Germany / 03 December 1992 / Bundesgerichtshof / III ZR 30/91
Country | Germany |
Court | Germany, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) |
Date | 03 December 1992 |
Case number | III ZR 30/91 |
Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(2) |
Source | Original decision obtained from the registry of the Bundesgerichtshof |
Languages | English |
Summary | The parties concluded a contract for delivery of sheep furs on the standard form “International Hide & Skin Contract No. 2” which contained an arbitration clause. The Buyer raised certain claims under the contract before the Landgericht (Regional Court) Frankfurt which were dismissed on the grounds that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement. The Buyer then appealed to the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt which reversed the Landgericht’s decision and remanded the case. The Oberlandesgericht held that the arbitration agreement between the parties was not valid since only one of the parties had given its explicit consent. The Seller appealed the decision. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) reversed the Oberlandesgericht’s decision on the ground that it had failed to take into account the Seller’s objection that, in the international trade of furs, the arbitration clause contained in the “International Hide & Skin Contract No. 2” was customarily and implicitly agreed between contracting parties on the basis of international trade usages (“Handelsbrauch”). According to the Bundesgerichtshof, an arbitration agreement can be concluded on grounds of international trade usages as long as the relevant contract is typical of the industry and the parties are regularly active in the relevant business field. It concluded that Article II NYC does not prevent the conclusion of an arbitration agreement based on international trade usages to the extent that the law at the seat of the arbitration does not require an arbitration agreement to be concluded in writing. |
see also : |
Attachment (1)
![]() Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |