| Paragraph/ page | Original text | Corrected text |
| ¶ 498 | For all of these reason, the Arbitral Tribunal finds that [...] | For all of these reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal finds that [...] |
| ¶ 501 | The Claimants assert that that the primary grounds for the claims [...] | The Claimants assert that the primary grounds for the claims [...] |
| ¶ 520.vi | In accordance with this principle of contra proferentum [...]. [T]he application of the contra proferentum rule does not require [...] | In accordance with this principle of contra proferentem [...]. [T]he application of the contra proferentem rule does not require [...] |
| ¶ 521 | Also, regarding the application of the contra proferentum rule to the Contract, [...] | Also, regarding the application of the contra proferentem rule to the Contract, [...] |
| ¶ 526 | [...] including its corollaries venire contra factum proprium non valet, contra proferentum and legitimate reliance [...] | [...] including its corollaries venire contra factum proprium non valet, contra proferentem and legitimate reliance [...] |
| ¶ 527 | [...] the nature and object of the contract, trade usages, and the contra proferentum rule [...] | [...] the nature and object of the contract, trade usages, and the contra proferentem rule [...] |
| ¶ 633 | [...] Article 1139, which reflects the contra proferentum principle [...] in which case the contra proferentum rule would not apply. | [...] Article 1139, which reflects the contra proferentem principle [...] in which case the contra proferentem rule would not apply. |
| ¶ 641 | 1.13.3 The Contractor shall give all notices, [...] who shall then provide reasonable assistance to the Contractor in accordance with Sub-Clause 2.2 [Permis, Licenses or Approvals] to promptly [...] | 1.13.3 The Contractor shall give all notices, [...] who shall then provide reasonable assistance to the Contractor in accordance with Sub-Clause 2.2 [Permits, Licenses or Approvals] to promptly [...] |
| ¶ 641 | 1.16 The Contract and the documents incorporated herein [...] and the Contractor and supersed all prior negotiations, commitments, [...] expressly incorporated hereing[...] | 1.16 The Contract and the documents incorporated herein [...] and the Contractor and supersede all prior negotiations, commitments, [...] expressly incorporated herein[...] |
| ¶ 641 | 4.12.6 Save as expressly provided in this Sub-Clause 4.12, [...] or to any Milestone Date(s), arigin from, out of or in connection [...] | 4.12.6 Save as expressly provided in this Sub-Clause 4.12, [...] or to any Milestone Date(s), arising from, out of or in connection [...] |
| ¶ 641 | 5.1 The Contractor warrants and undertakes that he and all Subcontractors [...] at all reasonable times, untile the xpirey date of the relevant Defects Notification Period. | 5.1 The Contractor warrants and undertakes that he and all Subcontractors [...] at all reasonable times, until the expiry date of the relevant Defects Notification Period. |
| ¶ 641 | 8.4 (e) any delay, impediment or preention caused by or attributable to the Employer [...] | 8.4 (e) any delay, impediment or prevention caused by or attributable to the Employer [...] |
| ¶ 641 | 20.1 The Contractor [...] shall (if instructed) wubmit copies to the Employer's Representative... If the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim has a continuing effet [...] If the Contractor fails to copmlay with this or another Sub-Clause [...] | 20.1 The Contractor [...] shall (if instructed) submit copies to the Employer's Representative [...]If the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim has a continuing effect [...] If the Contractor fails to comply with this or another Sub-Clause [...] |
| ¶ 675 | [...] assuring that it preparation is not done [...] | [...] assuring that its preparation is not done [...] |
| ¶ 756 | The Claimants assert that GUPC's Tender was prepared in accordance with Prudent Industry Standards and was correctly based the requirement that the PLE Basalt be the main source of concrete aggregates for the Project. | The Claimants assert that GUPC's Tender was prepared in accordance with Prudent Industry Standards and was correctly based on the requirement that the PLE Basalt be the main source of concrete aggregates for the Project. |
| ¶ 808 | [...] vi. Sub-Clause 5.1 [General Design Obligations]: [...] responsibility for the information contained in the Volume IV Documents [...] | [...] vi. Sub-Clause 5.1 [General Design Obligations]: [...] responsibility for the information contained in the Volume VI Documents [...] |
