|
A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued:
1 (a) in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question;
(b) for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be:
-- in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered,
-- in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should be provided,
(c) if subparagraph (b) does not apply then subparagraph (a) applies;
These new words obviously make a significant change to Article 5(1). This essay will start with the phrase “obligation in question” by analysing the case law of the European Court of Justice and the House of Lords and then turn to the Article 5(1) of the Brussels 1 Regulation to valuate whether this new wording can give a solution of the appearing issues.
II. THE OBLIGATION IN QUESTION
II-I. DEFINITION OF THE OBLIGATION IN QUESTION AND THE De Bloos
As noted in the introduction, jurisdiction on matters relating to a contract is vested with the courts for the place of the performance of the obligation in question. This raises the first question that what is the obligation in question. Whether the obligation is to any obligation whatever under the contract or only the obligation forming the basis of the proceedings? The De Bloos decided by the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention concerned this issue and gave the definition.
As an exclusive distributor for Belgium, Luxembourg and Zaire, the plaintiff De Bloos domiciled in Belgium brought an action in Belgium against the manufacturer Bouyer domiciled in France for its undertaking negotiations with another company, which De Bloos regarded as a unilateral termination of the distribution contract without notice. De Bloos claimed damages for not having been give notice and compensation for the expenses it had spent in developing the market for the Bouyer products. However, Bouyer objected that the courts of Belgium have not jurisdiction on this case according to the Brussels Convention.
|
