Judgment of 7 December 1994, V 2000 v. Project XJ 220 Ltd
Paris Court of Appeal
1996 Rev. arb. 245 (1996)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In 1989, Project XJ 220 Ltd (defendant) agreed to produce a limited-edition automobile, and Jaguar France agreed to use its distribution network to market the automobile in France. In January 1990, Phillippe Renault (plaintiff) signed an offer to purchase the limited-edition automobile and committed to purchase the vehicle in installments. The offer to purchase was written in English and French and contained certain terms and conditions. In March 1990, Project XJ informed Renault that his offer to purchase had been accepted. However, Renault later sought to cancel the order. Renault sued Project XJ and Jaguar France before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris to nullify the contract and to obtain a refund. Project XJ and Jaguar France argued that the Tribunal de Grande Instance lacked jurisdiction. Project XJ and Jaguar France argued that the arbitration clause contracted in the offer to purchase and sought to remove the dispute to the Law Society in London. The Tribunal de Grande Instance dismissed the jurisdictional argument made by Project XJ and Jaguar France, holding that the English-language offer to purchase was not binding because it was written in a foreign language. The Tribunal de Grande Instance also held that, although the French-language offer to purchase was a binding contract, the arbitration clause was void. Project XJ appealed to the Paris Court of Appeals. Renault argued that the arbitration clause was void because the clause involved a domestic arbitration that he did not accept and failed to adequately describe the arbitral procedure.
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.