 300,488,000.

[5] Thus, the legal dispute is determined to be a “Service Contract” as specified in Article 513 of the Civil Code 2015 and Article 14 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights.

[6] Article 12.3 of Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, states that the parties agree to select the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) under SIAC’s arbitration rules effective at the time of dispute resolution.

[7] However, Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration and the guidance in Clause 5, Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HĐTP dated March 20^th, 2014, of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court regarding unenforceable arbitration clauses state:

[8] “A supplier of goods or services and a consumer with an arbitration clause recorded in the general terms and conditions of goods or service contract prepared by the supplier, as stipulated in Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, but when a dispute arises, the consumer does not agree to choose arbitration for dispute resolution.”

[9] Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 includes an arbitration clause provided by the service supplier. The plaintiffs, acting as consumers, have opted not to select arbitration and have instead requested resolution of their dispute by the People’s Court of Nha Trang City.

This request aligns with Article 38 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights, Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, and the guidelines set forth in Clause 5, Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HĐTP dated March 20^th, 2014, issued by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court.

Therefore, pursuant to Clause 3 of Article 26 and Clause 1 of Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, and within the statutory limitations prescribed in Article 429 of the Civil Code 2015 and Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Code, the People’s Court of Nha Trang City is competent to adjudicate and resolve this dispute.

[10] Upon examination of Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, between V Tourism Co., Ltd. and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T, it is determined that the contract was signed on behalf of V Tourism Co., Ltd. by Mr. Lê Hữu B, Head of the Finance Department at V Tourism Co., Ltd.’s representative office in Hồ Chí Minh City.

Mr. Lê Hữu B, although not the legal representative of V Tourism Co., Ltd., was duly authorized by the legal representative of the company on February 1^st, 2017, to sign the contract in accordance with all legal procedures, regulations, and contents prescribed by law. Additionally, Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T possess full civil capacity.

[11] According to the provisions outlined in Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, the plaintiffs, Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T, have registered for a vacation during the 16th week in a Type A resort apartment. This entitlement begins from the official opening date until the conclusion of the project term.

Additionally, they hold the right to sell, transfer, or exchange their vacation rights at various locations globally (Optional Vacation Rights). The payment for these rights is structured into multiple installments corresponding to the progress of the project’s construction. Specifically, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S have already disbursed three deposit installments amounting to VND 310,488,000 (inclusive of a VND 10,000,000 discount).

[12] The official opening date is defined in Article 8 of the Contract. Within 36 months from the issuance of the final construction permit, extendable by 6 months, the Company will send a completion notice to customers.

[13] Additionally, annually from the official opening date, customers must pay maintenance or management fees as per Article 3 of Appendix C attached to the contract, stipulating the rights and obligations of the parties, payment terms, deposits, transfers, and obligations arising from the contract.

[14] The parties freely and voluntarily entered into the Timeshare Contract, committing to the terms that do not violate legal prohibitions or social norms. The contract is legally valid for the parties and must be respected by other entities as a basis for dispute resolution.

[15] The Trial Panel finds:

[16] V Tourism Co., Ltd. was issued a business registration certificate by the People’s Committee of Khánh Hòa Province on February 5^th, 2013, with the fourth registration amendment on April 8^th, 2016, and the fifth on October 15^th, 2018; Investment Certificate No. 371022000419 dated February 5^th, 2013, with the third amendment on January 27^th, 2015, for the ALMA Resort project on plots D7a2, TT4, X6 in the Tourism Area of Northern Peninsula R, C District, Khánh Hòa Province.

[17] During the project’s investment and implementation, V Tourism Co., Ltd. organized presentations about the resort model in various localities, including Hồ Chí Minh City.

[18] The plaintiffs were among many customers invited by V Tourism Co., Ltd. to the event on February 26^th, 2017.

[19] At the event, the plaintiffs directly executed Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, with V Tourism Co., Ltd. By March 15^th, 2017, the plaintiffs had paid a deposit of VND 310,488,000, including a VND 10,000,000 discount, making the actual payment VND 300,488,000.

[20] Before the project’s official opening, the plaintiffs identified concerning terms in Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017. They believed these terms compromised their interests. They attempted to negotiate a termination of the contract with V Tourism Co., Ltd. on multiple occasions, but these efforts were unsuccessful. Consequently, they filed a lawsuit seeking to have the contract declared null and void. Their reasons for seeking this outcome included alleged deception, misleading information, legal violations by V Tourism Co., Ltd., and project delays.

[21] The defense attorney respectfully contests the plaintiffs’ claims for voiding Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, citing reasons of alleged deception, misleading information, legal violations. These arguments are deemed unacceptable for the reasons outlined previously and further elaborated upon within the defense brief submitted to the Trial Panel.

[22] Considering:

[23] It is important to understand that this is a new ownership concept in Vietnam, where the owner exercises their rights for a specified period (7 days) at the purchased vacation site. It does not equate to real estate ownership. The real estate ownership remains with V Tourism Co., Ltd. as long as the permit for the project does not expire.

[24] Therefore, the timeshares that Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T have placed a deposit to reserve is considered a future asset. However, after the contract is executed, only when the vacation resort is officially opened and operational that the said asset will be realized. The deposit agreement between the parties for the timeshare (contract execution) complies with Clause 2, Article 108, and Article 328 of the Civil Code 2015.

[25] The plaintiffs claim that V Tourism Co., Ltd. deceived them about the project’s investor being Israeli billionaire Mr. I and the investment capital. However, the documents provided by the defendant and publicly verified show that V Tourism Co., Ltd. has two capital contributors: Company E and Mr. Dương Tuấn A. Company E is among the enterprises controlled and owned by Mr. I and his businesses. Therefore, Mr. I is indeed an investor (not the primary investor) in the Company, investing through companies he controls. The plaintiffs have not provided evidence proving that V Tourism Co., Ltd. deceived them by asserting that Mr. I is the project’s primary investor.

[26] The initial registered charter capital is VND 105 billion, and the investment capital for the project, as per the fifth amendment to the business registration certificate on October 15, 2018, is VND 426 billion. This is the contributed capital as committed by the investors to the project company, complying with Vietnamese law, and does not include, but is not limited to, land lease costs, investment, construction, management, project operation, and other expenses.

[27] Thus, the projected investment capital of the project at USD 300 million is the estimated total investment value of the entire project, not the charter capital.

[28] The plaintiffs argue that the defendant advertised the product as designed based on an award-winning model, but the actual construction did not match the award-winning model; the advertising model and the actual model were different. The magazines released to promote the product were not truthful.

[29] However, the design model change was approved by the People’s Committee of Khánh Hòa Province in Dispatch No. 3590/UBND-XDNĐ dated May 27^th, 2016, and notified to the timeshares customers.

[30] The advertising in publications has legal publishing permits, and as of the date of the first-instance trial, no authority has revoked or recalled these publications.

[31] When attending the event and formally executing the contract, the participants must have known what event they were attending, what contract they were signing, and where their investment was located. The location of the resort project was publicly disclosed by V Tourism Co., Ltd.; the documents and transaction papers also showed the location of ALMA Nha Trang. It cannot be said that V Tourism Co., Ltd.’s use of the name ALMA Nha Trang or the seminar invitations to introduce the model and product was a deception of customers.

[32] Hence, there is no evidence showing that one of the contracting parties was deceived, as stipulated in Article 127 of the Civil Code 2015. Thus, Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, and its appendices are valid.

[33] Clause 4.4, Article 4 of the Contract regarding Optional Vacation Rights and Section 2 of Appendix B’s terms and conditions for vacation rights essentially facilitate the exchange of timeshares at other resorts worldwide, operating similarly to the Resort, participating in the exchange network.

[34] In practice, if vacation owners do not use their purchased vacation at the Resort, they can exchange their vacation with other vacation owners, including international exchanges. This allows vacation owners to choose alternative vacation opportunities from a range of options that the exchange company can provide. V Tourism Co., Ltd. does not engage in sending Vietnamese citizens abroad for tourism but merely supports vacation owners in connecting with other vacation locations.

Many vacation owners have exchanged vacations through Optional Vacation Rights, directly contacting alternative vacation destinations and completing travel procedures abroad facilitated by the Company in coordination with relevant parties to ensure vacation owners receive services at their chosen destinations.

[35] The Company’s support in helping vacation owners select exchange destinations and complete procedures for service provision by other providers cannot be considered a step in illegally sending vacation owners abroad, as argued by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not provided evidence that V Tourism Co., Ltd. has illegally sent people abroad.

[36] Thus, there are no documents or evidence proving that V Tourism Co., Ltd. itself sends timeshares buyers abroad.

[37] According to Clause 5.2, Article 5 of Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, and Clause 2.2, Article 2 of Appendix C attached to the Contract, regarding deposit and payment schedule, the amount paid by Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T is a deposit. Only after the official opening date does the deposited amount become part of the payment.

[38] Therefore, the deposit paid by Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T is to execute the contract as stipulated in Article 328 of the Civil Code 2015.

[39] The deposit received by V Tourism Co., Ltd. from the vacation owners (not precious metals, gemstones, or valuable items) is allocated by the Company for project investment and legitimate operating expenses. These practices comply with Vietnamese law, and there are no legal limitations on how the parties agree to use deposits. If a refund or compensation becomes necessary, the Company will calculate the appropriate amount based on the agreed-upon terms. No reasonable person would demand the exact same currency notes, as suggested by the representative of the plaintiffs.

[40] The cover page of the Contract explicitly defines “timeshares”. Article 3 of Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, stipulates that “Vacationers, pursuant to this agreement, agree to lease a room from the Company…” Additionally, in Appendix A, Sections III and IV, the plaintiffs explicitly acknowledge the reservation of a vacation apartment type, vacation week, and payment for room rental, expressly excluding any claims of real estate ownership or equity. The unambiguous terms outlined within the contract preclude any assertion of real estate ownership confusion by the plaintiffs, thereby rendering their claim untenable.