| ¶ 809 | Moreover, and contrary to the Contractor's allegations, the Respondent states that the used of the PLE Basalt as the primary source of concrete aggregates [...] | Moreover, and contrary to the Contractor's allegations, the Respondent states that the use of the PLE Basalt as the primary source of concrete aggregates [...] |
| ¶ 856 | The Respondent takes the position that a careful anaylsis of the geological forms and planning sheets submitted by the Claimants as evidence [...] | The Respondent takes the position that a careful analysis of the geological forms and planning sheets submitted by the Claimants as evidence [...] |
| ¶ 876 | [...] no excess waste (when one compares what amount of waste was actually experienced with what should have been reasonably been expected). | [...] no excess waste (when one compares what amount of waste was actually experienced with what should have been reasonably expected). |
| ¶ 877 | [...] and that the case put forth by the Contractor is very different the one that was made previously. | [...] and that the case put forth by the Contractor is very different from the one that was made previously. |
| ¶ 884 | Mr. Piotr Versteele, who was Assistant Plant Manager at the Pacific Site from January to December 2010 and Plant Manager from December 2010 to August 2012 [...] | Mr. Pieterjan Versteele, who was Assistant Plant Manager at the Pacific Site from January to December 2010 and Plant Manager from December 2010 to August 2012 [...] |
| P. 225 | a. Requirements of Sub-Clause 1.9.4 of the Conditions of Contract | b. Requirements of Sub-Clause 1.9.4 of the Conditions of Contract |
| P. 226 | b. The Environmental Impact Study in the Employer's Requirements | c. The Environmental Impact Study in the Employer's Requirements |
| ¶ 953 | That provision contains the contra proferentum rule of contract interpretation [...] | That provision contains the contra proferentem rule of contract interpretation [...] |
| ¶ 954 | Applying the contra proferentum rule in this instance [...] | Applying the contra proferentem rule in this instance [...] |
| P. 228 | c. The errors alleged by the Contractor | d. The errors alleged by the Contractor |
| P. 231 | d. Discoverability of the errors by an experienced contractor exercising Prudent Industry Practices and due care | e. Discoverability of the errors by an experienced contractor exercising Prudent Industry Practices and due care |
| ¶ 1069 | This being said, th majority also recognizes [...] | This being said, the majority also recognizes [...] |
| ¶ 1159 | [...] which required the ACP to provide GUPC with the GIR and as well as the geotechnical data in its possession that was relevant to the Project. | [...] which required the ACP to provide GUPC with the GIR as well as the geotechnical data in its possession that were relevant to the Project. |
| ¶ 1166 | [...] who estimates that a reasonable tender allowance would have be 20,588 m3 of lean concrete [...] | [...] who estimates that a reasonable tender allowance would have been 20,588 m3 of lean concrete [...] |
| ¶ 1203 | [...] the Contractor's previous geotechnical expert in DAV Referral 13A was of the opinion that [...] | [...] the Contractor's previous geotechnical expert in DAB Referral 13A was of the opinion that [...] |
| ¶ 1232 | The Respondent submits that the Contractor has not demonstrated any entitlement with respect to the foundation conditions claims, as further detailed further in the Respondent suggested section on quantum. | The Respondent submits that the Contractor has not demonstrated any entitlement with respect to the foundation conditions claims, as detailed further in the section on quantum. |
| ¶ 1241 | The first was the borehole campaign carried out between March and October 2001, with a total of 110 boring drilled along the proposed alignments [...] Finally, in 2007, an additional 128 boring were drilled on the Pacific side. | The first was the borehole campaign carried out between March and October 2001, with a total of 110 borings drilled along the proposed alignments [...] Finally, in 2007, an additional 128 borings were drilled on the Pacific side. |
| ¶ 1292 | [...] the Arbitral Tribunal shall therefore makes its own examination and determination. | [...] the Arbitral Tribunal shall therefore make its own examination and determination. |
| ¶ 1301 | [...] and Mr. Tere Abadia of the ACP [...] | [...] and Ms. Tere Abadia of the ACP [...] |
