3rd AMITY NATIONAL ADR TOURNAMENT, 2019

NEGOTIATION SIMULATION OF:

OPGC Ltd.

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

Murti Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.

&

OPGC Ltd.

Team Code: N 21
GOAL
To ensure safety of its employees and other workers and to take all the prudent steps so as to
safeguard its workers from any casualty occurring at workplace.

OBJECTIVE
 To provide quality products (Fire Retardant Overall) to its employees and workers as
specified and mutually decided in the terms of the Contract.
 To cover up for the losses suffered by the Company due to breach of contract.
 To make up for the expenditure incurred by the Company in testing of the fabric.

STRONG POINTS
 Successful Business: The Company is successful business for a period of fifteen year and is
known for taking all precautionary measures on its part to safeguard their workers therefore
it can’t compromise with the quality of the fabric.
 Poor quality of Fabric: Fabric of the Fire Retardant Overalls of the first lot itself was not in
conformity with the two parameters set in the Contract i.e. Color Fastness to Light and
Elongation to Break.
 Piling: In the later stage of the test it was also found that there was piling on the fabric.
 Standard Test: The Company as mutually agreed, sent the lots for test run to Germany in
order to ensure the durability and the fastness of the Fire Retardant Overalls.
 Subsequent Delay: There was a subsequent delay in supplying of the lot to OPGC and
thereafter to the respective work stations due to the substandard quality of the product which
resulted in time consuming testing of the fabric.
 Non Objection by Contractor: The Contractor did not object to the unilateral deduction of
5% on account of default in the fabric of Lot 1 and Lot 4 thereby agreeing that there was a
material breach of contract by non-adherence to the standards set in the Contract.

WEAK POINTS
 Time Consuming Testing: Clause 7(a) of the Agreement states that the Contactor if ‘solely
responsible’ agreed to pay liquidated damages subject to maximum of 10% but the standard
testing done by the Company was in itself time consuming.
 Delivery to Work station: The Contractor was not responsible for delivering good from head
office to work station as stated in Clause 2(b) of the Agreement.
  Unilateral Deduction: Company did not discuss and made unilateral deductions.
 Replacement: Company did not claim any replacement of the damaged products under the
warranty period of six months provided by the Contractor.
 De Novo Deductions: Deduction made on piling of the fabric when there was already
unilateral deduction made on the account of substandard quality of product.
 Sole Recourse: The deductions were not the only recourse that the Company had. They
could have informed the Contractor about the substandard quality of the product may seek
for replacement. Hence, there was lack of communication from the side of the Company.
 Calculation of Liquidated Damages: There was no genuine or calculated estimate of the
foreseeable damages incurred by the Company.

NEEDS AND INTERESTS

 To provide workers with Fire Retardants Overall of superior quality.
 Novation of the terms of the contract.
 To protect the professional relation with the Murti Maunufacturers Pvt. Ltd.
 To not compromise with the quality of the product in any case.

BEST ALTERNATIVE TO A NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT (BATNA)

In the event of failure of this Negotiation, the dispute shall be referred to a binding arbitration as
specified in Clause 10(b) of the Agreement.

WORST ALTERNATIVE TO A NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT (WATNA)

Non-payment to the Murti Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. for any of the deductions made by the Company
along with non-return of the supplied products.