(edit title) Contract Law issue Contract of services under the Swedish law Options

[CaseySol]

Hello guys,

I have a question regarding Swedish law. We have a contract of services in English where the governing law is Swedish as well as the jurisdiction. However, we have never dealt with Swedish law or courts. At the moment there is a breach on the Client side, in particular he has not paid for the services provided by us. We would like to avoid any litigation in Sweden and possibly to move to another litigation that we are more familiar with. Thus, do you know any legal act of Sweden that helps to govern the contract under the legislation that is closer to the place of performance taking into the account that there is no connection between Sweden and performance of the contract, neither party is Swedish one. Finally, if there is no such an option, what rules regulate breach of contract of services in part of non payment by the Client and where to find it?

Thank you very much in advance.

[John.Smith]

Suggest you hire a Swedish lawyer.

[Pursuivant]

Thus, do you know any legal act of Sweden that helps to govern the contract under the legislation that is closer to the place of performance taking into the account that there is no connection between Sweden and performance of the contract, neither party is Swedish one

So why the hell then:

We have a contract of services in English where the governing law is Swedish as well as the jurisdiction.

???

[John.Smith]

So why the hell then:. ???

yep cannot figure out why this is case either? Neither the supplier nor the customer is Swedish or based in Sweden, and the delivery was not made in Sweden... ? Then why would you have an English language contract governed in the Swedish jurisdiction?

Seems like a no-mans land situation to be honest. Even if it did go to court, the fact that the non-paying customer is not based here means a Swedish court cannot affect a decision upon him/her or the organisation.

Seems like a major oversight assuming the OP has posted all the facts of the case.

If both parties are based in EU countries then I think you need to look at EU law and not Swedish law. Either way a Swedish corporate lawyer will be required.

[Yorkshireman]

Well that was different ...it is more common that in the EU when choosing which jurisdiction is used, for contract law it is normally the UK. This is one of the reasons why the EU is trying to get through a single EU Contract Law that will steer away from English Law and become codified civil law across the EU

Unfortunately for You, since both sides have a binding contract that states You have agreed to use Swedish Jurisdiction, then that's the place to battle it out, if indeed it is breech-of-contract.

[John.Smith]

.....assuming that any court finding here in Sverige is applicable to a company outside of Sweden? May not be worth the expense of lawyers fees, trips over here etc...

[Yorkshireman]

..Yes, within the EU companies can choose and agree in contract which Member States Jurisdiction the governs the contract.

But, the OP is stating a breech on the client side, however it completely depends what has happened. For Example...late, or in this case maybe very late payment (not done so yet) does not always constitute a material breech of contract. It depends what is in the contract terms and conditions with regards payment. And, even if late paid (very late, as in not yet) then if the OP has a rolling contract, the contract is still in place and just because they may feel the client has breeched the contract, that does not give them the right to cancel the contract. Again, it depends what is in the contract.

If the contract states Sweden as the governing jurisdiction, then Sweden it is.

[Bender B Rodriquez]

..Yes, within the EU companies can choose and agree in contract which Member States Jurisdiction the governs the contract.

But shouldn't that be the jurisdiction of one of the involved parties? I can't see how using the court system of a third country could be enforcable.

EDIT: So apparently it is quite common to use a third country, and Switzerland seems common to use (maybe a confusion here?). It still begs the question how the verdict of a third country is enforced in practice.

[Yorkshireman]

It still begs the question how the verdict of a third country is enforced in practice.

It's called the 2001 Brussels 1 Regulation, between Member States. In principle it stipulates that the court decision in the deciding court should be recognised across the EU Member States. In practise it is a little more complicated, since you still have to ask the local Member State to recognise the judgement, which normally is OK due to the Brussels 1 Regulation.

However, the process has been abused, and a legal tactic that is commonly known as the Italian Torpedo (no offence intended to italians, thats the common name ) where the party in breech slooooows the process down by challenging the validity of agreement clauses in yet another Member State This is now going to be stopped, just last month the EU Parliament gave support to a proposal that will tighten the Regulation, and make it so that across the EU, only the specified jurisdiction agreed in contract is always the 1st to determine whether an agreement is valid or not.

...what the OP wants to do is take their client to another Member State other than that specified in the agreement ...should be careful, maybe their client actually tries the same to slow the process down. Better to move quickly and get to court in Sweden.

[wondering]

I just want to say that in Sweden you will probably get an arbitrator to resolve this issue

[Yorkshireman]

It depends on whether arbitration is stipulated in the contract or not, and whether the item considered a breech of contract is allowed by Swedish Law to be decided by arbitration.

[John.Smith]

I wonder if this is the OP's customer:
http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?s...c=54986&hl=