Search for cases

CISG-online number
6845
Case name
Baker & Baker Benelux (BE) N.V. et al. v. Dipasa Europe B.V.
Jurisdiction
Netherlands
Court
Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court Amsterdam)
Judges
J.T. Kruis (Sole judge), R.E.R. Verloo (Griffier)
Date of decision
07 February 2024
Case nr./docket nr.
C/13/738150 / HA ZA 23-744
Claimants 3
Name
Baker & Baker Benelux (BE) N.V. (formerly CSM Benelux N.V.)
Place of business
Belgium
Role in transaction
Buyer
Name
Baker & Baker Portugal S.A. (formerly CSM Iberia S.A.)
Place of business
Portugal
Role in transaction
Buyer
Name
Baker & Baker Germany GmbH
Place of business
Germany
Role in transaction
Buyer's assignee
Respondent 1
Name
Dipasa Europe B.V.
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Seller 1
Name
Dipasa Europe B.V.
Place of business
Netherlands
Buyers 3
Name
Baker & Baker Benelux (BE) N.V. (formerly CSM Benelux N.V.)
Place of business
Belgium
Name
Baker & Baker Portugal S.A. (formerly CSM Iberia S.A.)
Place of business
Portugal
Name
CSM Deutschland GmbH
Place of business
Germany
Category of goods
22: Oil-seeds and oleaginous fruits
Goods as per contract
Sesame seeds
CISG applicable
yes
CISG applied
no
(Domestic) law applied in addition
Dutch law
Non-provision-specific issues addressed
Formation of party agreement on dispute resolution clause; Framework agreement
Editorial remark
by Ulrich G. Schroeter

The present decision assesses (and eventually denies) the jurisdiction of the District Court Amsterdam over claims brought by three sister companies (from Belgium, Portugal and Germany) as buyers against a Dutch seller of sesame seeds. In doing so, the decision mainly evaluates the seller's argument that a FOSFA arbitration clause contained in a framework agreement stood in the way of the Dutch courts' jurisdiction.

The District Court addresses in detail the parties' consent about and formal validity of the arbitration clause, applying Dutch domestic law in this regard. In this context, the Court (in para. 27 of the decision) points out that the CISG applies to the sales transactions at stake, but holds that the CISG's requirements for the inclusion of standard terms into contracts do not need to be addressed because the FOSFA arbitration clause relied upon by the Respondent was not contained in standard terms.

Decision published in 1
Tijdschrift voor Arbitrage (TvA) (2024), 127–131 [Text (excerpt) – in Dutch]
European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:680
Full text of decision 1
Full text of decision