Ingmar GB Ltd. v. Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc.
European Union Court of Justice
[2000] E.C.R. I-9305 (2000)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Eaton Leonard Technologies, Incorporated (Eaton) (defendant) was a California company that manufactured pipe-bending machines. Ingmar GB Limited (Ingmar) (plaintiff) was a wholesaler established in the United Kingdom. Eaton and Ingmar entered a contract that appointed Ingmar as Eaton’s exclusive agent to sell Eaton’s machines in the United Kingdom. The contract contained a choice-of-law clause, which provided that California law would govern the terms of the contract. However, the European Council had a directive regarding exclusive-agency agreements for commercial transactions, which included Article 17, a mandatory provision of the directive. The contract between Ingmar and Eaton, which constituted an exclusive-agency agreement, was terminated in 1996. Ingmar sued Eaton in the court of justice in England. The English court held that the United Kingdom regulations implementing Article 17 of the European Council’s directive did not apply because the contract was governed by California law. Ingmar appealed to an English court of appeal. The court of appeal sought a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice regarding whether a choice-of-law provision in an exclusive-agency agreement that selected California law as the governing law was valid if voluntarily chosen by the parties to the agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
