����AV

Since there was no written agreement or any other signed document that clearly showed the Respondent’s undertaking to pay the Applicant USD10, 790, the Tribunal determined whether there was an implied in-fact contract by examining the parties’ intentions based on their conduct and other circumstances to establish if there was mutual assent and consideration. The Tribunal concluded that all the elements of a binding, valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties because: (i) there was mutual assent leading both parties to jointly inform the Tribunal that they had established the amount of compensation to be paid to the Applicant and (ii) there was consideration because the Applicant withdrew his application as a result of their “mutual determination” on the payment. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that there was an implied in-fact contract for the Respondent to pay the Applicant USD10, 790 as compensation for the loss of his personal belongings. The Tribunal emphasized that the Respondent’s counsel, as a legal representative, was fully competent to enter into a binding agreement on behalf of his principal, the Respondent, with the Applicant.