Abstract
While Belgian private international law rules in principle are in favour of choice of court, as a reflection of the overall encouragement of party autonomy, ambiguity remains, revolving around optional and asymmetrical choice of court agreements.
One particular complication concerns the application of the unfair market practices legislation in B2C relations that are not subject to the consumer section of the Brussels I Regulation and the Recast Regulation, such as transport contracts. Moreover, Belgian courts are likely to subject all choice of court agreements to the requirement of good faith. Lack of case-law on these issues suggests either that legal practice has not picked up on these issues—or indeed that such litigation is typically taken away from the Belgian courts by virtue of the very choice of court agreement.
One particular complication concerns the application of the unfair market practices legislation in B2C relations that are not subject to the consumer section of the Brussels I Regulation and the Recast Regulation, such as transport contracts. Moreover, Belgian courts are likely to subject all choice of court agreements to the requirement of good faith. Lack of case-law on these issues suggests either that legal practice has not picked up on these issues—or indeed that such litigation is typically taken away from the Belgian courts by virtue of the very choice of court agreement.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law |
| Editors | Mary Keyes |
| Place of Publication | Cham, Switzerland |
| Publisher | Springer |
| Pages | 87-106 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Volume | 37 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-3-030-23914-5 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-3-030-23913-8 |
| Publication status | Published - 2020 |
Publication series
| Name | Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Springer |
| Volume | 37 |
| ISSN (Print) | 2214-6881 |
| ISSN (Electronic) | 2214-689X |