Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Belgium 20 October 2000 District Court Charleroi (SA Mo. v. SA Ma.)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001020b1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: CISG-Belgium database of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20001020 (20 October 2000)

JURISDICTION: Belgium

TRIBUNAL: Tribunal de commerce [District Court] Charleroi

JUDGE(S): H.E. Schoenmaeckers, H. Ligny, B. Schrevens

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: R.G. A 2000/01451

CASE NAME: SA Mo. v. SA Ma.

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Belgium (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: France (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Unavailable


Case outline

Reproduced with permission from CISG-Belgium database of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Jurisdiction (Art. 5(1) Brussels Convention): place of performance determined by applicable law; place of performance (payment): Belgium; Belgian court has jurisdiction

Applicable law: Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Hague Conference 15 June 1955); Residence of seller: Belgium: Belgium party to CISG; CISG applicable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 57

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

57A [Place for payment: in absence of agreement, payment at seller's place of business]

Descriptors: Payment, place of ; Jurisdiction

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Excerpt from Larry A. DiMatteo et al., 34 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business (Winter 2004) 299-440 at 373-374 (citations omitted)

"National courts interpreting Article 57 have focused their attention on two issues. These issues are whether Article 57 is a grant of personal jurisdiction to national courts and the enforceability of forum selection agreements to avoid the exercise of such jurisdiction. The issue of whether Article 57 grants jurisdiction to national courts with respect to disputes concerning payment of the purchase price independent of national laws remains unresolved. There is no shortage of judicial opinions confirming jurisdiction where the seller's place of business is located within the court's national boundaries. However, none of these opinions expressly conclude that Article 57 constitutes a grant of jurisdiction separate and apart from national laws. As such, the better interpretation is that Article 57 confirms the conclusion reached in domestic rules of procedure, jurisdiction and venue, specifically, that the place of business or habitual residence of the seller will serve as the forum for all disputes with respect to payment of the purchase price absent a contrary agreement of the parties. The issue may ultimately prove irrelevant to the extent that the result reached through the application of Article 57 is the same as if it constituted a separate grant of jurisdiction by requiring disputes arising from the payment of the purchase price to be determined in the national courts of the seller's place of business.

"Regardless of the ultimate resolution of the above issue, parties to sales transactions subject to the CISG are well-advised to utilize choice of forum provisions. Unlike many other provisions within the CISG, there is broad consensus among national courts with respect to the enforceability of forum selection agreements and their impact on the operation of Article 57. These opinions have uniformly held that courts must give effect to the provisions of Article 57 with respect to the location of dispute resolution in the absence of a contrary selection by the parties in the sales contract."

Go to Case Table of Contents

Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=781&step=Abstract>

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Dutch): CISG Belgium database of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/ipr/eng/cases/2000-10-20.html>; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=781&step=FullText>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated September 27, 2004
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography