ROME I REGULATION
Article 3
Iran Continental Shelf Oil Company [2002]
Both parties concluded contract between them on basis of their own standard terms and conditions,
each of which contained a different choice of law provision (one in favour of Iran, the other Texas).
Held:
● Was no express choice of law.
● This because neither party had accepted the other party’s terms
Compangie Tunisienne de Navigation [1971]
Common law case. Contract stated to be governed by law of flag of ship. At time contract concluded,
was envisaged that ships used would be French. However due to unforeseen war, different ships had
to be used. Held:
● Parties had made express choice of French governing law.
● This because parties had envisaged French law would be governing law at time of conclusion
(as they had expected carrier to be French)
Court then considered what implied choice of law would have been had there been no express choice
of law. Contract also contained arbitration clause in favour of England. Held:
● Arbitration clause in favour of England would usually imply English choice of law.
● However on facts French law was proper law of contract
● This because contract was most closely connected with France
Implied Choice of Law
Egon Oldendorff v Liberia Corp [1996]
Common law case .German company sought to serve process on Japanese company on grounds that
contract between them was impliedly governed by English law. Contract had no connections with
England save for arbitration clause in favour of England. Held:
● C could serve out of the jurisdiction.
● Idea that governing law is something other than English law despite fact that parties chose
England as seat of arbitration is “unconvincing”
● Test under Convention Article 3 is almost identical to that under common law.
If Art 3involves a change in emphasis, is a small one
Marubeni Hong Kong and South China [2002]
Was express choice of law in an earlier draft of contract between parties. However in concluded
contact, choice of law clause had been left out. Held:
● Was no evidence parties had deliberately left express choice of law clause out of
concluded contract.
● Thus was implied choice of law based upon earlier draft of contract.
,Islamic Arab Ins Co [1987]
One party argued that English law was governing law of contract; other party argued that law of a
Muslim State was governing law of contract. Under law of the Muslim State, contract would have
been invalid. Held:
● Is presumption that parties intend a contract they make to be valid, and therefore
governed by law under which it is valid.
● Thus is implied choice of English law by parties.
Star Shipping [1993]
Charterparty contained arbitration clause stating that any dispute arising under charter was to be
arbitrated in China or England at D’s option. Held:
● Was no implied choice of law
● This because applicable law could not change from time to time depending on whether D
chose English or Chinese arbitration.
● Thus clause not even valid as floating choice of law clause.
Article 4
Article 4(2)
Print Concept [2001]
German company undertook to distribute air-cooler systems manufactured by an English company in
Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Held:
● Characteristic performance of contract is the supply of the products by English company
● And not the distribution of those products by German distribution company.
Bank of Baroda [1994]
Indian bank entered into credit agreement, whereby they guaranteed the creditworthiness of a client to
D; bank’s central administration was in India, however confirmation of credit was effected through
bank’s London branch. Was no express choice of law, thus dispute was as to the applicable law. Held:
● For purposes of Article 4(2), characteristic performance is confirmation of credit.
● This took place through the Indian bank’s London branch.
● Therefore governing law of contract was English law
And not law of India (place where bank had its central administration)
Rebuttal of Presumption
● Judge supported comment in Dicey and Morris (textbook)
Namely that a presumption under Article 4 may be most easily rebutted where the
place of performance differs from the place of business of the party whose
performance is characteristic of the contract.
,Ennstone Building Products [2002]
● Under Art 4(2) of Convention, applicable law will only be that of a place of business other
than principal place of business where parties are bound to perform via that branch
i.e. so that not performing through that branch would constitute breach of contract
Iran Continental Shelf Oil Co [2002]
Was contract for sale. D was American company with an office in England; in contract between C and
D, D’s address was given as its English office. Held:
Clarke LJ
● Under terms of contract D’s obligations were effected through English office.
● (obiter) however doubted view in Ennstone Building Products [2002]
i.e. Art 4(2) of Convention might allow for applicable law to be that of country where
branch is situated even if performance does not as matter of contractual obligation
have to be performed through that place of business
though not necessary to decide this on facts of case.
Rebutting the Presumption
Intercontainer Interfrigo [2009] (ECJ)
Contract between Belgian and Dutch company. Place of performance of characteristic obligation was
Belgium, place of business of characteristic performer was Holland. Was argued that presumption
could only be rebutted by Article 4(5) of Rome Convention where place identified has “no genuine
connecting value” (i.e. strong model). Held:
● Primary objective of article 4(5) is to have the contract governed by law of country with
which it is most closely connected.
