Soc. Audi-NSU Auto Union, A.G. v. S. A. Adelin Petit
Belgium Supreme Court
1 Pasicrisie Belge 1260 (1979)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
In 1950, S. A. Adelin Petit (Petit) (defendant) began an exclusive distributorship in Belgium and Luxembourg for Soc. Audi-NSU Auto Union, A.G. (Audi) (plaintiff), a German company. The most current distributorship contract, set to expire on December 31, 1973, contained an arbitration clause setting venue in Zurich, Switzerland, and requiring the arbitrators to apply German law. The contract further provided that the place of performance of the contract was Germany. On December 9, 1972, Audi notified Petit of its intent to terminate the contract effective December 31, 1973. When Petit protested, Audi initiated arbitration proceedings in Zurich. Petite challenged the arbitration panel’s jurisdiction, which the arbitration panel rejected. A Swiss court confirmed the arbitration panel’s decision. On December 6, 1975, the arbitration panel determined that Audi had properly terminated Petit’s distributorship. In the interim, Petit filed a separate action in Belgium seeking damages against Audi for terminating the contract. Audi asked the Belgian court to recognize and enforce the arbitration award. The Belgian court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter and that under Belgian law, the arbitration clause in the contract was unenforceable. Audi appealed. The Belgian appellate court affirmed the Belgian trial court’s decision. Audi appealed to the Belgium Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.