Data
- Date:
- 13-12-2010
- Country:
- Russian Federation
- Number:
- A40-35715/10-141-305
- Court:
- Arbitrazh Court of Moscow
- Parties:
Keywords
REFERENCE TO UNIDROITB PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ENGLISH LAW)
ASSIGNMENT OF FUTURE RIGHTS - IN PRINCIPLE VALID - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 9.1.4 AND 9.1.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Abstract
Claimant, a Dutch company, and a German real estate company concluded several lease contracts, whereby Claimant was the lessor and the German company was the lessee. Claimant also concluded an assignment agreement with Respondent, a Russian company, according to which Respondent would have paid for the lessee. In the notice of assignment there was a choice of law in favour of English law, while confirmation of the notice was done in the form of a deed.
Claimant filed a suit with the court for the non-performance of the assignment agreement. Respondent objected that the assignment agreement as well as the deed were not valid, since they were not made for value. According to Respondent, the notice of assignment was just an information, but not the offer to conclude a contract. Respondent insisted that the dispute had to be governed by Russian law.
The court, in applying English law, referred to Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposal Ltd (1994), to Norman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963) and to Art. 9.1.4 and 9.1.5 of the UNIDROIT Principles 2004 and decided in favour of Claimant.
Fulltext
}}
Source
}}