Regarding compensation, Globex believes that the correct interpretation of Article 74 of CISG is that the liability for compensation is "foreseeable loss" ... just the upper limit of actual loss due to the violation of special marks. See Article 74 CISG ("The compensation for breach of contract caused by one party includes [types of compensation refund] ... the consequences of the other party's breach of contract. The compensation shall not exceed the foreseeable loss of the breaching party. ....................................................................................................................................... .............................. Even if this statement is correct, and the arbitrator misinterpreted Article 74 to completely determine it as a foreseeable loss, our precedent clearly shows that in this case, the arbitrator did not obviously ignore the law. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith (Fenner &; Smith, Inc.) v. Bobker, vol. 808, p. 930,933 (2D circuit court, 1986) ("obviously ignoring the law ... obviously means not only the misuse or misunderstanding of the law" (the internal quotation marks are omitted). Wallace, 378 F.3d, p. 190 ("Our case shows that we only use the means of clearly flouting the legal provisions to revoke the arbitrator's award under the most serious abuse of legal norms. " )。
We have considered the remaining disputes of Globex and think that there is no legal basis.
Based on the above reasons, the judgment of the local court is affirmative. You didn't have the above sentence, but I added it, which is more complete.