The City of Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital, had been embroiled in a dispute with a supplier, Bitumen Products, over the payment of US$468 000 for bitumen products. The dispute arose because the City of Harare had initially quoted the price in US dollars, but later changed its mind and wanted to pay in local currency, the Zimbabwean dollar. The supplier, Bitumen Products, argued that the initial price quote was in US dollars, and therefore, the payment should be made in US dollars as well.

The invoice was then rejected by the council. Furbank then filed a claim for breach of contract and sought damages for the supply of bitumen products. Furbank argued that the council had failed to pay the invoice within the agreed upon time frame. Furbank also argued that the council had failed to provide a valid reason for rejecting the invoice. Furbank further argued that the council’s rejection of the invoice was unreasonable and unjustified. The council, on the other hand, argued that the invoice was not properly presented. The council claimed that the invoice was not in the correct format and that it lacked certain information.

.. The award is not arbitrary or capricious…. The award is not unreasonable…. The award is not in violation of any applicable law or regulation.”

This statement reflects a strong defense of an arbitrator’s decision. The speaker is arguing that the arbitrator’s ruling is legally sound and aligns with established principles of fairness and justice. Let’s break down the arguments presented:

**1. Consistency with the Law:** The speaker asserts that the arbitrator’s decision is legally sound, meaning it adheres to the relevant legal framework and principles.