|
||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| An Italian seller and a French buyer entered into a contract for the sale of goods (refrigerators) manufactured by the former. A dispute arose between the parties and the seller brought an action before an Italian Court claiming payment of the goods. The First Instance Court ruled in favor of the seller. Subsequently the buyer appealed contesting that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case as the contract stipulated between the parties contained a forum selection clause which clearly provided for the jurisdiction of the French Court. The Court of Second Instance established the jurisdiction of the French Court. The seller brought an action to the Supreme Court.
After finding that the forum selection clause was invalid according to the rules of the 1968 Brussels Convention, the Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction applying Art. 5(1) of the Brussels Convention, pursuant to which a person domiciled in a contracting State may be sued in the Court for the place of performance of the obligations in question. In order to determine the applicable law to the question of the place of performance, the Court held that it did not have to refer to the Italian private international law rules, as the uniform rules of CISG have to be directly applied. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court pointed out the attitude of the CISG to substitute domestic law and prevail over the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law applicable to the Contractual Obligation. The Court held that the price had to be paid at the seller’s place of business (i.e. Italy) in accordance with Art. 57 CISG since the contract neither provided for a specific place of performance, nor for payment of price against handing over of goods or documents. Therefore the Italian Courts had jurisdiction. |