M.S.A. v. Company M
Brussels Court of Appeal
14 Yearbook Comm. Arb. 618 (1989)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
M.S.A. (plaintiff), a Belgian company, and Company M (defendant), a Swiss business, entered into an exclusive distributorship agreement. The agreement included an arbitration clause and a Swiss choice-of-law provision. A dispute arose between the parties, and M.S.A. filed suit against Company M. Company M attempted to compel arbitration under the New York Convention. M.S.A. cited a Belgian statute applying to all exclusive distributorships that involved Belgian territory. The statute provided that if a dispute was brought before a Belgian court, Belgian law would apply. The statute further stated that its provisions were applicable notwithstanding agreements to the contrary. The Belgian trial court found that the arbitration clause was invalid under the New York Convention because the underlying dispute concerned a subject matter not able to be arbitrated under Belgian law. Company M appealed to the Brussels appellate court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.
