Analysis of Jurisdiction Challenge: Mototête SA v Visorworld Pty Ltd

This assignment analyzes a jurisdiction challenge in the case of Mototête SA v Visorworld Pty Ltd, focusing on arguments in favor of jurisdiction. It addresses the scenario where an arbitrator has been appointed and the respondent initiates a jurisdiction challenge. The analysis examines the legal grounds for the challenge, considering aspects such as changes in contract terms, specifically the limited warranty period of the visor, and the circumstances of the accident. It references relevant legal precedents and contractual clauses to support arguments. The assignment also discusses the implications of the accident, highlighting the importance of the contract's terms and conditions regarding product liability and the limitations on the company's responsibility. The analysis also incorporates arguments about the claimant's actions and the extent of the contract's applicability. Furthermore, it references legal sources such as Bridge's 'The International Sale of Goods' and Gillette and Steven's 'The UN Convention on contracts for the international sale of goods: theory and practice' to strengthen its legal reasoning and support the presented arguments.

ASSIGNMENT

It is important for potential litigants to ascertain where they can commence proceeding or can
resist claim made against them in wrong jurisdiction and same is done through jurisdiction
challenge. After making changes in a contract, the three scenarios under which jurisdiction
challenge could be brought against arbitration agreement by the parties i.e. change in dispute
resolution clause, change of other terms and change in contractual parties. Further, it has been
specified that as respondent has not abandoned the arbitration agreement and has reserved its
jurisdiction challenge, the case cannot be submitted to foreign court. Though, it is required to
challenge within time specified along with appropriate arguments against the decision of
jurisdiction1. In present case jurisdiction challenge can be made on the basis of change of
other terms of the contract. It was concluded in case of Wael Almazeedi v Michael Penner
and Stuart Sybermsa [2018] UKPC 3) that disclosure can serve as symbol of transperancy
which dispels concern and might prevent an objection being raised. In present case as it was
specified in the agreement that specified quality is to be served for one year only and the
helmet is purchase after the period of one year. Thus, Visorworld can’t’be claimed on same
basis. Further, in order to challenge jurisdiction it is necessary to specify the ground of
challenge within fourteen days of objector becoming aware of the facts. The specified facts
comprises the grounds on the basis of which challenge has been made such as partial
behaviour of AT or not treated in fair manner.
Arguments:
No renewal of written contract.
In present case of Mototete SA v Visor world Pty Ltd, the contract which has been made with
Visor World Pty World comprises clause 55 that Visor world will take reasonable step in
order to assure that the visors which have been supplied as per the contract are shatter
resistant. However, the contract was applicable for one year period from the date in which
visors were purchased. Thus, the Visorworld Company is no more bounded with the contract.
Further, as the terms of the contract specify in clear manner in clause 3 that the contract
regulates the products provided to Mototete of all helmet visor as specified in this contract for
a period of one year Further, a remedy of buyer and seller depends on the characteristic of
breach of the contract2. In case a fundamental breach exists than aggrieved party may claim
1 G. Michael Bridge,. The international sale of goods. (Oxford University Press, 2017).
2 P Clayton Gillette and Walt D Steven. The UN Convention on contracts for the international sale of goods:
theory and practice. (Cambridge University Press, 2016).

damages to the extent of loss occurred. In present case as Visor World Pty Ltd has not
breached the contract as the specified quality visor were to be provided for one year only as
per the contract between Mototete SA and Visor world Pty Ltd.
Happening of accident due to loss of control on bike
The information available on the website of Visor world Pty Ltd. which specifies that the
visors produced by the company assure the customers which are safe to use and in case
motorcyclist meets an event of an accident than they can assure the safety from visor related
injuries. In present case Aiden lost his control and due to his own mistake the accident
happened. . Further, due to same plastic shards entered his eyes due to which he is required to
have surgery on his eyes in order to save eye sight. Thus, as the loss has been occurred due to
his own carelessness and it was not an accidental event, thus company cannot be claimed for
the loss.

References
Bridge, M. G. The international sale of goods. (Oxford University Press, 2017).
Gillette, C. P., and Steven D. W. The UN Convention on contracts for the international sale
of goods: theory and practice. (Cambridge University Press, 2016).