natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Rechtbank van koophandel, Oudenaarde, som også først var af denne opfattelse (f.eks. i dommene af 16. januar 1979 i sagen Van Poucke mod Guilmot, 6. februar 1979 i sagen NV Brouwerij Liefmans mod Koster, 27. februar 1979 i sagen NV Samsonite mod Griesshader, 25. september 1979 i sagen NV Beaulieu Trading mod Comet Pol­sterwerk GmbH), har i senere afgørelser anset sådanne klausuler for ugyldige, således — foruden de ovenfor nævnte afgørelser af 6. november 1979 og 18. december 1979 — i dommene af 9. december 1980 i sagen NV Santens mod Perle Bademoden GmbH & Co. KG, af 6. januar 1981 sagen PVBA Marbella mod Denis Jeans und Sportswear Freizeitmoden GmbH & Co. KG, og 15. januar 1981 i sagen PVBA Aluglas mod Mavromatis. I en dom af 9. marts 1979 i sagen SPRL Cykiert & Fils mod SpA Nuova Rubertex, har Tribunal de commerce, Liège, anset en værnetingsklausul, hvori en italiensk ret blev udpeget som kompetent, for gyldig; klausulen var indeholdt i de almindelige forret­ningsbetingelser på bagsiden af bestillingsformularer, som den belgiske sagsøger havde udfyldt uden at reklamere over de nævnte betingelser. ®
The Rechtbank van koophandel, Oudenaarde, which had at first adopted that point of view (see for example the judgments of 16 January 1979, Van Poucke v Guilmot; 6 February 1979, NV Brouwerij Liefmans v Kloster; 27 February 1979, NV Samsonite v Griess­hader; 25 September 1979, NV Beaulieu Trading v Comet Polsterwerk GmbH), has in later judgments held such clauses invalid (see for example — in addition to the above­mentioned judgments of 6 November 1979 and 18 December 1979 — judgments of 9 December 1980, NV Santens v Perle Bademoden GmbH & Co. KG, 6 January 1981, PVBA Marbella v Denis Jeans und Sportswear Freizeitmoden GmbH & Co. KG, and 15 January 1981, PVBA Aluglas v Mavromatis). In a judgment of 9 March 1979 (SPRL Cykiert & Fils v SpA Nuova Rubertex) the Tribu­nal de commerce, Liège, upheld the validity of a clause conferring jurisdiction on an Italian court, where the clause was contained in general conditions of business on the back of order forms which the Belgian plaintiff had filled in without challenging those conditions. < ® >
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence i almindelige forretningsbetingelser —formkrav — opfyldelsesstedet for forpligtelsen var i Nederlandene, men ikke i den pågældende dom­stols retskreds — bestemmes efter den uniforme købelov
Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause contained in general conditions — Formal requirements — Place of performance of the obligation elsewhere in the Netherlands — Determination thereof under the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods
I denne sag havde førsteinstansen (Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam) ved afgø­relse af 8. marts 1978 erklæret sig inkompetent til at pådømme en sag, der af Allpac Holding (med hjemsted i Sliedrecht i Arrondissementsrechtbank Dordrechts retskreds i Nederlandene) var anlagt mod C. F. Maier, der var hjemmehørende i Forbundsrepu­
By judgment of 8 March 1978 the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, declined jurisdiction in an action which Allpac, a company established in Sliedrecht (Arrondis­sement Dordrecht, Netherlands), had brought against a German company, Maier, on the ground that it had failed to perform properly its obligations as buyer under a con­tract of sale entered into by the parties. It was established that the parties had not
Allpac Holding havde til støtte for Arrondissementsrechtbanks kompetence, bl.a. påbe­råbt sig sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser, hvorefter der kun kunne anlægges sag ved retterne i Amsterdam; de almindelige forretningsbetingelser måtte gælde, idet de indgik i det løbende forretningsforhold mellem parterne, jfr. EF­Domstolens dom af 14. december 1976 i sag 25/76 (ovenfor under 1­17.1.2 — A 2).
Allpac sought to found jurisdiction inter alia on those general conditions, which con­ferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts in Amsterdam and which were alleged to be applicable because they formed part of a continuous course of trading between the par­ties. On that point Allpac cited the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 14 December 1976 in Case 25/76 Segoura ν Bonakdarian (supra, 1­17.1.2 — A 2).
Arrondissementsrecht­bank udtalte imidlertid, at en værnetingsklausul i almindelige forretningsbetingelser kun kunne anses for at være indgået som et led i en mundtlig købsaftale, hvis den var skriftligt bekræftet af sælgeren og accepteret af køberen.
