Brinkibon v stahag stahl. Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl 2022-10-28
Brinkibon v stahag stahl
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl is a legal case that was decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1983. The case involved a dispute between two companies, Brinkibon Ltd and Stahag Stahl GmbH, over a contract for the sale of steel.
At the heart of the dispute was the question of whether the contract between the two companies was governed by English law or Austrian law. Brinkibon, a British company, argued that the contract was governed by English law, while Stahag, an Austrian company, argued that it was governed by Austrian law.
The ECJ ultimately ruled in favor of Brinkibon, finding that the contract was indeed governed by English law. In reaching this decision, the ECJ considered several factors, including the fact that the contract was formed in England and that the parties had designated English law as the governing law in the contract.
The decision in Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl was significant for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it established that parties to a contract can choose the law that will govern their agreement, even if the contract is to be performed in a different jurisdiction. This principle, known as "party autonomy," allows businesses to have greater certainty and predictability in their commercial transactions.
In addition, the case also helped to clarify the role of the ECJ in matters of cross-border contracts and the application of different national laws. Prior to the decision in Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl, there was some uncertainty as to whether the ECJ had the authority to rule on issues of private international law, such as the choice of governing law in a contract. The decision in this case helped to establish the ECJ's jurisdiction in these matters and provided a framework for future cases involving cross-border contracts.
Overall, the decision in Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl has had a lasting impact on the way that contracts are formed and governed in the European Union. It has given businesses greater certainty and predictability in their commercial transactions and has clarified the role of the ECJ in matters of private international law.
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl Flashcards
They may be servants or agents with limited authority. The message may not reach, or be intended to reach, the designated recipient immediately: messages may be sent out of office hours, or at night, with the intention, or on the assumption, that they will be read at a later time. Consequently, if the postal rule applied in this case the contract would have been concluded in England where sent and English law would apply; if it did not apply then the contract would have been concluded where the acceptance was received — Vienna. I have reached the opinion that, on balance, an acceptance sent by telex directly from the acceptor's office to the offeror 's office should be treated as if it were an instantaneous communication between principals, like a telephone conversation. One reason is that the decision to that effect in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp seems to have worked without leading to serious difficulty or complaint from the business community.
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl  2 AC 34
Another issue in the appeal was when the formation of a contract would be when. If a telex is sent to an office acceptance occurs when the telex reaches the place of business, not when it actually gets to the person to whom it is addressed. The message may not reach, or be intended to reach, the designated recipient immediately: messages may be sent out of office hours, or at night, with the intention, or on the assumption that they will be read at a later time. Unquestionably, as a general proposition, when an offer is made, it is necessary in order to make a binding contract, not only that it should be accepted, but that the acceptance should be notified. Lord Wilberforce elaborated on these factors stating that the machines facilitating the communication could be operated by third parties potentially causing error, or the messages may be sent or received out of office hours.
Brinkibon v Stahlag Steel  2 AC 34
Laryea, Lisa Spagnolo, Cambridge University Press. The senders and recipients may not be the principals to the contemplated contract. I agree entirely with these observations. Brinkibon, based in London wanted to buy steel from the defendants who were in Austria. B informed S that letter of credit facilities had been opened in London in prep for a business deal i. The answer to this question depended on whether the postal rule applied. Furthermore, as acceptance had not taken place, there could be no claim for breach of contract.
Brinkibon v Stahag complianceportal.american.edu
Since 1955 the use of Telex communication has been greatly expanded, and there are many variants on it. However, although the postal rule does not apply to instantaneous forms of communication, there is no 'universal rule' with each case needing to be decided by reference to the intention of the parties. . It was decided that the postal rule does not apply to instantaneous communication, but this would be decided on a case-by-case basis as communication could be affected by factors outside the parties control. This case deals with the rules on acceptance, especially in regard to distance contracts with the rise in more advanced forms of communication and the increase in distance trade. The case concerns offer and acceptance for the formation of a contract. But I agree with both my noble and learned friends that the general rule will not cover all the many variations that may occur with telex messages.
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH
For these reasons I think it is right that in the ordinary simple case, such as I take this to be, the general rule and not the postal rule should apply. . The parties were in negotiations over the sale of steel bars. Thirdly, a party the acceptor who tries to send a message by telex can generally tell if his message has not been received on the other party 's the offeror 's machine, whereas the offeror, of course, will not know if an unsuccessful attempt has been made to send an acceptance to him. Since the contract was not an English contract the House of Lords refused to permit service out of jurisdiction.
Brinkibon Ltd. v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH
It is therefore convenient that the acceptor, being in the better position, should have the responsibility of ensuring that his message is received. Lord Wilberforce Since 1955 the use of telex communication has been greatly expanded, and there are many variants on it. Simon Kozlina, Kelly Green, Luca Siliquini-Cinelli, Emmanuel T. I would accept it as a general rule. Otherwise, the case would be dealt with under Austrian law as desired by the defendants.
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. Each case would have to be resolved by looking at the parties' intentions and sound business practices. Held: The contract had been formed in Austria. They may be servants or agents with limited authority. The message may not reach, or be intended to reach, the designated recipient immediately: messages may be sent out of office hours, or at night, with the intention, or on the assumption that they will be read at a later time. The senders and recipients may not be the principals to the contemplated contract.
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH
Contract law: text, cases and materials 9ed. For example, Lord Wilberforce speculated that the rules might be different if the telex was sent outside of office hours or was intended to be read by the recipient at a later date. Brinkibon sent their acceptance to a Stahag offer by Telex to Vienna. No universal rule can cover all such cases; they must be resolved by reference to the intentions of the parties, by sound business practice and in some cases by a judgement where the risks should lie. There may be some error or default at the recipient's end which prevents receipt at the time contemplated and believed in by the sender. The sellers did not delivery, and the buyers wanted to sue for The Lords stated that it was inappropriate to create a universal rule in all instantaneous communications cases; exceptions might exist.
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl
Brinkibon, alleging breach, wanted to serve the respondent with a writ claiming damages for breach of contract in England, but Stahag Stahl claimed they were not under British jurisdiction. They bought steel from the defendant Stahag Stahl, based in Austria. The message may not reach, or be intended to reach, the designated recipient immediately: messages may be sent out of office hours, or at night, with the intention, or on the assumption that they will be read at a later time. Brinkibon sent their acceptance by Brinkibon wished to sue for breach of contract though importantly, the defendants were not based in the UK. Brinkibon Ltd later wanted to sue Stahag Stahl for breach of contract in England, but they could only do this if the contract was formed in England. The senders and recipients may not be the principals to the contemplated contract.