Agrégateur de flux

JK Fabrications Ltd v Fastfix Ltd & Anor [2020] NIQB 63 is a good illustration of how not to draft choice of court (and governing law, in fact) provisions generally, let alone in general terms and conditions – GTCs. Albeit with a shaky obiter suggestion on identifying a court.

Tobsteel GmbH domiciled in Őhringen, Germany seeks to set aside a third party notice served on it on the ground that the Northern Irish courts have no jurisdiction to determine the third party proceedings brought by Fastfix, domiciled in Ireland.  Fastfix is the defendant in proceedings brought by JK Fabrications, domiciled in Northern Ireland.  In separate proceedings JK Fabrications Limited is sued by SMBJV, an unincorporated joint venture in respect of a major sewerage project in London.  Bolts are the common element in dispute in both cases; the bolts supplied by Tobsteel to Fastfix who in turn supplied these bolts to JK Fabrications.

As justifiably held by Larkin J, the choice of court upon which Tobsteel bases its argument, itself was not properly bolted. The clause at issue is included in a  “General Terms of Supply and Payment for TOBSTEEL GmbH” document which  General Terms of Delivery and Payment document in which clause VIII reads

“VIII. Place of performance, choice of forum, applicable legislation. 

 1.        The place of performance and choice of forum for deliveries and payments (including complaints regarding cheques or bills) and for all disputes arising between us and the purchaser from the purchase contracts concluded between us and him or her shall be Öhringen.  However, we shall be entitled to file a complaint against the purchaser at his or her residence or registered business address.

2.         The legal relationship between us and our customers or between us and third parties shall be governed exclusively by the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany”

The judgment shows that Tobsteel itself in fact did not initially see clear as to which GTCs applied. In earlier affidavits, two more, and different, versions of GTCs were said to apply.

The first level of discussion was whether there had at all been consent to the GTCs. The judge held there had not been. At 16:

The instrument on which Tobsteel relies as the vehicle of agreement is a combination of the words “Subject to our general terms of business if requested a print can be provided” and Mr Connolly’s [of Fastifx, GAVC] email containing the words “Alex, this is O.K.”. This combination is too fragile to bear that weight.

This was not so much (at 17) because it could not be established that the clause had actually been consulted by Mr Connolly. Larkin J, in line with the Report Jenard:

While it is often a commercially necessary fiction that a party has ‘agreed’ terms that he may not have seen in advance, far less read, based on his signature indicating his consent to be bound by such terms or some other manifestation of acceptance, …

Rather, it has to be clear which version of what is actually referred to: at 17:

..it is observable that in those cases in which this commercially necessary fiction operates, it will be clear what the applicable terms are.

At 19-20:

If Tobsteel wished, as I find it did, to secure agreement on Clause VIII.1 with Fastfix it needed an adequate mechanism or instrument for obtaining that agreement.  In the event, and taking the evidence for Tobsteel at its reasonable height, Tobsteel sought to bind Fastfix in the documents referred to above to Tobsteel’s “general terms of business”.  Clause VIII.1 of June 2014 is not contained in a document entitled “general terms of business” but in a document entitled “General Terms of Supply and Payment for TOBSTEEL GmbH”.  One might properly say, further, that in 2017  Herr Gebert, insofar as he thought specifically about the matter, meant to refer to the June 2004 text, but whether he meant to or not, he did not refer to it so as to permit the creation of an agreement between Tobsteel and Fastfix that Clause VIII.1 should apply.

In none of the cases on Article 25 or its antecedents is there an example of a term incorporating X by reference being held to incorporate Y by reference and thus satisfy the requirements of [A25].

In conclusion, consent had not been clearly and precisely demonstrated. Again, this is a clear emphasis on the need for proper GTC filekeeping.

At 21 ff the judge obiter but in this case in my view wrongly, holds that even if he had found there to have been consent to the clause, it did not meet with the requirements of A25 BIa. As a reminder, the clause reads

 1.        The place of performance and choice of forum for deliveries and payments (including complaints regarding cheques or bills) and for all disputes arising between us and the purchaser from the purchase contracts concluded between us and him or her shall be Öhringen.  However, we shall be entitled to file a complaint against the purchaser at his or her residence or registered business address.