The Arrondissementsrechtbank held, however, that a forum clause contained in general conditions of business formed part of an oral contract of sale only if it was confirmed in writing by the seller and accepted by the buyer.
I det konkrete tilfælde fandtes sælgeren ikke at have bekræftet værnetingsklausulen skriftligt, og spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt køberen havde accepteret den, blev således ikke aktuelt.
In this case there was no suggestion of any written confirmation of the forum clause by the seller, so the question of its acceptance by the buyer did not arise.
Ankeinstansen, Gerechtshof, fandt, at de få leverancer, Allpac Holding havde foretaget til sagsøgte inden for rammerne af et begyndende kontraktsforhold mellem parterne, som endnu ikke var fastlagt i alle detaljer, rent faktisk ikke kunne betragtes som sket inden for rammerne af et »løbende forretningsforhold«, således som det ifølge EF­Domstolens dom i sag 25/76 (præmis 11, andet afsnit) må kræves, når der ikke forelig­ger en skriftlig værnetingsaftale eller en mundtlig aftale, der er skriftligt bekræftet.
On appeal the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam, came to the conclusion that the isolated de­liveries which Allpac had made to Maier in the context of an inchoate contractual rela­tionship, of which not all the details had been agreed upon, could not in fact be de­scribed as having taken place 'within the framework of a continuing trading relation­ship', in accordance with the requirement laid down by the Court of Justice of the Eu­ropean Communities in Case 25/76 Segoura ν Bonakdarian (paragraph 11, 2nd part) in the absence of a written jurisdiction agreement or an oral agreement evidenced in writing.
Ge­rechtshof udtalte, at den omstændighed, at Allpac Holding, mens der førtes forhandlin­ger, tilsendte C. F. Maier sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser samt fakturaer, på hvilke de almindelige betingelser var trykt på tysk, samt at Maier derefter betalte fak­turabeløbene minus 3% rabat, ikke kunne indebære, at Maier skriftligt havde bekræftet værnetingsklausulen i de almindelige betingelsers artikel 9 eller betingelserne som hel­hed.
The Gerechtshof took the view that the fact that in the course of the negotia­tions Allpac sent to Maier its general conditions of business and invoices on the back of which those conditions were printed in German and that Maier had paid the amounts invoiced, less 3% discount, did not imply that Maier had agreed in writing to the forum clause contained in Article 9 of the conditions or to the conditions as a whole.
I stævningen havde Allpac imidlertid tillige henvist til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, til støtte for, at sagen var anlagt ved rette værneting.
However, in its statement of claim Allpac had also purported to found jurisdiction on Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Herom udtalte Gerechtshof, at All­pac Holding's almindelige forretningsbetingelser i artikel 9 også indeholdt et lovvalg til fordel for nederlandsk ret, og at der med hensyn til, om en lovvalgsaftale var kommet i stand, måtte stilles lempeligere krav end til en værnetingsaftale.
Article 9 of Allpac's general conditions stated that the contract was to be governed by the law of the Netherlands.
Man måtte lægge til grund, at CF.
A choice­of­law agreement was subject to less stringent requirements than a jurisdiction agreement.
Maier havde taget de almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som var frem­sendt, til efterretning, og da der ikke var rejst indsigelse mod lovvalget, måtte CF. Maier acceptere at blive stillet, som om dette var tiltrådt.
Having been sent a copy of Allpac's general conditions, Maier could be regarded as having taken cognizance thereof.
Da nederlandsk ret fandt anvendelse på kontraktsforholdet, var den uniforme lov om internationale løsørekøb gældende, eftersom betingelserne i lovens artikel 1 var op­fyldt.
The contractual relationship was governed by the law of the Netherlands and so the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods was applicable since the requirements laid down in Article 1 thereof were satisfied.
Ifølge lovens artikel 59, stk. 1, skulle CF.
In accordance with Article 59(1) of the Uniform Law, Maier must pay the price at Allpac's place of business.
Maier betale på Allpac's forretnings­sted. Da Allpac ikke havde forretningssted i Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdams retskreds, men i Arrondissementsrechtbank Dordrechts retskreds, var det retten i Dordrecht, der havde kompetencen.
Since Allpac's place of business was located, not in Amsterdam, but in Dordrecht, the action fell within the jurisdiction of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Dordrecht.
Gerechtshof henviste i medfør af den nederland­ske civilproceslovs artikel 157 a sagen til retten i Dordrecht.
The Gerechtshof referred the case to the last­mentioned court under Article 157 A of the Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure.
Cour d'appel ophævede førsteinstansens dom.