| ¶ 1331 | [...] takes the position that [Section 1.2 of the GIR (Purpose and Limitations] clearly directs [...] | [...] takes the position that [Section 1.2 of the GIR (Purpose and Limitations)] clearly directs [...] |
| ¶ 1355 | Figure 5.10c of the GIR set out the shear strength [...] | Figure 5.10c of the GIR sets out the shear strength [...] |
| ¶ 1439 | [...] the GIR's interpretation of the foundation conditions within the basalt reach of the PLE indicate that [...] | [...] the GIR's interpretation of the foundation conditions within the basalt reach of the PLE indicates that [...] |
| ¶ 1441 | This information would lead a prudent Tenderer to expect some sheared basalt in the PLE, but still a very limited about based on the characterization of foundation level given in the GIR. | This information would lead a prudent Tenderer to expect some sheared basalt in the PLE, but still a very limited amount based on the characterization of foundation level given in the GIR. |
| ¶ 1526 | [...] specifically addressed the issue of the ASTM C1202 testing and the fact that - in the absence of a test age prescribed by the ER - that an appropriate test age would be one year [...] | [...] specifically addressed the issue of the ASTM C1202 testing and the fact that - in the absence of a test age prescribed by the ER —an appropriate test age would be one year [...] |
| ¶ 1532 | The Claimants submit that the 4 February 2011 submittal, which consisted of SMC mix S1 and S8, were submitted for use in the Upper Chamber | The Claimants submit that the 4 February 2011 submittal, which consisted of SMC mix S1 and S8, was submitted for use in the Upper Chamber [...] |
| ¶ 1565 | [...] the Respondent sets out some key issues that it considers important for the Arbitral Tribunal, [...] which the Respondent contends all supports its case that the Contractor was not in a position [...] | [...] the Respondent sets out some key issues that it considers important for the Arbitral Tribunal, [...] which the Respondent contends all support its case that the Contractor was not in a position [...] |
| ¶ 1571 | [...] the submittal of concrete mixes to the ACP was merely for the purpose of demonstrating that complaint mixes were being developed. | [...] the submittal of concrete mixes to the ACP was merely for the purpose of demonstrating that compliant mixes were being developed. |
| ¶ 1573 | The APC decided to impose a 1000 Coulombs limit [...] | The ACP decided to impose a 1000 Coulombs limit [...] |
| ¶ 1585 | [...] there were issues with the concrete mix designs that the APC should have raised earlier. | [...] there were issues with the concrete mix designs that the ACP should have raised earlier. |
| ¶ 1586 | [...] the Contractor always retained full responsibility for carrying out the Works in compliance with the Contract and is precluded, by Section 01 41 16 of the Employer's Requirements, from [...] | [...] the Contractor always retained full responsibility for carrying out the Works in compliance with the Contract and is precluded, by Section 01 42 16 of the Employer's Requirements, from [...] |
| ¶ 1665 | On 24 March 2010, the Contractor issued a Notice of Claim (Claim 13) [...] | On 24 March 2011, the Contractor issued a Notice of Claim (Claim 13) [...] |
| ¶ 1676 | The APC responded to RFV 0068 on 6 June 2011. | The ACP responded to RFV 0068 on 6 June 2011. |
| ¶ 1689 | [...] the Contractor informed the APC that it was submitting [...] | [...] the Contractor informed the ACP that it was submitting [...] |
| ¶ 1705 | [...] unless and until such Determination has been revised in under Clause 20 [...] | [...] unless and until such Determination has been revised under Clause 20 [...] |
| ¶ 1734 | 1.04 ESIGN CRITERIA/SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PERFORMANCE | 1.04 DESIGN CRITERIA/SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PERFORMANCE |
| ¶ 1829 | [...] project manager intending to ensure the independent and impartiality of such laboratories. | [...] project manager intending to ensure the independence and impartiality of such laboratories. |
| ¶ 1866 | In this regard, the Arbitral Tribunal finds the evidence of the what the Tenderers submitted in their tenders to be particularly relevant. | In this regard, the Arbitral Tribunal finds the evidence of what the Tenderers submitted in their tenders to be particularly relevant. |
| ¶ 1885 | While the Claimants argue that under Sub-Clause 3.4 [Determinations], the Employer's Representative should have... | While the Claimants argue that under Sub-Clause 3.5 [Determinations], the Employer's Representative should have... |