2.         The legal relationship between us and our customers or between us and third parties shall be governed exclusively by the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany”

The judge argues that the proviso at 1 does not identify a court at all and that the choice of law proviso in 2 cannot come to the rescue (it could conversely, under Rome I) for choice of court and law as recently emphasised in Enka Insaat are to be looked at differently.

I agree 1 is an odd mix of anchoring locus solutionis typically done under A7(1) BIa, with what seems to be a unilateral choice of court pro Tobsteel; and that on that basis it might be vulnerable as choice of court under A25 (but it could be rescued under A7(1). I disagree that the name of a town that has a court (let alone a court; which the judge agrees with) needs to be included for it to be proper choice of court: name any town and local civil procedure rules will tell you the relevant court.

‘(A)n agreement on ‘Derry Recorder’s Court’ would satisfy the requirement of Article 25 that a court be agreed but that an agreement on ‘Derry’ would not.’: I do not think that is correct.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. Feb 2021, 2.296, 2.315 ff

Doit être cassé l’arrêt qui ne répond pas à une demande de huit clos. 

en lire plus

Rather like I note in my report on Highbury Poultry Farm,  Secretary of State for Health & Ors v Servier Laboratories Ltd & Ors [2020] UKSC is another example of why the UK Supreme Court and counsel to it will be missed post Brexit.

The case in essence queries whether a CJEU annulment (in General Court: Case T-691/14, currently subject to appeal with the CJEU) of a finding by the European Commission that companies breached Article 101 and 102 TFEU’s ban on anti-competitive practices, is binding in national proceedings that determine issues of causation, remoteness and mitigation of loss. The answer, in short: no, it does not.

The case essentially revolves around the difficulty of applying common law concepts of authority and precedent to the CJEU’s more civil law approach to court decisions. For those with an interest in comparative litigation therefore, it is a case of note.

The essence in the national proceedings is whether Claimants [who argue that Servier’s breaches of EU and UK competition law led to a delay in generic Perindopril entering the UK market, resulting in higher prices of Perindopril and financial loss to the NHS) failed to mitigate the loss they claim to have suffered as a result of Servier’s (the manufacturer of the drug) infringement of the competition rules. The Court of Appeal’s judgment is best read for the facts.

In T-691/14 Servier SAS v European Commission, the General Court of the EU had annulled only part of the European Commission’s decision by which it was found that the Appellants had infringed Article 102 TFEU. In the present proceedings, Servier seek to rely on a number of factual findings made by the
GCEU in the course of its judgment and argue that the English courts are bound by those findings. The High Court and the Court of Appeal have held that the propositions on which the Appellants seek to rely are not res judicata.

Core CJEU authority discussed is Joined Cases C-442/03P and C-471/03P P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission.

Lord Lloyd-Jones reaches the crux of his reasoning, on the basis of CJEU authority, at 39:

The principle of absolute res judicata gives dispositive effect to the judgment itself. It is the usual practice of EU courts to express the outcome of the action in a brief final paragraph of the judgment referred to as the operative part. While this will have binding effect, it will be necessary to look within the judgment beyond the operative part in order to ascertain its basis, referred to as the ratio decidendi. (EU law has no system of stare decisis or binding precedent comparable to that in common law jurisdictions and this EU concept of ratio decidendi is, once again, distinct from the concept bearing the same name in the common law.) It will be essential to look beyond the operative part in this way in order to identify the reason for the decision and in order that the institution whose act has been annulled should know what steps it must take to remedy the situation. In a case where the principle of absolute res judicata applies, it will extend to findings that are the necessary support for the operative part of the annulling judgment.

The GC’s findings were based on a limited ground only, relating to too narrow a market definition under A102 TFEU. As presently constituted, the claim in the national proceedings is a claim for breach of statutory duty founded on alleged infringements of article 101 TFEU. No question arises in the proceedings before the national court as to the relevant product market for the purposes of A102 or the applicability of A102.

The national proceedings therefore concern causation, remoteness and mitigation of loss in the arena of article 101 TFEU. The narrow res judicata window, it was held, clearly does not apply to them and that is acte clair which needs no referral to Luxembourg.