[41] The plaintiffs contend that the marketing staff of V Tourism Co., Ltd. did not afford them adequate time to review the contract’s contents upon signing, alleging a violation of Article 17 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights. However, the opportunity to review a contract is a fundamental consumer right, and the plaintiffs’ failure to exercise this right constitutes a waiver thereof.

Neither the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights nor the Civil Code mandates the invalidity of contracts solely due to businesses not providing reasonable review time. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ voluntary execution of the contract stands valid. Moreover, during the trial, the plaintiffs’ representative affirmed the voluntary nature of the contract signing process. Thus, the validity of the contract remains intact.

[42] Regarding the project’s implementation progress: The official opening date is defined in Article 8 of the Contract as within 36 months from the issuance date of the final construction permit, with an additional extension of 6 months (if any). The Company will send a completion notice to customers. Currently, the records show two construction permits:

– Construction Permit No. 67/GPXD-SXD dated April 28^th, 2017.

– Construction Permit No. 133/GPXD-SXD dated October 24^th, 2018.

[43] Therefore, as of the trial date, the period since the issuance of the Construction Permit on April 28^th, 2017, does not exceed 36 months. Furthermore, on October 24^th, 2018, V Tourism Co., Ltd. obtained an additional construction permit. Consequently, there is no foundation to allege that V Tourism Co., Ltd. contravened the construction schedule or delayed the commencement of project operations, thus breaching the stipulated timeline for vacation property turnover to the owners.

[44] Based on the foregoing arguments and analysis, it is concluded that Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26^th, 2017, and its Appendices do not fall under the purview of invalid civil transactions as outlined in Articles 122 to 129 of the Civil Code 2015. Consequently, Article 131 of the Civil Code 2015 is not applicable to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claim.

[45] Regarding the request to refund the deposit.

[46] It has been determined that the reservation confirmation document functions essentially as a deposit contract. Pursuant to this arrangement, the deposited amount converts into the initial payment installment upon the official opening date. Thus, upon issuance of the reservation confirmation, the amount serves as a deposit securing the execution of the contract. This deposit contract is lawful and consistent with societal norms.

Moreover, Clause 4.1 of the Contract specifies: “Vacationers, pursuant to this Contract, commit to non-cancellation and agree to reserve to enjoy Vacation Rights under the terms and conditions of this Contract. To secure this reservation, vacationers shall remit the deposit to the Company as stipulated in Clause 5.2, Appendix C.” The defendant did not breach the contract, and the plaintiffs have presented no evidence substantiating any breach of the deposit contract by the defendant. Furthermore, both parties agreed that the Contract cannot be unilaterally terminated.

Given that the “Timeshare Contract” is not invalidated as sought by the plaintiffs, their request for a refund of the deposit amounting to VND 300,488,000 lacks merit.

[47] Regarding court fees: As Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S’s request has been dismissed, they are liable for a court fee of VND 300,000 pertaining to the request for contract invalidation, and VND 15,024,400 as the civil first-instance court fee associated with their VND 300,488,000 refund claim. Therefore, Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T are collectively responsible for a total civil first-instance court fee amounting to VND 15,324,400.

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS DECIDED:

Pursuant to Articles 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 328, and 401 of the Civil Code 2015; Articles 14, 42, and 43 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights; Article 74 of the Commercial Law; Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration; Section 4, Chapter IV of the Tourism Law; and Articles 147 and 273 of the Civil Procedure Code;

In accordance with Clause 1 of Article 26 and Clause 3 of Article 27 of Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30^th, 2016, of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly concerning court fees and charges;

It is hereby adjudicated that the plaintiffs, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S, are unsuccessful in their request to declare Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26th, 2017, between themselves and V Tourism Co., Ltd., invalid, and their demand for a refund of VND 300,488,000 is denied for lack of legal grounds.

Regarding court fees, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S are ordered to pay a civil first-instance court fee totaling VND 15,324,400.

Furthermore, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Long T and Mr. Nguyễn Hoàng S shall be refunded the court fee advance of VND 7,512,000 as per receipt No. AA/2016/0008400 dated February 1^st, 2018, from the Nha Trang City Civil Judgment Enforcement Department.

Both plaintiffs and defendant are notified of their right to appeal this first-instance judgment within 15 days from the date of pronouncement, allowing them to request the Khánh Hòa Provincial People’s Court to review the case under appellate procedures.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[9] Timeshare Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 includes an arbitration clause provided by the service supplier. The plaintiffs, acting as consumers, have opted not to select arbitration and have instead requested resolution of their dispute by the People’s Court of Nha Trang City. This request aligns with Article 38 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights, Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, and the guidelines set forth in Clause 5, Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HĐTP dated March 20^th, 2014, issued by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court.

Therefore, pursuant to Clause 3 of Article 26 and Clause 1 of Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, and within the statutory limitations prescribed in Article 429 of the Civil Code 2015 and Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Code, the People’s Court of Nha Trang City is competent to adjudicate and resolve this dispute.”

If you need more consulting, please Contact Us at TNHH NT International Law Firm (ntpartnerlawfirm.com)

You can also download the .docx version here.