The Cour d'appel quashed the judgment of the lower court.
Den franske ordregiver havde klart og tydeligt givet udtryk for, at man var indforstået med værnetingsklausulen.
In its view the French pub­lisher had clearly indicated its acceptance of the jurisdiction clause.
Da der ikke stod i kontrakten, at der kun henvistes til bilagenes forsider, måtte man gå ud fra, at henvisningen både gjaldt for­ og bagsiden.
Since the contract did not state that it referred only to the obverse of the appendices it must be assumed that the reference was to the whole of each appendix, both the obverse and the reverse of each sheet.
Et så stort foretagende som sagsøgtes kunne ikke undgå at have lagt mærke til, at der var trykt almindelige forretningsbetingelser på bagsiden af tre af de fire bilag.
It could not have escaped the notice of so large an undertaking as the de­fendant that general conditions of business were printed on the reverse of three of the four appendices.
Hvad ordlyden af henvisningen angik, kunne der ikke være den ringeste tvivl om, at den hentydede til bilagene; den omstændighed, at parter­ne ganske vist havde underskrevet siderne i selve kontrakten, men ikke bagsiderne af bilagene, kunne forklares med, at der udelukkende var trykt tekst på bagsiderne.
With regard to the wording of the reference, there could be no reason­able doubt that it referred to the appendices; the fact that the parties had initialled the pages of the contract itself but not the reverse of the appendices could be explained by the fact that the latter contained only a pre­printed text.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — almindelige forretningsbetingelser — løben­de forretningsforhold mellem parterne
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — General conditions of business — Con­tinuing business relationship between the parties
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — retsvirkninger — forrang for værnetinget i sager om tredjemands opfyldelse af forpligtelser (artikel 6, nr. 2) — betingelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Effects — Precedence over jurisdiction of court hearing proceedings in which a claim in guarantee is raised (Art. 6(2)) — Conditions
Van Londen BV anmodede derfor Rechtbank om tilladelse til at adcitere Technomet.
It had bought the rings from their manufacturer, Technomet, whose seat was in Belgium, and it therefore applied to the Rechtbank for leave to bring third­party proceedings against Technomet.
Efter at Rechtbank havde imødekommet denne anmodning, anførte det belgiske firma først og fremmest, at det ikke var Rechtbank Arnhem, men retten på Technomets hjemsted, Dendermonde, der var kompetent.
The Rechtbank granted the application ; in its defence to that claim Technomet argued first of all that the court for its seat, situated in Dendermonde, had exclusive jurisdiction.
Technomet påbe­råbte sig i denne forbindelse en bestemmelse i sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser, hvorefter Rechtbank Dendermonde også var kompetent til at træffe afgørelse i regres­søgsmål, der måtte blive anlagt mod Technomet.
It referred in that regard to a provision of its general conditions of business conferring jurisdiction on the Recht­bank, Dendermonde, which applied also to claims in third­party proceedings.
Den ordrebekræftelse vedrørende den omtvistede leverance, som Technomet havde tilsendt van Londen BV, indeholdt føl­gende trykte formulering: »Alle vore leverancer sker i henhold til de europæiske støbe­riers almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som De er i besiddelse af.«
Tech­nomet's confirmation of van Londen's order contained the following printed state­ment: 'Goods are supplied in accordance with the general conditions of business of the European foundries, which are in your possession.'
Rechtbank fastslog først, hvilken lovgivning der skulle finde anvendelse på kontrakts­forholdet mellem parterne.
The Rechtbank first determined the law applicable to the contractual relationship be­tween the parties.
Ifølge nederlandsk international privatret, hvortil også be­stemmelserne i den af Nederlandene undertegnede, men endnu ikke ratificerede EØF­konvention om, hvilken lov der skal anvendes på kontraktlige forpligtelser, hører, var det i overensstemmelse med konventionens artikel 4 belgisk lov, der skulle anvendes,
Under Netherlands private international law, which included the provisions of the EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, signed by the Netherlands but not yet ratified, Belgian law was applicable, in accord­ance with Article 4 of the Convention, as the law of the country in which the party who
(fortsat 1) fordi Belgien var det land, hvor den part, som skulle præstere den for aftalen karakte­ristiske ydelse, havde sit hovedsæde.
(continued 1) was to effect the performance characteristic of the contract was established.
Med hensyn til de europæiske støberiers alminde­lige forretningsbetingelser, som Technomet påberåbte sig, fastslog Rechtbank, at disse betingelser normalt blev anvendt af de europæiske støberier, og van Londen BV havde flere gange tidligere i forbindelse med forretninger mellem parterne fået tilsendt den ovenfor nævnte ordrebekræftelse.