Geert.

Binding scope of #CJEU annulment of EU measure
Viz Res judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process as understood in common law jurisdictions
Whether annulment of EC 101 TFEU finding is binding in national proceedings re issues of causation, remoteness and mitigation of loss https://t.co/yrgyoosoVr

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 6, 2020

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Angers, 6 mai 2020

The post below was written by Adrian Briggs QC, who is Professor of Private International Law at the University of Oxford. It is the second contribution to the EAPIL online symposium on the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case of Wikingerhof v. Booking (the first one, by Matthias Lehmann, appeared earlier today and can be found here).

Other contributions will follow in the coming days. Readers are encouraged to share their views by making comments to the posts. Those wishing to submit longer contributions for publication are invited to get in touch with the managing editor of the blog, Pietro Franzina, at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

The late, great, F A Mann was sometime heard to refer, in a wry way which one could never quite interpret, to ‘common law pragmatism’. It has served us well; and it provides a vantage point for an assessment of the decision in C-59/19 Wikingerhof GmbH & Co KG v Booking.com BV EU:C:2020:950. Those looking for theory will, no doubt, find it elsewhere. The observations sketched out below simply seek to explain why the decision of the Grand Chamber is, as a matter of practical law, a disaster.

Where a claim is raised between parties who have chosen to place themselves within the ties of a voluntary relationship, and something goes wrong, the claim which results may be seen as an incident of that relationship which should be subject to jurisdictional rules designed for disputes arising within that relationship. Though in the Brussels/Lugano context this is seen and understood most clearly in the context of insurance, and consumer and employment contracts, it was also understood, with brilliant clarity by Darmon A-G in 189/87 Kalfelis. Spurning his advice, the Court in that case preferred to describe a virtual line between claims treated as contractual and those allocated to the special jurisdiction for tort and delict. This might have meant that a non-contractual claim could, in principle at least, be raised between contracting parties; and the seeds of trouble were thereby sown. A narrow question mesmerised the English, argued endlessly about what to do about claims based on unjust enrichment; but the deeper question was when a claim based on an obligation owed by one contracting party to another might be held, for the purpose of special jurisdiction, not to be a matter relating to a contract. A serviceable answer, and perhaps the only sensible answer, was eventually given by the decision in C-548/12 Brogsitter, which in material part observed that

It is apparent from the order for reference that the parties to the main proceedings are bound by a contract. However, the mere fact that one contracting party brings a civil liability claim against the other is not sufficient to consider that the claim concerns ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001. That is the case only where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract. That will a priori be the case where the interpretation of the contract which links the defendant to the applicant is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter. It is therefore for the referring court to determine whether the purpose of the claims brought by the applicant in the case in the main proceedings is to seek damages, the legal basis for which can reasonably be regarded as a breach of the rights and obligations set out in the contract which binds the parties in the main proceedings, which would make its taking into account indispensable in deciding the action. (italics added)

In other words, if the substance of the complaint could be said to have broken the contract to which the parties had bound themselves, special jurisdiction in the matter was contractual. It was a clear rule even though, as it now seems, the casual, justificatory, reference to the contract as indispensable gave dissenters something to make mischief with. In the meantime, the Court in C-47/14 Holterman simply copied this part of Brogsitter into a judgment principally concerned to maintain the integrity of Section 5 of Title/Chapter II. As well it might: the opportunity for an unscrupulous employer to strip the employee of the protection provided to him by accusing him of being a tortfeasor/thief rather than a contract-breaker, all the while denying that the employment contract needed to be referred to for anything other than data, was plain and obvious and quite, quite wrong. At this point we might have hoped for a period of stability; it was not to be. An unduly judgmental Opinion in C-603/17 Bosworth seemed unhappy with the idea that powerful office holders accused of fraud could derive any benefit from Section 5, but the idea that an employee might be deprived of his shield by a bare accusation of fraud was not underwritten by the Court which otherwise left the issue well alone.

