A Belgian seller sued a French buyer before a Belgian Court for payment of goods delivered by the seller. The buyer objected to the jurisdiction of the Belgian Court, alleging that jurisdiction over the case should be vested in a French Court in application of Art. 5(1) of the 1968 EC Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters. The seller on its part relied on a clause in favor of Belgian jurisdiction printed on the back of its invoices.
The Court upheld its jurisdiction but rejected most of the seller’s arguments, founding its decision on different grounds. The Court preliminary confirmed that the relevant obligation in dispute was the buyer’s obligation to pay the price, and not the seller’s obligation to deliver the goods. It further pointed out that the jurisdiction clause, merely printed on the reverse side of the seller’s invoices, could not be considered as a valid and effective jurisdiction agreement under Art. 17(1) of the 1968 Brussels Convention because the term had not been negotiated nor accepted by the buyer and, in addition, it was printed in small and badly readable characters.
In the absence of a forum choice by the parties, the Court applied Art. 5(1) of the 1968 Brussels Convention, which states that a person domiciled in a contracting State may be sued in the Court of the place of performance for the contractual obligation in dispute (i.e. place of payment). In order to determine the place of payment the Court applied Art. 57(1)(a) CISG since the rules of private international law (1955 Hague Convention) led to the application of Belgian law and Belgium is a CISG contracting State (Art. 1(1)(b) CISG). According to Art. 57(1) CISG the place of payment was the seller’s place of business in Belgium. |