Trent Wallis Photography

Execute Agreement In French

by on Apr.10, 2021, under Uncategorized

A unilateral jurisdiction clause, also known as the asymmetric jurisdiction clause or unilateral jurisdiction clause, stipulates that one party must sue the other party in the courts of a given country, while the other party is free to sue the former in the jurisdiction of its choice. These clauses are very common in financial agreements where they generally provide that the borrower can sue lenders only in a given country, while lenders can sue the borrower in that country or in any other country responsible for the litigation. Unlike Rothschild, in 2015 it is a more traditional financing offer between a French corporate borrower and Swiss credit, with a guarantee at the request of Société Générale. The credit contracts contained a market-compliant jurisdiction clause, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Zurich courts, but which Credit Suisse may bring against the borrower before any other competent court. Credit Suisse raised a legal objection to the borrower`s action in the French courts on the basis of the unilateral jurisdiction clause that Credit Suisse found compatible with the provisions of the Lugano Convention. This objection was upheld by the first instance, but in the appeal procedure, the Court of Cassation quashed the result. Rothschild concerned a jurisdiction clause in an investment management agreement between a Spanish client based in France and a Luxembourg bank, which recognises exclusive jurisdiction in Luxembourg courts, but also gives it the right to sue the client in the client`s jurisdiction and all other competent courts. The French Court of Cassation ruled that the jurisdiction clause was non-extended because it was “potestative” (see below) and contrary to the purpose of the provisions of the regulation then applicable. “A smallpox condition is a condition that subordinates the implementation of the agreement to an event that either contracting party has the effect of preventing.” In this case, Apple Sales Ltd (“Apple”), an Irish company of the Apple Computers Group, signed an agreement with a French retailer that contained the following clause: Second, the Court of Cassation should have made its decision only in accordance with the regulation and not with French law.

No comments for this entry yet...

Comments are closed.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still haven't found what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or so I can take care of it!

Archives

All entries, chronologically...