Commercial Law: Brussels I Regulation and International Trade Laws

This report provides a detailed analysis of several key aspects of commercial law. It begins by examining the jurisdiction of courts under the Brussels I Regulation in scenarios involving contracts for services in Hamburg and Oslo, discussing the applicability of Articles 1, 4(1), and 2(2). The report t...Read More

1
Commercial law

2
Table of Contents
Answer to Question 1.................................................................................................................3
Answer to Question 2.................................................................................................................3
Answer to Question 3.................................................................................................................4
Answer to Question 4.................................................................................................................4
Reference List............................................................................................................................6

3
Answer to Question 1
In this case, the courts in Hamburg would have jurisdiction as per the General Rule 2 (b) of
Article 7 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation since the place where services are to be provided is
Hamburg in Germany in this aspect. However, such a provision would not be applicable if
the contract is not related to performance of services or delivery of goods. As a result, it is
imperative from the facts of the case that the contract has been drafted with an objective to
the providing of services and the place is Hamburg. The term service in this regard implies
the directive issued by the European Union (Danieli, 2018). Article 1 of the Brussels I
Regulation implies that the international civil and commercial contracts are governed only by
the Brussels I Regulation provided that the countries which are parties to the contract are
members of the European Union. Article 4 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation implies that the
defendant should be a residence of a country which is a member of the European Union
irrespective of the country of origin. Article 2(2) of the Brussels I Regulation implies that the
parties to the dispute who are not holding the citizenship of any country which is a member
of the European Union shall be deemed to be governed by the laws of the country of
domicile. Such a provision implies the principle of equality as far as natural justice is
concerned. It can be concluded that the procedural law of Germany would be applicable in
this aspect.
Answer to Question 2
In this case, the courts in Oslo would have jurisdiction as per the General Rule 2 (b) of
Article 7 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation since the place where services are to be provided is
Hamburg in Norway in this aspect. It is also implies from the facts of the case that the
contract made between the parties belonging to Spain and Germany is a Contract for
Performance of Services (Michaels, 2017). As a result, it can be deduced that the General
Rule 2 of Article 7 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation is applicable in such a scenario. Since it is
an international civil contract, Article 1 of the Brussels I Regulation implies that only
Brussels I Regulation would be applicable in this aspect. Article 4 (1) of the Brussels I
Regulation is also applicable in this scenario as the defendant is already a citizen of a country
which is a member of the European Union. It is further imperative that the Article 2(2) of the
Brussels I Regulation can also be applied in the interest of the principles concerning equality
with reference to natural justice. It is imperative that in order to determine the applicability of

4
General Rule 2 (b) of Article 7 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation, Article 4 (1) of the Brussels I
Regulation has to be taken into account. The law which is applicable in this aspect is the law
of Norway since the courts located in Oslo would have jurisdiction in this regard.
Answer to Question 3
Article 31 of the Convention on the Contract for International Carriage of Goods by Road
implies that one of the parties to the contract must be a signatory to the Convention. The facts
of the case imply that both the Germany and Latvia between whom the carriage is taking
place are signatories to the Convention on the Contract for International Carriage of Goods
by Road. Article 17 (1) of the Convention on the Contract for International Carriage of Goods
by Road implies that the carrier would be liable for delays in making the deliveries of goods.
As the delay in the case is for a period of five days, the company which is the carrier would
be liable for the same and would have to pay compensation for the damages caused.
However, Article 17 (2) of the Convention on the Contract for International Carriage of
Goods by Road implies that the carrier would not be liable for the delays if the causation of
the delay is due to the negligence or the wrongful act on part of the person claiming
compensation for the damages (Rogers, Chuah and Dockray, 2016). Article 18 (1) of the
Convention on the Contract for International Carriage of Goods by Road implies that the
burden of proof lies on the carrier in order to wave of liability as per Article 17 (2) of the
Convention on the Contract for International Carriage of Goods by Road. As a result, it is to
be seen whether the claimant has indulged in any wrongful or negligent act as per the facts.
Answer to Question 4
In this aspect the seller is liable since it has been determined by the authorities in Vietnam the
certificate of origin of the goods is incorrect. Such a document is also accompanying the
goods which are imperative that the certificate has been provided by the seller. As per Article
10 of The Hague Visby Rules imply that a bill of lading is issued in a country which is a
party to the contract or a country from where the goods are to be shipped as far as the port of
origin is concerned. Since France is a party to The Hague Visby Rules, such a convention
would be applicable in this case (Messent and Glass, 2017). The bill of lading is equivalent to
a consignment note used in carriage of goods by as far as receipt with reference to
transferring of goods is concerned. As a the authorities in Vietnam have prohibited the goods
to be collected by the purchaser, the vendor would be liable accordingly with regard to the

5
providing of the wrong documentation as far as the certificate of origin is concerned. If the
goods in the ship to be delivered are containerized, then the Free On Board contract formed
between the vendor in Latvia and the purchaser is Vietnam would be null and void since Free
On Board contract is not applicable to goods to be transported in a containerized form. As a
result it is to be seen whether any goods to be received by the purchaser in Vietnam is
containerized.

6
Reference List
Danieli, D., 2018. Mixed contracts under the Brussels Ia Regulation: searching for a
“jurisdictional identity”. Journal of Private International Law, 14(3), pp.532-548.
Messent, A. and Glass, D., 2017. CMR: contracts for the international carriage of goods by
road. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Informa Law from Routledge.
Michaels, R., 2017. Jurisdiction, foundations. In Encyclopedia of Private International
Law (pp. 1043-1051). 4th ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Rogers, A., Chuah, J. and Dockray, M., 2016. Cases and Materials on the Carriage of Goods
by Sea. 6th ed. Abingdon: Routledge.