The xiamen case Xinjingdi Group Ltd/Eton Properties Ltd is a good example of the difficulties and uncertainties that can arise when trying to impose a price for certain services. While this decision provides support for a recipient of an arbitration award to be able to impose or successfully replace it, it also shows that, if the defendant refuses to comply with such an injunction, the final settlement of the dispute can take many years and thus result in significant legal costs for an applicant, while it is not certain that he or she receives something granted to him by the court. However, difficulties can arise when a party attempts to impose such a benefit, because even if a defendant does not challenge the validity of such a sentence, he may continue to attempt to circumvent it by not following it. In 2003, the Xiamen Group signed an agreement with Eton for the development of land in Xiamen, China. The country was owned by Xiamen Legend, owned by Hong Kong Legend, whose shares were owned by Eton. Under the agreement, the Xiamen Group 120 million RMB for the ownership of the land, the construction of housing and then Eton would have the shares of Hong Kong Legend to Xiamen Group, in accordance with the contractual law of the former transfer. In the event of a dispute, the agreement provided for a CIETAC arbitration procedure. A few months later, Eton refused to pursue the agreement because it would be contrary to the law of the People`s Republic of China, which led xiamen Group to submit arbitration proceedings in August 2005. The court awarded Xiamen damages for the late delivery of the land and a determined performance that required Eton to transfer the shares of Hong Kong Legend to Xiamen Group.
In an attempt to impose the sentence, the Xiamen Group initiated a forced execution procedure in Hong Kong, which it was unable to do effectively. Although the execution was granted, it was indeed impossible to apply it, as Eton restructured its assets during the arbitration process in order to circumvent the award. As a general rule, in international trade arbitrations, the most frequently sought-after and generally granted remedy is Desatos, with only a relatively small percentage of all such awards providing for recourse for a given benefit. This is mainly due to the fact that „specific benefits“ can be understood and treated differently in legal and civil jurisdictions and can lead to enforcement difficulties. Under English and Cypriot legislation, the concept of `specific benefit` is understood as `equity assistance which effectively obliges a person to fulfil a contractual obligation`. Whether an arbitral tribunal is competent to award a decision on a defined benefit generally depends on the terms of the parties` arbitration agreement.