Judgment of 1 February 1979
Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance
1980 Rev. arb. 97 (1980)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In January 1947, Sofel (defendant) agreed to distribute a book edited by Techniques de l’lngenieur (T.I.) (plaintiff). Sofel and T.I. signed a contract with an arbitration clause stating that if a disagreement arose, the parties must refer the matter to the Federation francaise de la Publicite. The arbitration clause further noted that the Court of Seine retained exclusive jurisdiction if a dispute arose between the parties. The contract was drafted on T.I.’s company stationery and signed by both parties. When a dispute arose between T.I. and Sofel, Sofel referred the matter to a Federal Commission of Mediation and Arbitration of the Federation Nationale de la Publicité (the Arbitral Commission). T.I. failed to appear, and the Arbitral Commission entered a default against T.I. The Arbitral Commission then nominated an arbitrator on behalf of T.I. as the defaulting party pursuant to the Arbitral Commission’s rules. In March 1978, the Arbitral Commission held T.I. liable, and T.I. appealed the decision to the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance. T.I. argued the arbitration clause was void because it gave jurisdiction to the Seine court while simultaneously requiring parties to refer the matter to an Arbitral Commission. T.I. further argued the clause created contradictory ambiguity in its distinction between a disagreement and a dispute. Sofel countered that the court construing an arbitration clause must go beyond the literal meaning of the text and seek the common intention of the parties to discern jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the clause. Sofel concluded that, under Article 1196 of the Civil Code, the arbitration clause was valid, while conceding the wording was ambiguous.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.