The Panel notes that these documents would have been sufficient to establish the existence and ownership of the business.

With respect to the first business, the Panel finds that the evidence does not support the claimant's ownership of the business as at 2 August 1990.

The Panel notes that the police report provided that describes a fire that consumed the business during the period of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait clearly indicates that the owner of the business was the Kuwaiti licence holder.

After adjustments for evidentiary deficiencies, the Panel recommends an award of compensation for business income only, in the amount of USD 17,500.

With respect to the claims for loss of tangible business property and loss of business income, the Panel finds that the evidence supports recommended awards of compensation in the respective amounts of USD 7,005 and USD 17,500.

The Panel concludes that the claimant has not demonstrated that he was the owner of the business and therefore recommends no award of compensation for the alleged business losses.

The Working Group had been aware of the need to bear in mind issues such as commercial fraud, money laundering and other transnational crimes.

With respect to the second business, the Panel finds that the claimant has provided insufficient evidence to prove its existence as at 2 August 1990, as all documents referencing the business are dated after the liberation of Kuwait.

The Panel further notes that the Kuwaiti claimant was unable to explain how the business operated or what equipment he had, and he also made contradictory statements concerning his relationship with the Palestinian claimant, the nature of his business and the documentary support for his claim.

(vi) Ljubljana, Slovenia (18 19 February 2005), participation in the Working Group on Reform of Arbitration Law to assist with the drafting of new Slovenian legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Laws on International Commercial Arbitration and International Commercial Conciliation (5 participants)

The Working Group suspended its deliberations in order to complete the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation and the draft provisions relating to interim measures in arbitration.

With respect to the claims in this instalment, the Panel notes that in some cases the only credible evidence of the claimant's ownership of the business is either a pre or post invasion attestation from the licence holder attesting to the claimant's ownership of the business.

Commercial Law

Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law

Business perspective

Commerce Code

(d) Commercial fraud

(d) Commercial fraud

TrainForTrade

57 18. Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law

He went to the shop.

America s New Trade Hypocrisy

China s Shrinking Trade Surplus

The New Mercantilist Challenge

It was also suggested that the Working Group should consider the commercial context, for example, where third parties were not truly strangers to the contracting parties, but where they could be different members of the same corporate group.

Redefining Business Competence

Mercantilism Reconsidered

The Making of China s Trade Deficit

Commercial freight and cartage 17.5

(d) Commercialization of research findings and

President of the Commercial Security Court Damascus

Article 1 of the Commercial Code defines a trader as any natural or legal person who engages in trading activity in his own name or on his own behalf as his occupation .

57 19. Enhancing coordination in the area of international trade law and strengthening the secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law

All six states, except Belarus, now trade more with the EU than with Russia.

In particular, notwithstanding the wide divergence of views, the Working Group had agreed to include a compromise text of the revised draft of paragraph 7 in draft article 17 of the Commission's Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

Having considered all of the evidence, the Panel finds that the Palestinian claimant was the owner of the business as at 2 August 1990 and therefore recommends an award of compensation for the demonstrated losses of the business.

In three of the potentially overlapping claims, the Panel considers that the relationship was mistakenly identified based on the similarity between the E4 claimant's name and the individual's name and or business names.

The Panel finds that all of the evidence and reference in the individual's original claim form, including all of the supporting documents, pertained to the business entity identified in the E claim and not to a separate, unincorporated business.

Based on the above, the Panel finds that the category D claim filed by the individual claimant was in respect of losses of the business of the E4 claimant and not in respect of a separate and unrelated business.

Third, the Panel noted that two claimants who filed competing claims for the same business provided audited financial statements from the same auditing firm for the same year with different figures.

Ray Anderson on the business logic of sustainability

Well, commercial hunting happened.

I ran into her again at the shopping mall.

Draft Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts

Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts