Cross Border Contracts - Which law applies?

UK law relating to contractual choice of law between EU member states is found in the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, which is based on the 1980 Rome Convention.  The Rome Convention sets out the rules, as between all EU member states, for determining which national law should be applied by Courts when resolving contractual disputes having an cross border element to them, i.e. an English buyer buys products from a French supplier. 

 In 2005 the European Commission proposed fundamental changes to the Rome Convention, in the form of the Rome I Regulations.  After consultation, the UK decided to ‘opt out’ of the proposed Regulations, and instead, to participate in negotiations with an aim to achieving amendments beneficial to UK business interests.  

The final draft of the Rome I Regulations has been approved and agreed.  The government has issued a consultation paper recommending that the UK ‘opt in’ on the Regulations when they are adopted later this year. The revised Rome I Regulations seek to enhance certainty as to the legal status of cross-border contracts, on the basis that certainty of law leads to confidence in international contracting.  Amongst other items and clarifications in drafting they also look to provide protection to weaker contracting parties, namely consumers.  

The format of Rome I closely follows that of the 1980 Rome Convention and builds upon it; the basic rule being that, in the absence of party choice (either express or implied by the circumstances of the case), the applicable law is that of the country with which the contract is most closely connected.  This means the place where the party performing the service characterising the contract has his habitual residence (for individuals) or central administration (for companies).  

Any improvement in clarity, and certainty for contracts is to be welcomed. However, I think that it remains advisable for parties to agree to, and explicitly state the law (and jurisdiction) to which a contract is to be subject.  This will avoid any uncertainty in the case of a contractual dispute and hopefully circumvent the need to revert to the Regulations at all.

 

To see the consultation document (consultation closes on 25th June 2008) visit www.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp0508.pdf  

 

 

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Posted by Andrew Sutton on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:08 PM

Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSSRSS comment feed



Exclusion clauses

 A recent case heard by the Court of Appeal considered the enforceability of an exclusion clause which excluded liability for losses such as loss of business, loss of profits and consequential loss. I am sure that these terms are common to most of you dealing in commercial contracts. 

The law underpinning such exclusions derives from the Unfair Contract Terms Act which broadly states that when dealing on standard terms of business, an exclusion or limitation of liability clause will only be upheld if it satisfies a test of reasonableness. The case considered involved the letting of serviced office space on standard terms and conditions of business containing exclusions similar to those set out above and also capping liability. 

There was an alleged breach of contract by the "landlord" (I use the term loosely and for simplicity!) and as a result of the dispute the "landlord" suspended services to the occupier of the offices and claimed the balance of unpaid fees to the end of the term. The occupier counterclaimed, claiming (amongst other things) breach of contract by the "landlord" . The "landlord" sought to rely on its t's and c's. The High Court held the exclusion was unreasonable and therefore of no effect. 

The Court of Appeal overturned this decision on the basis of a number of factors, including, no evidence of inequality of bargaining position; it was reasonable to restrict damages for those liabilities that it sought to restrict; the "landlord" advised its customers to insure against business losses, and the limitation itself was reasonable and could be read independently of the exclusions.

The case highlights the importance of considering a number of factors when entering into contractual negotiations incorporating limitations and exclusions on liability.  

 

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Posted by Andrew Sutton on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:29 AM

Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSSRSS comment feed



TUPE and Overseas transfers

For the first time an Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") has considered what happens when a business is acquired by someone outside the UK. 

As a quick reminder, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006  ("TUPE" for those that find the full title a bit of a mouthful!)  applies on the transfer of a business to another legal entity or when there is a change in a service provider. The aim is to provide certain protections to employees.TUPE itself does not address the question as to whether the business being acquired has to remain in the UK post transfer, even though TUPE does set pre-transfer conditions. 

The EAT was asked to consider a case where an Israeli- based entity acquired a UK based manfucaturer and relocated the business to Israel, making employees redundant in the process. Whilst on the facts the EAT did not have to directly decide on the question appealed to it, it's view, given at the request of the parties, was that TUPE can apply to transfers of a business outside the UK, irrespective of whether that transfer is within or outside the EU. This has been thought to be the case, but we now have some guidance on the issue albeit that the law in this area may be developed further. 

 
Those that have been through a TUPE process on sale or acquisition of a business or during service provision change will know that employee matters need to be considered carefully. In the case of service provisions it is always advisable to consider the end of the contract at the beginning and to put in place appropriate contractual procedures and indemnities to supplement the regulations. In the case of a business acquisition it is key to identify those employees who may transfer and consider the implications to the business if they do indeed transfer.    

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Posted by Andrew Sutton on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:36 AM

Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSSRSS comment feed



Review of Copyright

If you are a little more tech savvy than me then you probably have an mp3 player loaded with your favourites from your CD collection in a convenient single portable place. If so, you probably don't realise that technically this is against the law. If you do know, you have probably decided that the chances of getting caught are minimal or that you have bought the CD and you should be able to make a copy for personal use.

You may have read in the papers recently the Gower report on the review of the UK's Intellectual Property regime and whether it is working for rights holders and users. As part of his assessment of the current position it has been proposed that a "private-copying exception" be introduced (this would also be permitted under the appropriate EU Directive) allowing for format shifting, of the type referred to above. The proposal is subject to certain exceptions and limitations but would probably reflect the more flexible way in which the public view and use technology.

The Intellectual Property Office is currently assessing the responses on the proposals it has received from its consultation (see www.ipo.gov.uk/about) as it considers taking the recommendations forward.  It will also be interesting to see how the recommendations are (or not) taken forward and the effect that they have on other copyright works.