With re­gard to the general conditions of business of the European foundries, on which Tech­nomet relied, the Rechtbank held that they were in general use in the industry, and that in several previous transactions between the parties a confirmation of van Londen's order in the terms referred to above had been sent.
Van Londen BV måtte anses for handlende i den bel­giske Wetboek van koophandel's forstand; endvidere havde Technomet på grundlag af artikel 7, stk. 2, i den nederlandske uniforme lov om indgåelse af internationale løsøre­køb, der fandt anvendelse i det foreliggende tilfælde, kunnet gå ud fra, at van Londen BV havde accepteret anvendelsen af Technomet's almindelige forretningsbetingelser ved — eller i hvert fald efter — tilsendelsen af ordrebekræftelsen, som van Londen BV ikke havde gjort indsigelse mod.
Van Londen was to be regarded as a merchant for the purpose of the Belgian Commercial Code; furthermore, on the basis of Article 7(2) of the Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, applicable in this case, Technomet was entitled to assume that since van Londen had raised no objection on receiving the confirmation of its order it had ac­cepted the general conditions of business.
Herefter undersøgte Rechtbank, om Technomet var berettiget til at påberåbe sig værne­tingsklausulen i de almindelige forretningsbetingelser.
The Rechtbank went on to consider whether Technomet was entitled to rely on the jurisdiction clause in the general conditions of business.
På den ene side var Rechtbank i princippet kompetent til at træffe afgørelse vedrørende regresspørgsmålet i henhold til konventionens artikel 6, nr. 2, da den var kompetent til at træffe afgørelse i hovedsa­gen.
On the one hand, in principle the Rechtbank had jurisdiction to hear the third­party claim under Article 6(2) of the Convention since it was the court seised of the original proceedings.
På den anden side opstod spørgsmålet, om værnetingsklausulen kunne anses for en aftale om valg af værneting, der opfyldte betingelserne i konventionens artikel 17, også når hensås til, hvordan det var gået til, at den fandt anvendelse på den pågælden­de kontrakt.
On the other hand, the question arose whether the jurisdiction clause, having regard to the way in which it became applicable to the contract in question, should be regarded as a valid choice of forum in accordance with Article 17 of the Convention.
Dette spørgsmål måtte besvares bekræftende på grund af de forskellige af Technomet fremlagte ordrebekræftelser vedrørende kontrakter, der tidligere var ind­gået med van Londen BV.
In view of the documentary evidence put forward by Technomet, namely confirmations of orders in previous trans­actions with van Londen, that question must be answered in the affirmative.
Da det fremgik af disse, at den omtvistede forretning ikke havde været noget isoleret tilfælde, men en del af det løbende forretningsforhold mel­lem parterne, hvorunder Technomet (næsten) altid havde bekræftet van Londen BV's ordre med ovennævnte henvisning til sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser, uden at sidstnævnte nogen sinde havde gjort indsigelse herimod, var betingelserne i artikel 17 opfyldt på baggrund af Domstolens praksis, navnlig dommen af 14. december 1976 i sag 25/76 (jfr. ovenfor 1­17.1.2 ­ A 2).
It ap­peared from that evidence that the transaction in question was not an isolated one but formed part of a continuous business relationship between the parties, in which Tech­nomet had virtually always referred, in its confirmation of van Londen's orders, to its general conditions of business, and van Londen had never objected; having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice, in particular its judgment of 14 December 1976 in Case 25/76 Segoura ν Bonakdarian (supra, 1­17.1.2 — A 2), the requirements of Ar­ticle 17 were fulfilled.
Rechtbank erklærede sig inkompetent til at træffe afgørelse vedrørende regresspørgs­målet.
The Rechtbank held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the third­party claim.
(fortsat 1) aftale indgår i kontrahenternes løbende forretningsforhold, som består på grundlag af disse almindelige forretningsbetingelser.
(continued 1) question had initiated the contractual relationship between the parties.
