[Initial note: This article is not aimed as a political article pro or con boycott movements or the Israeli government, but rather as a legal informative overview, in light of the actual and financial impact or exposure international business may have in the referred to matter.]

It is perhaps not known to many international trading players, but under Israeli law, Bill for prevention of damage to the State of Israel through boycott – 2011, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 (after a slight interpretive adjustment), boycotting Israeli origin products, or deliberate avoidance of economic or academic ties, may give rise to a lawsuit for actual damages under civil law.

In light of the international BDS movement, attempting to place pressure upon the State of Israel by means of economic and cultural pressure, Israel has realized such activity, indeed, causes actual harm and damage to Israeli based business, manufacturers, importers/exporters, etc., as well as to academic students and professors, and so on, in cultural ties of many sorts – just because the origin is Israel.

This boycott movement affects the people and businesses of Israel, as opposed to  Israeli leaders or politicians or  the State of Israel as a state, and conveys questionable (to say the least) economic and cultural negative effects upon the people facing unprecedented obstacles in trade in the international arena – for no wrongdoing on their part.

Regardless of the political opinion one may have concerning the legitimacy, or rather the non-legitimacy, of the BDS movement or concerning the current political policy of the State of Israel – the relatively new law provides actual legal tools to deal with negative economic outcomes (damages, loss of profits, etc.) that businesses or private people encounter or suffer from boycott measures, solely because of their affiliation or relation to the State of Israel.

Regardless of any opinion of the act itself or its enactment, at the end of the day the act exists and may be used and exploited by filing civil lawsuits against anyone who called for or participated in a boycott. In that sense it creates a new civil wrong as part of the Israeli tort laws.

Moreover, even a deliberate avoidance of economic, cultural or academic ties can raise liability for the avoider towards the business or ties avoided, as well as liability for anyone who has called for the boycott or publicly expressed support of it.

The law goes even further – and also excludes the defense argument of “sufficient justification” and thus provides that anyone who has caused or led to a breach of a contract, by calling for a boycott, may be liable for damages, as well.

As for the damages that can be claimed, after the adjustment to the law according to the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 (ruling that compensation must be awarded in correspondence with the actual damages or loss of profit caused, and cancelled the clause for penal compensation) – the entity that may sue for torts is the entity that suffered the damage and what can be sued for is the actual damage according to the regular Israeli torts law.

The law also prohibits a person who calls for a boycott from participating in any public tender, but this is a different focus from the side of the state.

It is worth mentioning  that the rationale for this legislation was also reviewed by the widely respected Israeli Supreme Court, that has strongly elaborated that such legislation is constitutional and, inter alia, that international entities and individuals such as the BDS movement (as opposed perhaps to states) should not be able to harm or interfere with international or domestic economic affairs without at least being accountable for the outcome of such, and that freedom of speech cannot be unlimitedly protected when it in fact calls for action (or for refraining from action)  that has an actual impact on another and is not simply an expression of an opinion.

To date, it seems that the Magistrates and District Courts of Israel have yet to render judgments in actual cases based on the boycott act, indicating that the implementation of the act is still inchoate. However, it seems that instances and measures of boycotting are on the rise and the methods of boycotting are becoming increasingly overt, in a manner that is bound to lead to considerable litigation in the near future.

Needless to say, issues of jurisdiction, and other aspects of private international law, or imposing jurisdiction on foreign players, are also yet to be resolved in reference to the emergence of lawsuits under the boycott law, but these will surely find their creative legal solutions with the actual submission of lawsuits concerning real life cases.

Per descrivere le trattative precontrattuali in Cina è necessario spendere qualche parola sulle differenze culturali, sulle abilità da utilizzare durante la fase negoziale e sulle tecniche di redazione dei contratti.

Tutti questi 3 punti sono importanti quando si avvia una negoziazione con una controparte straniera, ma lo sono ancor di più quando si contratta con una controparte cinese.

In primis è fondamentale fare conoscenza con la cultura cinese prima di cominciare le trattative, specialmente se l’altro contraente (come spesso accade) non è molto esperto nel commercio internazionale e solo in poche occasioni ha negoziato con uomini d’affari o consulenti stranieri.

È bene aver presente che un businessman cinese si siederà al tavolo delle trattative solo dopo aver instaurato un rapporto personale con l’altro contraente, basato sulla fiducia ed il rispetto reciproco.