 

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Categories: IP & IT
Posted by Andrew Sutton on Monday, June 09, 2008 1:03 PM

Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSSRSS comment feed



Information Commissioner - New powers

On 8th May 2008 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 received Royal Assent. When enacted by secondary legislation the Information Commissioner will be able to issue fines for the most serious breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998. In addition custodial sentences will be introduced for unlawfully obtaining or disclosing personal data in certain circumstances. 

There are procedures in place that must be followed before a fine is issued and there are conditions that need to be satisfied for the Commissioner to consider the imposition of a fine.

There are some observations to make about this. Firstly, if you have good governance and procedures in place for monitoring and complying with data protection laws if you are a data controller, then the new legislation, when in force, shouldn't cause too many headaches. However, recent high profile losses of data by government departments as well as private companies suggest that these new powers should help keep people on their toes when protecting data they hold on other people. If this new legislation means that organisations pay more than attention to protecting data they hold on you and I, the new legislation should be welcomed and gives the Commissioner (who has welcomed the legislation) a much greater armoury than he (or she) has had in the past.  

 

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Posted by Andrew Sutton on Monday, June 09, 2008 12:47 PM

Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSSRSS comment feed



Do you own what you have paid someone for?

 

A recently reported case between a software developer and a commissioning party has illustrated the importance of clearly setting out the terms on which work is to be undertaken, and where possible and practical to have that agreement documented. 

The case centred around a computer programmer who wrote some computer programs for use in interfaces for a company who in turn marketed the interfaces. There was an initial dispute as to royalites which was settled by the parties entering into an agreement where they incorporated a new company, which they owned 50/50 and into which the intellectual property rights were assigned. However, the implementation of the agreement could not be agreed. 

Later, a liquidator was appointed by the commissioning party - not the new company - who assigned such IPR as the commissioning party had in the software to the programmer, who then brought proceedings against the commissioning party for copyright infringement. The Court decided to give effect to the settlement agreement which has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. 

The point of the above is that the author of a work is typically the owner of the copyright in it. So, where you engage a third party to undertake work for you, unless there is an express agreement to the contrary the copyright will vest in that party. I come across a number of instances where clients are being asked for fees for items, whether from ad agencies or  web-site developers which they have paid a fee for and then mistakenly believe that they already own. To avoid falling into this trap make sure that you always document fully the agreement that you have reached.   

 

Currently rated 5.0 by 2 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Categories: IP & IT
Posted by Andrew Sutton on Friday, May 30, 2008 5:05 PM

Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSSRSS comment feed



What price a Patent?

 So you've invented the next big thing. It is going to make you lots of money. You apply for and are granted a Patent. You start marketing the product. You head onto Dragon's Den and successfully pitch your idea (well, maybe).  Sales are going well. Business is booming.  Then someone infringes your Patent. What do you do? The intitial and immediate answer is sue the party infringing your patent to stop them. Correct? 

The Law Society Gazette (105/16 24 April 2008 - page 6) recently reported on what were described as "staggering" costs of a magic circle City firm of solicitors in recent patent litigation trying to "knock out" their opponent's patent.

The reported costs were said to be £5.2 million. Their opponents costs were reported to be a fifth of that. According to the article, the judge heavily criticised the costs, and the opponent's solicitors expressed concerns that such costs could deter clients from entering into patent litigation.  

The point of the above is twofold, although I would note that this is perhaps an extreme example! 

Firstly,  the granting of a Patent isn't necessarily the great protection that some may think that it is. Once the patent is granted, it gives the person granted the patent the right to stop a person that it believes infringes that patent from the infringing act, but it is likely that the first challenge will be on the validity of the patent, possibly leading to lengthy litigation. In light of the above mentioned figures, which are surprisingly high, would you have the financial ability to protect your patent? Should you consider whether there are any other ways in which you may be able to protect your idea? I am not suggesting that Patents aren't useful or that they should be disregarded and may well be the most appropriate route to protect your idea. The UK Intellectual Property Office web-site is a good source of information ( www.ipo.gov.uk ). 

Secondly, and I am going to pre-empt this with the statement that I am not a litigator, the above came out of a costs hearing. Whilst a claimant or a petitioner in any action can spend as much as they like, if the costs judge determines that the costs incurred are disproportionately high, the case seems to show that it is not automatic that costs will be awarded to the successful party. However, I think that costs are for another day and another person! 

 

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: ,
Posted by Andrew Sutton on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:10 PM

Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSSRSS comment feed



Welcome to the Ashton Bond Gigg Blog

Ashton Bond Gigg is a Nottingham based law firm which specialises in dealing with transactional, advisory and dispute resolution matters for corporate and commercial clients over a broad range of subject areas and in dealing with private matters for high net worth individuals and trusts.

Legal Disclaimer

The posts on the Ashton Bond Gigg blog are not legal advice. Users of the Ashton Bond Gigg blog should not rely on such posts, or comments in the posts, as if they were such advice.

Users are advised not to act on any of the information on this blog without getting professional advice on the subject. Ashton Bond Gigg does not accept any liability in connection with your use of the information on this free, general information, blog. More information can be found in the legal notice.

Employment Newsletter

On a monthly basis the Ashton Bond Gigg Employment department produce a monthy e-briefing. Archives of past documents can be downloaded, either by clicking on a month that guages interest, or by downloading the entire zip archive. If you wish to subscribe to the newsletter feel free to contact us from this blog.

Archive

September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008

Complete Collection

Download

Categories


Authors

Calendar

<  January 2009  >
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567