| ¶ 1912 | [...] incorporate this data into the STADIUM service life model [...] | [...] incorporate these data into the STADIUM service life model [...] |
| ¶ 1916 | [...] nor could it have poured structural concrete at the rates planned in the ABP at any point prior to 18 August 2011 (and possibility even thereafter [...] | [...] nor could it have poured structural concrete at the rates planned in the ABP at any point prior to 18 August 2011 (and possibly even thereafter [...] |
| ¶ 1932 | In support of their position, the Claimants argue that the determination of EOTs is a separate and distinct exercise from the determination of delay damages, and that the Respondent is wrong to assert that it would be entitled to delay damages from the simple fact that of the Contractor not succeeding on its EOT claim. | In support of their position, the Claimants argue that the determination of EOTs is a separate and distinct exercise from the determination of delay damages, and that the Respondent is wrong to assert that it would be entitled to delay damages from the simple fact of the Contractor not succeeding on its EOT claim. |
| ¶ 1961 | The Claimants submit that GUPC is therefore entitled to [...] i. Additional direct costs for the additional works in had to perform in relation to the production of concrete aggregates [...] | The Claimants submit that GUPC is therefore entitled to [...] i. Additional direct costs for the additional works it had to perform in relation to the production of concrete aggregates [...] |
| ¶ 1961 | ii. Prologation costs corresponding to its EOT entitlement [...] | ii. Prolongation costs corresponding to its EOT entitlement [...] |
| ¶ 2027 | As set out in Section XI above, the Arbitral Tribunal has determined that a reasonable tender allowance for lean concrete would have been 50 mm under regular conditions. | As set out in Section XI above, the Arbitral Tribunal has determined that a reasonable tender allowance for lean concrete would have been 50 cm under regular conditions. |
| ¶ 2046 | [...] where shear zones were encountered but could not have been anticipated, the Contractor should have foreseen 50 mm of lean concrete. | [...] where shear zones were encountered but could not have been anticipated, the Contractor should have foreseen 50 cm of lean concrete. |
| ¶ 2056 | [...] in light of the Tribunal's determination that a reasonable tender allowance would in fact have been 50 mm [...] | [...] in light of the Tribunal's determination that a reasonable tender allowance would in fact have been 50 cm [...] |
| ¶ 2056 | Mr. Hunter calculates this deduction using a lean concrete volume of 325 m3 (based on a reasonable tender allowance of 25mm) [...] Both experts base their calculation on a tender allowance of 25mm [...] | Mr. Hunter calculates this deduction using a lean concrete volume of 325 m3 (based on a reasonable tender allowance of 25cm) [...] Both experts base their calculation on a tender allowance of 25cm [...] |
| ¶ 2104 | The Claimants also contend that the during the pre-tender and tender stages [...] | The Claimants also contend that during the pre-tender and tender stages [...] |
| ¶ 2108 | [...] caused the Project to suffer delays and additional costs, in particular in relation the ACP's consistent failure to issue fair determinations | [...] caused the Project to suffer delays and additional costs, in particular in relation to the ACP's consistent failure to issue fair determinations [...] |
| ¶ 2188 | 671. With regard to [...] The slide then listed the contribution of five financing institutions in the amount of USO 2.3 billion and the amount to be funded by the ACP, i.e., USO 2.95 billion, for a total of USO 5.25 Billion. | 669. With regard to [...] The slide then listed the contribution of five financing institutions in the amount of USD 2.3 billion and the amount to be funded by the ACP, i.e., USD 2.95 billion, for a total of USD 5.25 Billion. |
| Fn. 460 | DIEZ DE PICAZO, Fundamento de Derecho Civil Patrimonial I, Introducción Teoría del Contracto, 6th Ed., Thomson Civitas [C-LA-0092, pp. 7-8]. | DIÉZ DE PICAZO, Fundamento de Derecho Civil Patrimonial I, Introducción Teoría del Contrato, 6th Ed., Thomson Civitas [C-LA-0092, pp. 7-8]. |
| Fn. 952 | C-EX-26, Shilston II, Ch. 26 ¶ 34 | C-EX-26, Shilston II, Ch. 6 ¶ 34 |
| Fn. 1856 | Exhibit C-0477 | Exhibit R-0477 |
Robert Gaitskell
Claus von Wobeser
Pierre-Yves Gunter
