The Court held that under New York law, “a document referred to in a written and adequately described act” may be included by reference, but it must be clear that “the parties were aware of the terms to be inserted by reference and approved it… Among other things, it is essential, under New York law, that the main agreement specify the document to be included so that the referenced document can be clearly identified, and (ii) that the parties to the main agreement have clearly been aware of the terms and accepts them. Redhall submitted that the subcontracting provisions were sufficient to include the compromise clause in its standard terms. Redhall explained that the terms and conditions of sale were part of a standard CIL form contract that had been communicated to Barrier. What matters is that Barrier did not have to read the terms and conditions to be related to them. All they had to do was be alerted to the barrier. Redhall made the following three points:2 The complainant participated in the electronic auction process and was a successful bidder, also a care to purchase coal. In this context, several sales orders (sales orders) were assigned to the complainant. However, for some reasons, the complainant was unable to raise the coal, resulting in the loss of the complainant`s bail. This resulted in disputes between the parties and the complainant, who invoked arbitration in the system. The respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, which led the complainant to file a motion under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (Act) with the Jharkhand High Court. The Jharkhand High Court rejected the above application on the grounds that there was no compromise clause in the orders for sale. It was found that, although the system contains a compromise clause, none of the individual sales orders refer to the applicability of the system`s terms and therefore the compromise clause in the system did not apply to the parties. Naranjillo was a Peruvian agricultural cooperative of cocoa and coffee producers, and Transmar was a cocoa sales house in New Jersey.
The parties have concluded six substantially similar unilateral agreements on the supply of cocoa butter to Transmar in Germany. (The agreements differed only in relation to the data, product amounts and resulting prices. Each one-sided agreement has been written on the header of Transmar`s letter and is titled “Standard Contract 2-A.” And each agreement had a definitive “condition” that was part of a relevant part: the Supreme Court further explained the inclusion theory by referring to an “individual contract case” and a “two-contract case,” as established in the English case von Habas Sanai Sanai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisalustri AS/ Sometal Sal, (2010) HCEW 29 (Comm).