General Problems of Transnational Law
Intensive Program
September 2008
Martinica v. Shoes Factory
BACKGROUND
Two companies, “Martinica SA” company —whose place of business is in France and the seat and the central administration are in Spain— and “Shoes Factory SA” company —whose place of business is in Mexico, the seat is placed in United States of America and the central administration is in Netherlands— concluded a contract the 21st February 2004, by this virtue the “Martinica SA” company ordered to the “Shoes Factory SA” company 10,000 pairs of shoes. The commercial aim of the “Martinica SA” company was launching them to the international market under the “Martinica” well-known trade name.
Terms of the contract:
-“Martinica SA” company was bound to deliver the soles and the methallic ornaments with the trade name engraved into it to “Shoes Factory SA”.
-“Shoes Factory SA” company was bound to deliver the pairs of shoes at the place of business of the “Martinica SA” company, the 30th September 2004.
According to the seller, the buyer did not deliver the soles, neither the methallic ornaments. Therefore, “Shoes Factory SA” company refused to make the delivery of those 10,000 pairs of shoes. “Martinica SA” company sued the “Shoes Factory SA” company for breach of contract, the 15th October 2004. The parties had kept up a good commercial relationship for several years, so that they didn’t foresee the possibilty of going to court.
ESSAY QUESTIONS
Taking into account all the issues analyzed in all sessions of this course (methods of Legal Argument Construction, the use of Internet resources and Legal resources in a written report, subject matter…), resolve this case answering the following questions.
1)International Jurisdiction
First, It is necessary to decide on the courts of which country must resolve the core of the matter in this case.
2)Applicable Law
After having decide the courts of which country will be competent, it will have to point out the Material Law that the judge is bound to apply in order to resolve the case. In this time, it will have to give the answer to three alternatives given.
1st Alternative: (as well as in the statement)
- “Martinica SA” company has:
- The place of business in France
- The seat in Spain
- The central administration in Spain
- “Shoes Factory SA” company has:
- The place of business in Mexico
- The seat in United States of America
- The central administration in Netherlands
2nd Alternative:
- “Martinica SA” company has:
- The place of business in Spain
- The seat in Spain
- The central administration in France
- “Shoes Factory SA” company has:
- The place of business in Great Britain
- The seat in United States of America
- The central administration in Netherlands
3rd Alternative:
There is a provision in the contract which is suspected to be void. Decide which law will be applicable to resolve the validity of that provision.
3)Alternative Dispute Resolution
Do you think that the buyer company worked in a suitable way? As the relationship between the parties was commercial, It would have been better to settle their differences by other proceedings?
If so, choose the most suitable contractual clause in order to include in the contract.
SOME REMARKS:
-Locate and apply both primary legal sources and secondary legal sources.
-Do not forget the fact that there can be different alternatives and that you should consider all of them (there is not an only solution).
-Avoid arguments which lack legal basis.
-Bear in mind formal requirements: the structure of the report, the way of writing and the language employed; the way of citing legal texts, case law and books or articles.
-You can find most of this work material in the website (
1