Jurisdiction in the case of mixed contracts: commentary on Order No. 10421 of 2024

Order No. 10421 of April 17, 2024, by the Court of Cassation addresses a fundamental issue in civil law: the determination of jurisdiction concerning mixed contracts. This ruling provides insights into how the parties can outline their legal position, especially in the presence of complex contracts that combine multiple types of agreements.

The content of the ruling

The Court, with its rapporteur P. S., established that for the determination of jurisdiction in an action regarding a mixed contract, it is necessary to consider the content of the claims made by the plaintiff. This approach diverges from the traditional application of specific jurisdictional rules provided for combined typical contracts, which lose their autonomy to flow into the concrete cause of the atypical negotiation operation.

In general. For the determination of jurisdiction in relation to an action concerning a mixed contract, the content of the claims made by the plaintiff must be taken into account, irrespective of the specific jurisdictional rule set for each of the combined typical contracts, which have lost their autonomy to merge into the concrete cause of the atypical negotiation operation, allowing instead for reference to the conventional forum established by the parties. (In this case, in the presence of a mixed contract of sale, deposit, and lease of a business, the Supreme Court excluded the applicability of Articles 21 and 447-bis of the Civil Procedure Code and the mandatory rule on jurisdiction related to the lease of a business, affirming that of the conventional forum).

Relevance of the conventional forum

The Court's decision highlights the importance of the conventional forum, established by the parties, as a tool for resolving disputes arising from mixed contracts. This choice becomes crucial in a context where the parties may have specific needs and preferences regarding the place of judgment. In this way, the parties can avoid uncertainties and possible conflicts of jurisdiction, ensuring greater legal certainty.

Conclusions

Order No. 10421 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding the dynamics of complex contractual relationships and their related jurisdictional competences. The possibility of referring to the conventional forum and the attention to the content of the claims made by the plaintiff are elements that can significantly influence the resolution of disputes. It is therefore essential for businesses and legal professionals to keep these indications in mind to ensure effective and informed management of mixed contracts.

Bianucci Law Firm