The French Supreme Court holds that the public policy nature of art. L. 442-6 of the French Commercial Code does not affect the application of a jurisdiction clause (Monster Cable Products v. Audio Marketing Service and Auramo France v. Seith France)

Assessment of the consequences on jurisdiction of the unchallenged public policy qualification for provisions relating to restrictive practices can be derived from two decisions, rendered by different chambers of the Cour de cassation. In the first case, a French distributor brought an action against its German supplier for damages for sudden termination of an established business relationship, based on Article L. 442-6, I, 5ยบ, of the French Commercial Code. The first instance court refused to apply French law to an undertaking established in Germany. The appeal of

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Vogel & Vogel (Paris)

Quotation

Joseph Vogel, The French Supreme Court holds that the public policy nature of art. L. 442-6 of the French Commercial Code does not affect the application of a jurisdiction clause (Monster Cable Products v. Audio Marketing Service and Auramo France v. Seith France), 12 October 2008, e-Competitions October 2008, Art. N° 23632

Visites 1821

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues