[Hague-jur-commercial-law] IP&The Hague quick notes about yesterday

[Judith Sapp]

A forged contract would be substantive rather than procedural fraud.
Accordingly, under the current Hague draft, enforcement of a judgment on =
the
forged contract could not be disputed on the ground of 9(d) fraud.  If =
the
Seoul court found the forged contract valid, enforcement of the judgment =
on
it could not be disputed on the ground of invalidity under 9(a), which =
reads
as follows:  "the agreement was null and void under the law of the State =
of
the chosen court, unless the chosen court has determined that the =
agreement
is valid."

The answer to the question what governmental and societal interests are
served by permitting enforcement of a judgment obtained by fraud of any =
kind
was "finality."=20

Judith Sapp
Komondorok LLC
111 West Street
Portland, Maine 04102
United States of America

207.842.6003  Telephone
207.842.0743  Facsimile
207.807.7017  Cell
judith@judithsapp.com  Email


-----Original Message-----
From: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org
[mailto:hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of
Manon Ress
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:28 PM
To: mike.sondow@verizon.net; =
hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org
Subject: Re: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] IP&The Hague quick notes about
yesterday

I understood that in 9 d) only a fraud in *procedures* would count and=20
make the judgment unenforceable.  In the case of a "forged contract" the =

fraud would be in the *underlying contract* and that is not a concern in =

the project.  But maybe I misunderstood because that would be odd. Maybe =

I got things wrong in my notes.

The example was firm A enters a contract with firm B.  Choice of forum=20
in that contract is let's say a London court.  Firm B forges a new=20
contract with choice of court let's say in Seoul.  B brings dispute to=20
Seoul court.  Judgment of Seoul court would be enforceable under the=20
Hague?  I would assume that if the contract is not valid, the choice of=20
court cannot be valid either.

Check in Chapter III Recognition and enforcement

Article 9
A judgment given by a court...maybe refused only on the following=20
grounds [...]

d) the judgment was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of=20
procedure;

end of quote

it would be much better to have:

d) the judgment was obtained by fraud.





Michael Sondow wrote:
> Manon wrote:
>=20
>=20
>>Judgment rendered in a court chosen in the forged contract=20
>>would be enforced under the convention.
>=20
>=20
> Have I read this right?
>=20
> M. Sondow
> _______________________________________________
> Hague-jur-commercial-law mailing list
> Hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/hague-jur-commercial-law
>=20
>=20

--=20
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,=20
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax: +1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons, CP=20
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent, London,=20
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax:=20
+44(0)207 354 0607




_______________________________________________
Hague-jur-commercial-law mailing list
Hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/hague-jur-commercial-law