EUPillar S.J. v. J.S.A. - 415/2008 - Vred. Maaseik, 29 February 2008

Summary

The case is concerned with the termination of an agreement for the purchase of a compressor. The Belgian claimant bought a compressor from the Luxembourg defendant for the sum of 709 EUR. One and a half years later it appeared that the compressor was defective. The claimant sent the compressor back to the defendant for repairs, using a carrier sent by the defendant, but the defendant claims that the compressor got irreversibly damaged during the transport and that this is the claimant’s own fault. The claimant argued that it was the carrier’s responsibility and that of the defendant, who has to cover for his agents. The claimant finally sued the defendant in termination of the agreement and payment of the sum of 1,159 EUR (the purchase price with interests). The defendant contests the international jurisdiction of the court, on the basis of a choice of court clause in its general terms and conditions which grants jurisdiction to the courts of the place of its corporate seat. The Justice of the Peace decides however that the choice of court clause is valid only when the parties have established a practice between themselves. That isn’t the case here, since the parties had traded with each other for the first time. The Justice of the Peace withholds jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 5(1) Brussels I Regulation. The claim relates to the termination of the sales agreement on the basis of a breach by the defendant of its warranty obligation under that agreement. This warranty had to performed at the seat of the claimant, in Belgium. Short critique The Justice of the Peace withholds jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 5(1)(a) Brussels I. Since this is a matter relating to a contract for the sale of goods, he should have referred to Art. 5(1)(b), first indent. The result would have been the same, however, since the place of delivery of the compressor was in Belgium.