10. The oral hearing took place on

10. The oral hearing took place on 25 September 2008. As [Buyer] was absent from the oral hearing without making an excuse, subject to the penalty stated above, the court ruled that [Buyer] had acknowledged [Seller]'s claim and waived its right to object. Thereupon, [Seller] waived its right to argue the case at the hearing, and referred to its previous written submissions and the requests included therein. In addition, [Seller] requested the court to order [Buyer] to pay EUR 2,000 plus 5% interest from 29 October 2004 as compensation for the expenses of its Irish legal representative.

REASONING

1. [Seller] has its place of business in the Canton of Zug. [Buyer]'s place of business is located in Ireland. Therefore, the dispute has an international subject matter pursuant to Art. 1 of the Federal Act on Private International Law Dated 18 December 1987 (IPRG).

2. The dispute involves a civil or commercial matter in the sense of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 16 September 1988 [hereinafter: Lugano Convention]. If the parties, one or more of which is domiciled in a Contracting State, have agreed that a court or the courts of a Contracting State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction unless the Lugano Convention provides for mandatory jurisdiction of another court. Such an agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either in writing or evidenced in writing, or in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves, or in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, [parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned]. (Art. 17(1) of the Lugano Convention).

3. Pursuant to Article 16 of the "Termination and Settlement Agreement" concluded by the parties on 26 February 2003, the court in Zug has exclusive jurisdiction ([Seller]'s exhibit no. 7. As the Lugano Convention does not provide for mandatory jurisdiction of another court and the formal requirements set out in Art. 17 of the Lugano Convention were met, the matter of jurisdiction is governed by the Termination and Settlement Agreement. The court having jurisdiction according to that is also the proper venue.

4. Pursuant to Art. 116(1) IPRG, contracts are governed by the law chosen by the parties unless it is contrary to international law having supremacy.

4.1 Pursuant to Art. 1(1)(a) and (b) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods dated 11 April 1980 (CISG), the CISG applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States when the States are Contracting States; or, as in the present case, when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State. Pursuant to Art. 6 CISG, if the parties chose the applicable law, it must be examined whether the parties had thereby excluded application of the CISG or it is applicable by virtue of Art. 1(1)(b) CISG (Brunner, Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrecht -- CISG, Bern 2004, No. 1 on Art. 1 CISG). Art. 6 CISG provides that the parties may exclude the application of the CISG. Such exclusion may be express or implied. Firm intent of the parties is required for an implied exclusion. According to prevailing opinion, it does not qualify as express exclusion of the CISG if the parties choose the law of a Contracting State, as in the present case (see [Seller]'s exhibit no. 7: "This agreement shall be governed by Swiss law"), unless the interpretation of the agreement on choice of law suggests otherwise with great certainty (Brunner, op. cit., No. 1 on Art. 6 CISG). In the present case, there are no apparent references that could be interpreted as an exclusion of the CISG. Therefore, the CISG is applicable to the subject matter and the parties (Art. 1(1)(b) CISG, cf. Art. 6 CISG).