Thus to achieve this objective, necessary for court hearing case to be able to disregard
the “presumptions” in event they do not identify country with which contract is most
closely connected
● Presumptions serve requirement of legal certainty in contractual relations
i.e. as they allow people to foresee the applicable law
● However where it is clear from circumstances of contract as a whole that contract is more
closely connected with a country other than that identified by presumptions, court must apply
law of that country and disregard presumptions.
, Samcrete Egypt Engineers [2001]
C (Land Rover, UK company) entered into exclusive distribution agreement with a company in Egypt
(X). This agreement was expressly stated to be governed by English law.
D entered into guarantee agreement with Land Rover, whereby they guaranteed X’s obligations to pay
money to C. However D specifically removed an English choice of law clause from draft of
guarantee. Held:
Article 3
● Was no choice of law under Article 3
i.e. D’s act of deleting choice of law clause meant it was not incorporated
Article 4
● As per Article 4(2), was presumption that governing law was Egyptian.
characteristic performance under guarantee is the payment of money by the
guarantor (D)
and here, characteristic performer’s place of business was in Egypt
● However this presumption was displaced
i.e. England was place of performance of characteristic obligation (place where money
was due to be paid)
England was also place of performance in distribution agreement between C and X
Definitely Maybe [2001]
C was company providing services of pop group ‘Oasis’ to concert organisers; D was German concert
organiser. D hired Oasis to play at concert in Germany, however due to fall-out only two members of
group appeared; D declined to pay full price and C sued. Relevant issue was whether English law or
German law governed contract. Held:
● Place of performance of characteristic obligation is NOT a more important connecting
factor than territorial connections of characteristic performer.
i.e. if English law is law with which characteristic performer has territorial connection,
fact that characteristic performance occurs outside of England does not on its own
displace presumption that English law governs.
● Here, C was the characteristic performer.
● Nevertheless on facts, German law was governing law
was in German currency
required obligations to be performed in Germany by both parties
was no other connection to England save for C’s territorial connection
Situation would probably be same under Regluation.
Article 3
Iran Continental Shelf Oil Company [2002]
Both parties concluded contract between them on basis of their own standard terms and conditions,
each of which contained a different choice of law provision (one in favour of Iran, the other Texas).
Held:
● Was no express choice of law.
● This because neither party had accepted the other party’s terms
Compangie Tunisienne de Navigation [1971]
Common law case. Contract stated to be governed by law of flag of ship. At time contract concluded,
was envisaged that ships used would be French. However due to unforeseen war, different ships had
to be used. Held:
● Parties had made express choice of French governing law.
● This because parties had envisaged French law would be governing law at time of conclusion
(as they had expected carrier to be French)
Court then considered what implied choice of law would have been had there been no express choice
of law. Contract also contained arbitration clause in favour of England. Held:
● Arbitration clause in favour of England would usually imply English choice of law.
● However on facts French law was proper law of contract
● This because contract was most closely connected with France
Implied Choice of Law
Egon Oldendorff v Liberia Corp [1996]
Common law case .German company sought to serve process on Japanese company on grounds that
contract between them was impliedly governed by English law. Contract had no connections with
England save for arbitration clause in favour of England. Held:
● C could serve out of the jurisdiction.
● Idea that governing law is something other than English law despite fact that parties chose
England as seat of arbitration is “unconvincing”
● Test under Convention Article 3 is almost identical to that under common law.
If Art 3involves a change in emphasis, is a small one
Marubeni Hong Kong and South China [2002]
Was express choice of law in an earlier draft of contract between parties. However in concluded
contact, choice of law clause had been left out. Held:
● Was no evidence parties had deliberately left express choice of law clause out of
concluded contract.
● Thus was implied choice of law based upon earlier draft of contract.
,Islamic Arab Ins Co [1987]
One party argued that English law was governing law of contract; other party argued that law of a
Muslim State was governing law of contract. Under law of the Muslim State, contract would have
been invalid. Held:
● Is presumption that parties intend a contract they make to be valid, and therefore
governed by law under which it is valid.
● Thus is implied choice of English law by parties.
Star Shipping [1993]
Charterparty contained arbitration clause stating that any dispute arising under charter was to be
arbitrated in China or England at D’s option. Held:
● Was no implied choice of law
● This because applicable law could not change from time to time depending on whether D
chose English or Chinese arbitration.
● Thus clause not even valid as floating choice of law clause.
Article 4
Article 4(2)
Print Concept [2001]
German company undertook to distribute air-cooler systems manufactured by an English company in
Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Held:
● Characteristic performance of contract is the supply of the products by English company
● And not the distribution of those products by German distribution company.
Bank of Baroda [1994]
Indian bank entered into credit agreement, whereby they guaranteed the creditworthiness of a client to
D; bank’s central administration was in India, however confirmation of credit was effected through
bank’s London branch. Was no express choice of law, thus dispute was as to the applicable law. Held:
● For purposes of Article 4(2), characteristic performance is confirmation of credit.
● This took place through the Indian bank’s London branch.
● Therefore governing law of contract was English law
And not law of India (place where bank had its central administration)
Rebuttal of Presumption
● Judge supported comment in Dicey and Morris (textbook)
Namely that a presumption under Article 4 may be most easily rebutted where the
place of performance differs from the place of business of the party whose
performance is characteristic of the contract.
,Ennstone Building Products [2002]
● Under Art 4(2) of Convention, applicable law will only be that of a place of business other
than principal place of business where parties are bound to perform via that branch
i.e. so that not performing through that branch would constitute breach of contract
Iran Continental Shelf Oil Co [2002]
Was contract for sale. D was American company with an office in England; in contract between C and
D, D’s address was given as its English office. Held:
Clarke LJ
● Under terms of contract D’s obligations were effected through English office.
● (obiter) however doubted view in Ennstone Building Products [2002]
i.e. Art 4(2) of Convention might allow for applicable law to be that of country where
branch is situated even if performance does not as matter of contractual obligation
have to be performed through that place of business
though not necessary to decide this on facts of case.
Rebutting the Presumption
Intercontainer Interfrigo [2009] (ECJ)
Contract between Belgian and Dutch company. Place of performance of characteristic obligation was
Belgium, place of business of characteristic performer was Holland. Was argued that presumption
could only be rebutted by Article 4(5) of Rome Convention where place identified has “no genuine
connecting value” (i.e. strong model). Held:
● Primary objective of article 4(5) is to have the contract governed by law of country with
which it is most closely connected.
Thus to achieve this objective, necessary for court hearing case to be able to disregard
the “presumptions” in event they do not identify country with which contract is most
closely connected
● Presumptions serve requirement of legal certainty in contractual relations
i.e. as they allow people to foresee the applicable law
● However where it is clear from circumstances of contract as a whole that contract is more
closely connected with a country other than that identified by presumptions, court must apply
law of that country and disregard presumptions.
, Samcrete Egypt Engineers [2001]
C (Land Rover, UK company) entered into exclusive distribution agreement with a company in Egypt
(X). This agreement was expressly stated to be governed by English law.
D entered into guarantee agreement with Land Rover, whereby they guaranteed X’s obligations to pay
money to C. However D specifically removed an English choice of law clause from draft of
guarantee. Held:
Article 3
● Was no choice of law under Article 3
i.e. D’s act of deleting choice of law clause meant it was not incorporated
Article 4
● As per Article 4(2), was presumption that governing law was Egyptian.
characteristic performance under guarantee is the payment of money by the
guarantor (D)
and here, characteristic performer’s place of business was in Egypt
● However this presumption was displaced
i.e. England was place of performance of characteristic obligation (place where money
was due to be paid)
England was also place of performance in distribution agreement between C and X
Definitely Maybe [2001]
C was company providing services of pop group ‘Oasis’ to concert organisers; D was German concert
organiser. D hired Oasis to play at concert in Germany, however due to fall-out only two members of
group appeared; D declined to pay full price and C sued. Relevant issue was whether English law or
German law governed contract. Held:
● Place of performance of characteristic obligation is NOT a more important connecting
factor than territorial connections of characteristic performer.
i.e. if English law is law with which characteristic performer has territorial connection,
fact that characteristic performance occurs outside of England does not on its own
displace presumption that English law governs.
● Here, C was the characteristic performer.
● Nevertheless on facts, German law was governing law
was in German currency
required obligations to be performed in Germany by both parties
was no other connection to England save for C’s territorial connection
Situation would probably be same under Regluation.
