In the machinery and plant engineering sector, consequential damages can exceed the value of a company’s own services many times over. This article explains how suppliers can limit their liability risk through caps, exclusions for certain types of damages, clauses in standard terms and conditions, and coordinated arrangements throughout the project chain.
YouTube is standard practice for corporate communications. This article examines YouTube’s general monetization policies and the rules for embedding videos from a corporate perspective, and highlights the implications for the advertising environment, hosting strategy, and a company’s own marketing efforts.
When a letter arrives from the insolvency administrator following an insolvency proceeding, it usually involves a significant amount of money. The letter demands repayment of amounts that were received long ago—based on the right to challenge transactions under §§ 129 ff. of the Insolvency Code (InsO). For affected companies, this is not a minor issue but a genuine liability risk. This article explains the grounds for avoidance, what matters most in mounting a defense, and which documents are now critical.
Up to €10,000 in the local court – a mistake with an announcement. The planned reform of the amount in dispute will shift masses of proceedings from the regional courts to the local courts. Sounds like a relief – but will have the opposite effect.
Sometimes a single sentence decides billions. This is exactly what happened with the Stuttgart 21 project. At the center of the legal dispute was a short contractual provision – the so-called “speech clause”.
International agreements on jurisdiction, especially if they are to have exclusive validity, generally have the purpose of protecting the party benefiting from the agreement from the often very considerable costs of a legal dispute in a foreign country.
Unfortunately, however, it is not uncommon for the other contracting party to suddenly no longer want to know about the jurisdiction agreement in the event of a dispute. The background to such a dishonest approach is – obviously – not least the potential for blackmail associated with such an approach. This is because the party that finds itself – in breach of the jurisdiction agreement – exposed to a foreign lawsuit is regularly forced to take action abroad through lawyers in order to avoid legal disadvantages. This in turn is often very expensive, with the USA being the most prominent example.
In a ruling of practical relevance, the Federal Court of Justice clarified whether and in which cases the expert opinion of an expert declared to be biased may be used by the court.
The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (“Hague Convention”) has been in force in the EU since September 1, 2023.
In order to avoid costly and unpleasant legal disputes abroad, it is advisable to conclude exclusive jurisdiction agreements with foreign business partners which stipulate that only German courts have jurisdiction. However, it is not uncommon for the business partner to file a lawsuit in their own country in the event of a dispute, contrary to the jurisdiction agreement. In such cases, the question arises: What can be done to enforce international choice of court agreements?
The internationalization of business transactions means that the question of whether and how a judgment issued in the creditor’s home country can be enforced in the debtor’s home country is of great practical importance. The author of this article has also experienced that many debtors are not prepared to pay voluntarily.
The following article provides an overview of how a judgment issued in the EU in civil and/or commercial matters can be enforced in other EU Member States – here using Germany as an example.