In a first decision in 2021, the District Court had denied enforcement of a Chinese award, finding that Jiangsu failed to supply an arbitration agreement “in writing”. On appeal in 2022, the Third Circuit had vacated this holding, finding that the lower court had not explained whether it had applied background principles of contract law for its conclusion (see UNITED STATES 1051). On remand, the District Court, this time explicitly referring to principles of contract law, again found that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The Memorandum of Understanding containing the arbitration agreement was unsigned and, applying the governing Pennsylvania law and on the facts of the case, Jiangsu did not establish that the exchange of letters between the parties complied with the requirement for a valid arbitration agreement under the Convention.