Practical case no. 4 - Neo – Technisch vs. Lux Populi - German Court
- Facts
Mr. Michelle Pascuzzi is a lighting architect owing a design studio in Milan called Lux Populi. The main activity of the Mr. Pascuzzi is to offer his clients exclusive and unique combination of electrical engineering and interior design.
Some of the electrical basic elements and lighting products (which are transformed and integrated in a distinctive design composition by Mr. Pascuzzi) are ordered directly on the internet from different German manufactures.
In February 2015, Mr. Pascuzzi placed an on line order for buying some electric and lighting products from Neo – Technisch company from Köln, Germany. This manufacturer has two lines of production – for regular products and a different one for high quality elements with special features which are sold for higher prices than the regular products. Neo – Technisch owns the website – with an English and Italian version of the website apart from the German one.
After sending the order for the high quality products offered by Neo – Technisch, Mr. Pascuzzi received a payment order with the price to be paid for the products. Mr. Pascuzzi made an online payment from the bank account of studio Lux Populi in the bank account indicated on the webpage of the German manufacturer. The products were delivered at Lux Populi Studio, in Milan, Italy.
Soon after, the Neo – Technisch found out that an IT error occurred during the online sale process which affected the proper functions of its website. Thus, the price displayed for the buyer’s order was inferior to the value of the products actually delivered which were from the high- quality producing line of the company. Thus, it required to the buyer to pay an additional amount of 8000 euros. Mr. Pascuzzi refused to respond to this requirement.
On 1 July 2015, the applicant, the company Neo – Technisch, filed a claim against the design studio Lux Populi, before Köln First Instance Court asking for the payment of the real price for the high-quality products delivered to the buyer.
The defendant, the design studio, Lux Populi, contested the German Court’ s jurisdiction arguing that its domicile within the meaning of Regulation 1215/2012 is in Milan, Italy. Moreover, it argued that Article 17 (1) letter c) of the Regulation is applicable, as the buyer acted as a consumer in relationship with the German manufacturer which had directed its activities to Italy via its webpage The products ordered are not re-distributed in their initial form but the architect, Mr. Pascuzzi, offers his client a unique form of art consisting in a complex design of electricity and interior design.
Scenario no. 1 - Tasks for the Court:
1.How will Köln Court decide on jurisdiction? Identify the relevant provisions applicable on this case in connection with the jurisdiction of the competent court (Italian or German Court).
2.Is it relevant for establishing jurisdiction in this case the quality in which the buyer acted when concluding the on line sale contract?
Scenario no. 2
Imagine that the defendant, Studio Lux Populi, appears before the German Court arguing that the alleged amount of 8000 Euros to be additionally paid by the purchaser has no contractual basis as the online sale was concluded in the moment and in the conditions displayed by the webpage The buyer acted in good-faith and paid the exact price shown on the page. So, the defendant invited the Court to dismiss the applicant’s claim as unfounded.
As the first instance court granted the applicant’s claim and ordered Lux Populi to pay the additional price for the products delivered by Neo – Technisch, an appeal was lodged against this solution. The main argument presented by the appellate party was the lack of jurisdiction of the German Court for deciding the case as the defendant’s domicile is in Milan, Italy, according to the provisions of Regulation no. 1215/2012.
Neo – Technisch invited the appeal court to dismiss the appeal as unfounded. In the present case, a prorogation of jurisdiction in favor of the German Court operated based on the appearance of the applicant before the first instance court without contesting the jurisdiction of the court on that occasion.
Task for the Court:
Decide on the argument regarding the prorogation of jurisdiction in favor of the German Court.
Scenario no. 3
In the proceedings initiated on 1 July 2015 before the German Court by the applicant Neo – Technisch for the payment of the additional price (see scenario no. 1), the defendant, Studio Lux Populi, informed the Court about the following aspects:
When the products ordered online by the purchaser were delivered at Lux Populi Studio, in Milan, Italy, Mr. Pascuzzi found out that the quality of the lighting products was poor and under the standards prescribed on the webpage of the manufacturer. Thus, he decided to return the products and asked the manufacturer for a refund of the price already paid. The manufacturer had a different opinion on the quality of the products and refused to return the money in exchange of the lighting products. Neo – Technisch rejected the allegations of Mr. Pascuzzi that regular products were delivered instead of the ones ordered from the special line of the manufacturer for which he paid a higher price.
Thus, on 1 June 2015, the design studio Lux Populi filed a claim against the seller, Neo – Technisch, before Milan First Instance Court asking for the restitution of the price paid for sub-standard products and additional damages for the non-execution of the contractual obligations by the defendant which caused the termination of the contracts of the studio with some of its clients.
As the Italian Court was firstly seized with the present case, the defendant asked the German Court to decline its jurisdiction in favor of Milan First Instance Court.
Task for the court
What will the German Court decide on the defendant’s request? Identify the relevant provisions applicable to this aspect.
1