But after another regrettable Opinion, and the calamitous judgment which this time swallowed it whole, the clear rule in Brogsitter, and the foundation of Kalfelis, has been stood on its head. It now appears to be the law that if the complaint may be framed or pleaded as a tort, it may by this means be excluded from the special jurisdiction rule for matters relating to a contract. According to the Court in C-59/19 Wickingerhof (and lightly editing the judgment for ease of reading):

Where the applicant relies on rules of liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict, namely breach of an obligation imposed by law, and where it does not appear indispensable to examine the content of the contract concluded with the defendant in order to assess whether the conduct of which the latter is accused is lawful or unlawful, since that obligation applies to the defendant independently of that contract, the cause of the action is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict. Wikingerhof relies on an infringement of German competition law, which lays down a general prohibition of abuse of a dominant position, independently of any contract or other voluntary commitment. Specifically, Wikingerhof takes the view that it had no choice but to conclude the contract at issue and to suffer the effect of subsequent amendments to Booking.com’s general terms and conditions by reason of the latter’s strong position on the relevant market, even though certain of Booking.com’s practices are unfair. Thus, the legal issue at the heart of the case in the main proceedings is whether Booking.com committed an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of German competition law. As the Advocate General stated in points 122 and 123 of his Opinion, in order to determine whether the practices complained of against Booking.com are lawful or unlawful in the light of that law, it is not indispensable to interpret the contract between the parties to the main proceedings, such interpretation being necessary, at most, in order to establish that those practices actually occur.

Those who look to the jurisprudence of the Court for answers rather than distracted theorising will rightly despair at this bouleversement. Even if one leaves aside the damage which this new approach would do were it allowed to infect Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Title/Chapter II, how is it supposed to work in common or garden cases of civil liability in which – as in Brogsitter – the claim may plausibly be pleaded by reference to contractual as well as by other-than-contractual duties ? From an English perspective, a number of cases come quickly to mind. Consider (1) the electrician who rewires a piece of equipment consigned to him for repair so negligently that it electrocutes me when I plug it in; (2) the banker, who provides a credit reference on a party with whom I am proposing to deal, who has not checked his records and so gives me bad advice; (3) the consultant who works with me to develop a new commercial opportunity but who purloins my confidential information to exploit it on his own account and at my expense; (4) the solicitor who abstracts funds which he held on my account; (5) the Uber driver who injures his passenger when he jumps a red light; (6) the doctor in private practice who molests his patient when she is on the examination table; (7) the fraudster who by deceit induces another to enter into a contract and that other, rather than rescind, sues for damages which have the same economic effect as rescission would have; (8) the person who by negligent misrepresentation induces another to enter a contract, with the same consequences as in (7); (9) the individual who by duress, or the unconscionable exercise of undue influence, causes the victim to conclude a contract with him or with another; and (10) any defendant who pleads in defence to a claim framed in tort that the parties made a contractual promise that the claim would not be brought. How many of these complaints are matters not relating to a contract ?

It might be said that in each case the wrong done was committed by a person who, in doing what he did or failed to do, broke the contract to which he had bound himself. It may also be said that (1) if my son had been the first to use the equipment he would be entitled to complain of the electrician’s negligence; (2) that if the applicant had not paid for the credit reference he would still be entitled to sue the banker for breach of the duty of care; (3) the misuse of confidential information is an equitable wrong, no matter how one comes by it; (4) fraud is fraud and theft is theft and though employment is the context it is not the cause of action; cases (5) and (6) speak for themselves; as to (7) and (8), the synergy of contract, tort, and equity as a means of dealing with pre-contractual misrepresentation means that they cannot now be pulled apart; in (9) the contract will be voidable, with an alternative claim for compensation being only doubtful; and (10) would appear to be the tip of an iceberg, for it happens all over the place. Are we now supposed to say that none of these falls within the special jurisdiction for matters relating to a contract because the duties owed and broken by the defendant arise from the general law and the contractual setting is no more than that ? That the contract is the stage but not the play ? Or is the answer – surely worse – that some do, or – surely worst – that it all depends on how the self-serving claimant chooses to plead out his claim ? This last possibility would be surprising. The Court’s jurisprudence on the place where financial loss occurs (C-375/13 Kolassa, C-12/15 Universal Music, C-304/17 Löber, C-343/19 Volkswagen, among others) has been haunted by the fear, slightly unreal, that if it is routinely held to occur at the place of the bank account out of which payment is made, a claimant, possessed of several bank accounts and uncannily impressive foresight, might pave the way to a favourable special jurisdiction. It now seems that the Court has allowed itself to be lured into the very trap it had seemed to be so concerned to avoid, or – perhaps – into an even bigger one.

One turns to examine the proposition that it is different if it is ‘indispensable’ to look to the contract. It is hard to see that this has any sensible meaning. Contracts contain all sorts of things in addition to the express promises each side makes to the other. They may make provision for the implication of terms. They may try to prevent the implication of terms: entire agreement clauses, no oral modification clauses, and so on. They may define performance obligations directly, or by the subtle chiaroscuro of express promise and exclusion clause: if liability for X is wholly excluded, there can hardly be said to be a duty to do X in the first place. They may limit the liability which would otherwise arise, or restrict the circumstances in which, or grounds upon which, a complaint may be made. They may incorporate terms from another instrument, or exclude certain statutory effects which might otherwise apply. They may provide for acts to be permitted if payment is made, such as the early termination of an agency. They may provide that a claim will not be brought in tort but that, for example, a claimant will accept a payment by way of compensation or compromise: in short, they may do all manner of things. The answer to the question whether it is indispensable to look into the contract is, surely, that it is always necessary: the contract may not add to the facts and matters in dispute, but save in the cases in which it is admitted before the writ is served, this cannot be known until one has looked. Contracts, and their interpretation, can be very complex and it is absurd to say that there is no need to look into the contract before one has looked into it. Stand, if only for an unhappy moment, in the shoes of the lawyer who advised the client that she had a case in tort and who, when asked whether he had looked into the contract to see what it might have said, says that he didn’t think there was any need to.

Granted, in Wikingerhof, it would have been a surprise to find an express term excluding any liability for abuse by Booking.com of its dominant position in the market. It may have felt odd to suggest that it was advisable, still less indispensable, to read through the contract to check; but one never knows, and this provides no basis for sound conclusion; and in any event, abuse of a dominant position is only a particular version of economic duress or undue influence, both of which lie right in the middle of the contractual mainstream. If Wikingerhof GmbH had been asked whether it considered Booking.com to have or not to have broken the contract, or unlawfully coerced the surrender or contractual rights, it could only have answered in the affirmative, albeit that it may have preferred not to say so. The defendant had, by the very conduct complained of, broken or wrongfully interfered with its contract with the claimant, yet the matter was not one relating to a contract. No matter how hard one rubs one’s eyes, this still looks wrong.

It may be asked whether the unspoken aim of the judgment in Wikingerhof was to assist the German claimant by finding a way for it to sue in the place in which it felt most comfortable; to ‘protect’ the weaker party, the vulnerable victim of a dominant abuser, as it were. One hopes that no such thought was present in the curial mind, for accusations of abuse, of fraud, are only ever accusations, and findings of abuse were many months away. And there is no little irony in the fact that the decision actually improves the jurisdictional position of the company which is in a position to abuse its dominant position. When it gets wind of the fact that a victim is about to launch proceedings, the dominant abuser will be able to rely on Wikingerhof and on C-133/11 Folien Fischer to bring proceedings, in the place of the event giving rise to the alleged loss, for a declaration that it committed no wrong. Worse, unscrupulous employers (we have no need to name names), already immune to the discipline of anti-suit injunctions, will have a new spring in their step. It is not easy to understand why this should be the way the law works.

The question framed by the judgment in Brogsitter was easy to understand and to answer: has anyone teaching the subject ever found that his or her students struggled with it ? Has anyone advising a client needed to spend anxious hours in wrestling with it ? One hopes not. What is proposed to replace it – has replaced it, if we have to accept that the damage has been done – will require us to go back over the vast range of overlapping claims and unclaims, of complaints which are, as a matter of analysis, ‘not only a simple breach of contract, but also of another obligation’ cases, and develop the science which will tell is when reference to a contract is ‘indispensable’ in order to settle the question of special jurisdiction. Brexit, Covid, and now Wikingerhof. What a wretched year. We are only one horse short of an Apocalypse.