1986, 216, kommenteret af De Paep
1986, 216, Note: De Paep
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — formkrav — værnetingsklausul i et konnosse­ment — mulighed for at gøre klausulen gældende overfor tredjemand, der er indehaver af konnossementet — betingelse — konnossementsindehaverens indtrædelse i afladers rettig­heder og forpligtelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Formal requirements — Jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading — Possibility of relying on it against a third party holding the bill of lad­ing — Conditions — Succession by the third party to the rights and duties of the shipper
En transport af maskiner med skibet »Ehrenfels« fra Antwerpen til Dubai (De Forene­de Arabiske Emirater) førte til, at modtageren af ladningen og dennes forsikringssel­skab anlagde erstatningssag mod rederen og transportvirksomheden, som begge havde hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
A shipment of machines in the Ehrenfels from Antwerp to Dubai (United Arab Emir­ates) gave rise to an action for damages by the consignee and its insurers against the shipowner and the carrier, both of whom were domiciled in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Under sagen, der var anlagt ved Rechtbank van koophandel, Antwerpen, påberåbte de sagsøgte (i det følgende benævnt »rederiet«) sig en værnetingsklausul i det i Antwerpen udstedte konnossement, hvorefter Bremen skulle være eneste værneting.
In the proceedings brought in the Rechtbank van koophandel, Antwerp, the defend­ants ('the shipowners') relied on a jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading, which had been drawn up in Antwerp, according to which the courts at Bremen were to have ex­clusive jurisdiction.
Retten anførte, at artikel 91 i den belgiske sølov, der er afledt af Bruxelles­konnossementskonventionen af 1924, indeholder præceptive regler om sø­transportvirksomhedens ansvar, at det desuden var usikkert, om retterne i Bremen ville anvende denne bestemmelse, og at værnetingsklausulen efter kriterierne i konventio­nens artikel 17 i hvert fald ikke var gyldig i forholdet til den sagsøgende modtager af ladningen som den tredjemand, der var indehaver af konnossementet.
The gist of its decision was that the liability of sea carriers was mandatorily governed by Article 91 of the Belgian Maritime Law derived from the 1924 Hague Rules, that it was not certain that the Bremen courts would apply that law, and that the jurisdiction clause was in any case not valid against the plaintiff consignee as a third party holding the bill of lading in view of the requirements of Article 17 of the Conven­tion.
Rechtbank anså sig for kompetent på grundlag af den nævnte artikel 91, da den om­tvistede transport var udgået fra Antwerpen.
The Rechtbank held that it had jurisdiction under the said Article 91 because the ship­ment in question had commenced in Antwerp.
Rederiet indbragte afgørelsen for Hof van beroep, som stadfæstede den.
The shipowner's appeal against its deci­sion was dismissed.
Klausulen opfyldte imidlertid slet ikke kravene i artikel 17, for så vidt angik forholdet mellem den i Dubai hjemmehørende tredjemand, som var indehaver af konnossementet, og rede­riet.
In no event, however, did the clause sat­isfy the requirements of Article 17 as between the third party holding the bill of lading, domiciled in Dubai, and the shipowner.
Efter belgisk ret er denne tredjemand nemlig på ingen måde indtrådt i afladerens
Under Belgian law a third party holding a bill of lading did not succeed to the rights and duties of the shipper in Antwerp, but had a legal title in his own right which he acquired from the shipper and on the basis of which
(fortsat 1) rettigheder og forpligtelser, men har en selvstændig retsstilling, som er erhvervet fra af­laderen, og hvorefter der består et krav på levering af de i konnossementet anførte va­rer på de vilkår, der er fastlagt i ovennævnte konnossementskonvention.
(continued 1) he was entitled to delivery of the goods indicated in the bill of lading under the condi­tions laid down in the Hague Rules.
Indehaveren af konnossementet har uafhængigt af den fragtaftale, afladeren har indgået, en retsstil­ling, som er forbundet med selvstændige rettigheder og forpligtelser. Værnetingsklau­sulen i konnossementet kunne derfor ikke gøres gældende over for ladningsmodtage­ren.
Independently of the contract for the carriage of goods by sea concluded by the shipper, a third­party holder of the bill of lading had a legal title to which independent rights and duties were attached.
Desuden opstod der det spørgsmål, om tredjemanden, som var indehaver af kon­nossementet, ville være beskyttet af de bestemmelser i den belgiske sølov, som er afledt af konnossementskonventionen, hvis en ret i Bremen skulle træffe afgørelse i sagen.
In addition, the question arose whether the third­party holder of the bill of lading would enjoy the pro­tection afforded by the provisions of the Belgian Maritime Law derived from the Hague Rules were a court in Bremen to entertain the action.
Ud over en »Paramount Clause«, som bestemte, at de i konnossementskonventionen op­stillede regler skulle anvendes »as enacted in the country of shipment« (her Belgien), indeholdt konnossementet nemlig også en klausul, hvorefter tysk ret skulle finde an­vendelse.
Besides a paramount clause, which provided for the application of the provisions laid down in the Hague Rules 'as enacted in the country of shipment' (here, Belgium), the bill of lading also contained a clause under which German law was applicable.