Jurisdiction in Mixed Contracts: Commentary on Order No. 10421 of 2024

Order No. 10421 of April 17, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a fundamental issue in civil law: determining jurisdiction in relation to mixed contracts. This ruling offers insights into how parties can define their legal position, especially when dealing with complex contracts that combine multiple contractual types.

Content of the Ruling

The Court, with Justice P. S. as its rapporteur, established that to determine jurisdiction in an action concerning a mixed contract, the content of the claims brought by the plaintiff must be considered. This approach deviates from the traditional application of specific jurisdictional rules for combined typical contracts, which lose their autonomy and merge into the concrete cause of the atypical contractual transaction.

In general. For the determination of jurisdiction in relation to an action concerning a mixed contract, the content of the claims brought by the plaintiff must be taken into account, disregarding the specific jurisdictional rule established for each of the combined typical contracts, which have lost their autonomy to merge into the concrete cause of the atypical contractual transaction. Instead, reference may be made to the conventional forum established by the parties. (In this case, in the presence of a mixed contract for sale, deposit, and business lease, the Supreme Court excluded the applicability of Articles 21 and 447-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure and the mandatory rule on jurisdiction concerning business leases, affirming that of the conventional forum).

Relevance of the Conventional Forum

The Court's decision highlights the importance of the conventional forum, established by the parties, as a tool for resolving disputes arising from mixed contracts. This choice becomes crucial in a context where parties may have specific needs and preferences regarding the place of judgment. In this way, parties can avoid uncertainties and potential conflicts of jurisdiction, ensuring greater legal certainty.

Conclusions

Order No. 10421 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in understanding complex contractual dynamics and related jurisdictional competencies. The possibility of referring to the conventional forum and the focus on the content of the claims brought by the plaintiff are elements that can significantly influence dispute resolution. It is therefore essential for businesses and legal professionals to keep these guidelines in mind to ensure effective and informed management of mixed contracts.