Tribunal de première instance de Papeete

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, 10 février 2020

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Nice, 15 octobre 2020

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'assises du Val-de-Marne, 5 juin 2020

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'application des peines, 28 octobre 2020

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix-En-Provence, 26 novembre 2020

First Part https://fb.watch/2a8DGPRMtc/ (HCCH); https://fb.watch/2a8XU-EuX6/  (ASADIP)

Second Part https://fb.watch/2a8Bmy347e/ (HCCH); https://fb.watch/2a8VDZCcPL/ (ASADIP)

The EAPIL blog hosts an online symposium on the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case of Wikingerhof v. Booking.com. The first contribution to the symposium, which is found below, is by Matthias Lehmann, who is Professor of Private International Law at the University of Vienna (as well as an editor of this blog).

Other contributions will follow (the next one will be out later today). Readers are encouraged to share their views by making comments to the posts. Those wishing to submit longer contributions for publication are invited to get in touch with the managing editor of the blog, Pietro Franzina, at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

In its judgment dated 24 November 2020 in Wikingerhof, the CJEU has recalibrated the relation between the heads of jurisdiction for contracts (Article 7(1) Brussels I bis Regulation) and for torts / delicts (Article 7(2)).

A hotel sued booking.com in Germany for abuse of a dominant position. The hotel alleged having been strong-armed by the booking platform into an unfavourable contract.

Booking.com denied the German court’s jurisdiction over the claim, citing a choice-of-forum clause in the contract in favour of a Dutch court. This clause was however held to be invalid by the referring German Federal Court.

If the case fell under the head of jurisdiction for torts/delicts in Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis, German courts could have jurisdiction given that the harmful event could be said to have occurred in Germany. In contrast, if the case concerned a contractual claim in the sense of Art. 7(1) Brussels Ibis, the jurisdiction of the German courts would have been more doubtful, as it was not sure that the contract between Wikingerhof and booking.com was to be performed in Germany.

The legal issue was therefore whether an alleged abuse of a dominant position that consists in forcing another person into an unfavorable contract is tortious/delictual or contractual in nature.

The CJEU held the claim concerned a tort/delict matter. It cites its previous case law on the relation between the jurisdiction for contractual and tort claims, in particular the Kalfelis and the Brogistter case. In Kalfelis, the court had ruled that both heads of jurisdiction were mutually exclusive. In Brogsitter, the CJEU had held that a case is contractual in nature “where the interpretation of the contract … is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of” (Brogsitter, para 25).

According to the CJEU in Wikingerhof, the interpretation of the contract was not indispensable to establish the unlawful nature of booking.com’s behaviour. True, the abuse of a dominant position resulted from the unfavourable clauses of the contract. Yet the CJEU highlights that the interpretation of the clauses was necessary only to establish the existence of an abuse. In other words, the contract is needed as factual evidence, not as a legal standard. The Advocate General basically states the same when he calls the interpretation of the contract a “preliminary question” (Wikingerhof, para 124).

After the CJEU judgment in Brogsitter, one could have feared that the head of jurisdiction for contracts would be dominated by that for torts. The new decision in Wikingerhof reestablishes the equilibrium between the two. It clarifies that Article 7(2) Brussels I bis applies in cases of abuse of a dominant position, even those made by the conclusion of an unfavourable contract.

Indeed, violations of competition law are typical torts. It would be ill-advised to force the victim of such uncompetitive behaviour to sue at the place of performance foreseen in the contract because it is precisely this contract about which the victim complaints. The fact that the victim only pleads an abuse does not mean that one could disregard its complaint: For the purpose of establishing jurisdiction, the standard of proof has never been the same as that which applies for the merits of the case. It is for the court at the alleged place of abuse to find out whether the complaint is justified or not.

The new judgment in Wikingerhof does not break with the Brogsitter ruling, but is actually compatible with the latter. According to Brogsitter, a case is contractual in nature where the contractual provisions determine the outcome of the claim. Wikingerhof adds that this is only true where the contractual provisions are used as a normative standard, and not as factual proof of competitive misbehaviour. The delineation may be difficult to understand, but it is nonetheless necessary and reasonable.