The Court held that it was within its discretion under the New York Convention to require clarifications in respect of formal and evidentiary issues relating to the application to enforce an award of the International Cotton Association. The plaintiff had duly submitted a certified copy of the award. However, the correspondence it supplied to prove the existence of a contract containing an arbitration agreement had been exchanged between the plaintiff and a third company – allegedly, its dealer – and between the defendant and the same third party; there was no direct exchange of correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant. The Court scheduled a hearing on the questions whether the correspondence on record constituted a contract containing an arbitration clause; whether the third company had been duly authorized to act as an agent of the plaintiff; and, whether the arbitration proceedings had been conducted in accordance with the rules of the International Cotton Association.