From the release of the case in October 2025 until the conclusion of the competition in April 2026 in Vienna, the team from Saarland University worked with full dedication on their participation in the 33rd Vis Moot. The team consisted of Salome Gomarteli, Mariam Putkaradze, Andrés Fernández Kessler, Victoria Travieso Hernández, and Javeria Hafeez. Supervision was once again provided by Prof. em. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult Helmut Rüßmann, supported by coaches Mika Schieffer, Elinam de Souza, LL.M., and Eva Wingler.

This year’s Moot Problem centered on the sale of orchids, in reference to Singapore’s national flower, as the arbitration rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) applied in the 33rd Vis Moot. The plaintiff, a company specializing in the cultivation and sale of rare flowers, sought damages for a covering sale it had made due to the defendant’s breach of a contract regarding the trade of a specific endangered species of orchid. The defendant was the spices division of a large food company that intended to use the flowers to produce high-quality vanilla. To that end, after acquiring a predecessor company, it had renegotiated the existing contract with the plaintiff and expanded it to a larger volume. Shortly before the planned delivery, the Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) changed the classification of the orchid, with the result that international trade was to be prohibited. The plaintiff had warned of such a decision and demanded an earlier delivery. The defendant relied on standard practice, assuming that the ban would not take effect immediately and that its country of origin would continue to issue import permits—an erroneous assessment. The defendant now invokes the “force majeure” provision of the CISG and the contract, arguing that it is not liable for damages. In the alternative, it rejects the calculation of damages under the CISG’s covering sale provision, as the sale was made by the plaintiff before the contract was officially terminated. In the alternative, it rejects the calculation of damages under the CISG’s covering sale provision, as the sale was made by the plaintiff before the contract was officially terminated. On the procedural side, the students had to address the content of the contractual arbitration clause and the question of whether the 2016 or 2025 SIAC Rules applied to the proceedings. Additionally, the case involved the question of whether the defendant’s motion for access to the plaintiff’s contracts regarding third-party financing should be granted. In two briefs, the students took on the roles of representatives for both sides, thereby learning how to defend their clients’ interests in a legal dispute.