<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Matthew Arnold &#38; Baldwin LLP &#124; Giving you a lot more than just law... &#187; legal rule</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mablaw.com/tag/legal-rule/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mablaw.com</link>
	<description>MAB</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:47:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Applicability of jurisdiction clause by reference needs to be absolutely clear if incorporated by reference to another contract – AEL v Socofi, High Court</title>
		<link>http://www.mablaw.com/2010/01/applicability-of-jurisdiction-clause-by-reference-needs-to-be-absolutely-clear-if-incorporated-by-reference-to-another-contract-%e2%80%93-ael-v-socofi-high-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mablaw.com/2010/01/applicability-of-jurisdiction-clause-by-reference-needs-to-be-absolutely-clear-if-incorporated-by-reference-to-another-contract-%e2%80%93-ael-v-socofi-high-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Weston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Upload-IT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terms & conditions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mablaw.com/?p=1450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This case had complex facts and several parties involved, but the main players were AEL (a liner carrier between Africa and Europe), Socofi (a French fruit importer) and DAM (a fruit grower in Africa). In August 2007, Socofi and AEL agreed by exchange of letters that AEL would replace a third party who had previously [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This case had complex facts and several parties involved, but the main players were AEL (a liner carrier between Africa and Europe), Socofi (a French fruit importer) and DAM (a fruit grower in Africa). In August 2007, Socofi and AEL agreed by exchange of letters that AEL would replace a third party who had previously been providing freight forwarding services. AEL’s letter to Socofi said that it was prepared to offer transport services and this included maritime transport under the conditions of the existing contract between AEL and DAM. In reply, Socofi confirmed acceptance of the maritime transport service under the conditions of the contract between AEL and DAM. The AEL/DAM contract had provided for large disputes to be heard by the English High Court. When problems arose, AEL started a legal action against Socofi and DAM in the High Court. Socofi applied for a declaration that the High Court had no jurisdiction as the jurisdiction clause had not been properly incorporated into the AEL/Socofi contract.</p>
<p>The High Court agreed with Socofi’s application and said the AEL/DAM jurisdiction clause had not been incorporated with AEL/Socofi. The matter depended on the intentions of the parties. However, the precedent cases showed that when looking at whether a jurisdiction clause had been incorporated and accepted, there was a crucial distinction. Where the clause purportedly being incorporated was contained within standard terms and conditions, the clause could be incorporated even where one party had not seen the terms and conditions; however, where it was contained within another contract, the rules were stricter and only those terms that were closely related to the parties’ agreement would be incorporated by general words of incorporation. In this case, the primary purpose of the correspondence was to identify the services and cost and there were no express words dealing with incorporating the jurisdiction clause. Therefore, it was not incorporated.</p>
<p>Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold &amp; Baldwin LLP and editor of <a href="http://www.upload-it.com/">www.Upload-IT.com</a>, comments: ‘This case provides two lessons. Firstly, be absolutely clear if you are referring to another contract and you want a particular clause to apply. More widely, though, be clear what you are signing up to and don’t just refer to another contract; that other contract may contain all sorts of provisions, some of which may apply depending on the legal rules of what sort of document it is.’</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mablaw.com/2010/01/applicability-of-jurisdiction-clause-by-reference-needs-to-be-absolutely-clear-if-incorporated-by-reference-to-another-contract-%e2%80%93-ael-v-socofi-high-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