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

10. The oral hearing took place on 25 September 2008. As [Buyer] was absent from the oral hearing without making an excuse, subject to the penalty stated above, the court ruled that [Buyer] had acknowledged [Seller] 's claim and. waived its right to object. Thereupon, [Seller] waived its right to argue the case at the hearing, and referred to its previous written submissions and the requests included therein. In addition, [Seller] The Court requested to Order [Buyer] to pay EUR 2,000 Plus 5% interest from 29 October the 2,004th As compensation for expenses of ITS The Irish legal representative. REASONING 1. [Seller] has its place of business in the Canton of Zug. [Buyer] 's place of business is located in Ireland. Therefore, the dispute has an international subject matter pursuant to Art. 1 of The Federal Act on Private International Law Dated 18 December the 1987th (IPRG). 2. The dispute involves a civil or commercial matter in the sense of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 16 September 1988 [hereinafter: Lugano Convention]. If the parties, one or more of which is domiciled in a Contracting State, have agreed that a court or the courts of a Contracting State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship. , that court or those courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction unless the Lugano Convention provides for mandatory jurisdiction of another court. Such an agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either in writing or evidenced in writing, or in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves, or in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties. are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, [parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned]. (Art. 17 (1) of The Lugano Convention). 3. Pursuant to Article 16 of the "Termination and Settlement Agreement" concluded by the parties on 26 February 2003, the court in Zug has exclusive jurisdiction ([Seller] 's exhibit no. 7. As the Lugano Convention does not provide for mandatory jurisdiction of. The formal requirements and another Court Set out in Art. 17 of The Lugano Convention were met, The Matter of jurisdiction is governed by The Termination and Settlement Agreement. The Court having jurisdiction according to that is also The Proper Venue. 4. Pursuant to Art. . 116 (1) IPRG, contracts are governed by The Law Chosen by The Parties unless it is contrary to International Law having Supremacy. 4.1 Pursuant to Art. 1 (1) (a) and (B) of The United Nations Convention on Contracts. for the International Sale of Goods dated 11 April 1980 (CISG), the CISG applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States when the States are Contracting States; or, as in the present case, when the. rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State. Pursuant to Art. 6 CISG, if the parties chose the applicable law, it must be examined whether the parties had thereby excluded application of the CISG or it is applicable by virtue of Art. 1 (1) (b) CISG (Brunner, Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrecht - CISG, Bern 2004, No. 1 on Art. 1 CISG). Art. 6 CISG provides that the parties may exclude the application of the CISG. Such exclusion may be express or implied. Firm intent of the parties is required for an implied exclusion. According to prevailing opinion, it does not qualify as express exclusion of the CISG if the parties choose the law of a Contracting State, as in the present case (see [Seller] 's exhibit no. 7: "This agreement shall be governed by. Swiss law "), unless the interpretation of the agreement on choice of law suggests otherwise with great certainty (Brunner, op. cit., No. 1 on Art. 6 CISG). In the present case, there are no apparent references that could be interpreted as an exclusion of the CISG. Therefore, the CISG is applicable to the subject matter and the parties (Art. 1 (1) (b) CISG, cf. Art. 6 CISG).

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 3:

10. The oral hearing took place on 25 September 2008. As [] was Buyer absent from the oral hearing without making, an excuse. Subject to the penalty, stated above the court ruled that [] had Buyer acknowledged [Seller] 's claim and waived its right. To object. Thereupon, [] waived Seller its right to argue the case at, the hearingAnd referred to its previous written submissions and the requests included therein. In addition, [] requested Seller the. Court to order [] to Buyer pay, EUR 2 000 plus 5% interest from 29 October 2004 as compensation for the expenses of its Irish. Legal representative.



1 REASONING. [] has Seller its place of business in the Canton of Zug. [Buyer] 's place of business. Is located in Ireland.Therefore the dispute, has an international subject matter pursuant to Art. 1 of the Federal Act on Private International. Law Dated 18 December 1987 (IPRG).

2. The dispute involves a civil or commercial matter in the sense of the Lugano Convention. On Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 16 September 1988 [hereinafter: Lugano. Convention].If the parties one or, more of which is domiciled in a Contracting State have agreed, that a court or the courts of a. Contracting State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with. A particular, legal relationshipThat court or those courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction unless the Lugano Convention provides for mandatory jurisdiction. Of another court. Such an agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either in writing or evidenced, in writing or in a. Form which accords with practices which the parties have established, between themselves or in international trade, or commerceIn a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce. Is widely, known to and regularly observed by, [parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce. Concerned]. (Art. 17 (1) of the Lugano Convention).

3.Pursuant to Article 16 of the "Termination and Settlement Agreement" concluded by the parties on 26, February 2003 the. Court in Zug has exclusive jurisdiction ([Seller] 's exhibit no. 7. As the Lugano Convention does not provide for mandatory. Jurisdiction of another court and the formal requirements set out in Art. 17 of the Lugano Convention, were met