Judgment of 3 February 1990

XVII Y.B. Comm. Arb. 542 (1992)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Judgment of 3 February 1990

Genoa Corte di Appello
XVII Y.B. Comm. Arb. 542 (1992)

Facts

Samara (defendant) and Coppola (plaintiff) entered into a contract containing a clause stating that any arbitration would occur in London “in the usual manner.” A dispute arose between the parties, and Coppola initiated a lawsuit in the court of first instance. The court of first instance held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and decided the case using Italian law. Citing Article 809 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, the court of first instance also found that the arbitration clause was null and void because the clause failed to name the number of needed arbitrators and failed to identify the process of appointing the arbitrators. The decision was appealed to the court of appeal.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership