JURE SUMMARY

JURE SUMMARY

An English company, the plaintiff, entered into contracts for the manufacture and supply of travel goods with two French companies, the first and second defendants. The contract allowed the French companies to subcontract part of the work to third parties. The third defendant was an Italian company that supplied the fabric for the travel goods. The fabric proved to be unsuitable, and the plaintiff commenced proceedings in England for rescission of the supply contract and damages, alleging that misrepresentations as to the quality of the fabric had been made by telephone or fax from Italy or France and received in England. The third defendant contested the jurisdiction of the English courts. The High Court (UK) holds that the event that caused the harm for the purposes of Article 5(3) Brussels Convention was the making of misrepresentations in Italy and France. The place where the damage was suffered is not England, but rather France, where the fact of misrepresentation became apparent. As regards liability for false statements made by the defendant and relied on by the plaintiff, under Article 5(3) Brussels Convention jurisdiction exists at the place where the statement was made by the defendant, as the place of the wrongful conduct, and also at the place where goods were delivered or money was paid as a result of the plaintiff's reliance on the statement, as the place of injury, but not at the place where the plaintiff merely received the statement and acted in reliance on it by giving instructions leading to the delivery or payment. Thus the English court lacks jurisdiction where a false statement about the quality of goods, transmitted by telephone, fax and letter from Italy to England, led to an order for the goods and to their delivery in France.