- 50 -
premises and reasoning, in light of the arbitration agreement, in
determining whether the award is ambiguous as it pertains to the
disputed item. We find that it is.
We find most persuasive the seventh section of the award, in
which the tribunal first addressed “Principles and Methods” of
indemnification and determined that Aminoil must be compensated
for its “legitimate expectations” of a “reasonable rate of
return” from its terminated concession. The tribunal
specifically included as a principle upon which to base the
compensation due Aminoil that some measure of account must be
taken of “all” of the elements of Aminoil’s undertaking. That
led the tribunal to conclude: “This leads to a separate
appraisal of the value, on the one hand of the undertaking
itself, as a source of profit, and on the other of the totality
of the assets, and adding together the results obtained.” In the
tribunal’s introduction to its discussion of “Amounts due to
Aminoil” (paragraph 178), the tribunal further indicates that an
amount is due Aminoil for the value of the concession measured by
projected loss of future profits:
These [”Amounts due to Aminoil”] are made up of the
values of the various components of the undertaking
separately considered, and of the undertaking itself
considered as an organic totality - or going concern -
therefore as a unified whole, the value of which is
greater than that of its component parts, and which
must also take account of the legitimate expectations
of the owners. These principles remain good even if
the undertaking was due to revert, free of cost, to the
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011