Newsletter
GOVERNING LAW AND FORUM AFTER RESCISSION OF AGREEMENT WITH FOREIGN PARTY
In a 2005 ruling on the choice of governing law and forum in a civil suit for damages and resti-tution of unjust enrichment following the rescis-sion of a copyright and trade secrets licensing agreement with a foreign party, the Supreme Court stated that under the Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Cases Involving Foreign Elements, the governing law for a cause of action based on contract, as addressed by Article 6 of the Act, was different from that for a cause of action based on unjust enrichment, as addressed by Article 8, or torts, as addressed by Article 9; and that the determination of governing law was a different issue from the procedural issue of jurisdictional competence in litigation arising out of contracts or out of torts (Article 12 and Article 15 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
In its ruling, the Court stated that the licensing agreement at issue had stipulated that the agreement was to be governed by Japanese law, and first-instance jurisdiction in litigation con-cerning the agreement or associated disputes rested with the Osaka District Court. However, it could not definitely be assumed that the same would apply to disputes over unjust enrichment and torts arising after rescission of the agreement. The governing law in such cases must be deter-mined according to the Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Cases Involving Foreign Elements; while the provisions of Article 1 Paragraph 1, Article 15 Paragraph 1, and Article 22 of the ROC Code of Civil Procedure should be applied mutatis mutandis to determine the court with competent jurisdiction over the case, and accordingly, the jurisdiction should lay with the courts for the defendant's domicile, and for the location where the torts took place.