Chi crede che si possa giungere alla stipula di un contratto importante con una semplice viaggio di un paio di giorni in Cina o, ancor peggio, a distanza, è molto distante dalla realtà. Serviranno diversi incontri, diversi pranzi di lavoro e qualche drink per rompere il ghiaccio e preparare il terreno per i discorsi d’affari. È probabile, perciò, che siano necessari diversi viaggi in Cina per concludere l’affare: la fretta è sempre una cattiva consigliera e i cinesi sono negoziatori molto pazienti.

Nell’era di Internet può accadere che gli accordi siano conclusi a distanza, tramite lo scambio digitale di proposta e accettazione: ciò è raro con una controparte cinese, e non è un caso che molto spesso gli accordi così conclusi siano quelli più insidiosi, che spesso nascondono vere e proprie truffe.

Meglio, allora, prepararsi a lunghi negoziati e, anche se il contratto è concluso, non sovrastimarne il valore. Se nei paesi occidentali l’accordo scritto è visto come il punto d’arrivo dei negoziati, come una sorta di Bibbia del rapporto d’affari, in Cina i contratti sono considerati come non più di una tappa – seppur importante – del rapporto: spesso, infatti, il contratto viene visto più come una mera lettera d’intenti orientativa che come un accordo vincolante.

Accade frequentemente che la controparte cinese richieda cambiamenti dopo la firma del contratto, o semplicemente disapplichi gli accordi presi con tanta fatica, accampando le motivazioni più varie: occorre essere consapevoli di questo atteggiamento e farsi trovare pronti a richieste di rinegoziare l’accordo o – soluzione preferibile – inserire sin dall’inizio clausole e procedure per adattare il testo contrattuale alle frequenti modifiche che potrebbero essere necessarie.

Prima di sedersi finalmente al tavolo delle trattative è meglio essere sicuri che sia presente un traduttore affidabile: spesso la vostra controparte non parlerà in inglese e si affiderà completamente al traduttore, che potrebbe rovinare lo svolgimento della discussione nel caso in cui non padroneggiasse correttamente la terminologia necessaria.

Inoltre è fondamentale essere pazienti e non perdere mai il controllo: non bisogna dimenticare che mentre la tradizione del mondo occidentale è quella di procedere in maniera lineare nelle trattative, passando ordinatamente da una clausola all’altra, in Cina si adotta spesso un approccio olistico, discutendo sempre il contratto nella sua integrità: può allora capitare di trovarsi a ridiscutere clausole su cui si era già trovato un accordo il giorno prima, senza alcuna motivazione specifica.

Occorre tenere a mente, infine, che i negoziatori cinesi non amano il confronto diretto e in caso di disaccordo difficilmente prendono posizioni nette sulle questioni oggetto di discussione: spesso un sì in realtà significa no, e “ci devo pensare” quasi sicuramente equivale ad un futuro diniego.

La linea di fondo non è diversa da quella che dovrebbe orientare tutte le negoziazioni contrattuali: trovare un accordo bilanciato, che soddisfi gli interessi di tutte le parti; iniziare le trattative con una bozza di contratto chiaramente sbilanciata a vostro favore non solo complicherà il negoziato, ma potrebbe addirittura comprometterlo sul nascere.

The Italian Court of Cassation, United Sections (judgement no. 24244 of 27 November 2015), recently issued a judgement on the applicability of article 5 no. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, now corresponding to article 7 no. 1 of the Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).

The above-referenced provision sets a special forum in matters relating to a contract, providing for the competence of the courts located in the place of performance of the obligation in question. According to letter b) of this provision, in case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.

In the case brought before the Court of Cassation, an Italian company – while objecting the claim of a French company regarding the conclusion of some sale agreements that the latter stated to have entered into with the first one – asked for a declaratory judgement stating the inexistence of any contractual obligation between the parties, and, alternatively, for a declaration that the alleged agreements were null and void.

First of all, the Court of Cassation asserted the applicability of article 5, letter b) of the Brussels I Regulation to the case de quo.

Albeit recognizing that the abovementioned provision seems to refer only to actions addressed to the performance of a contract and not to actions regarding the dissolution of a contractual obligation, the Italian Supreme Court has considered that also claims aiming at ascertaining the inexistence, invalidity or ineffectiveness of an agreement concern matters relating to a contract. More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that such claims involve an initial, actual or alleged, voluntary assumption of an obligation, of which they tend, in several ways, to default. In the light of this assumption and considering that the delivery of the goods was supposed to take place in France (according to the contractual documents evidenced during the proceedings), the Court of Cassation has found that Italian Courts were lacking jurisdiction over the case, thus confirming the judgement previously issued by the Court of Appeal.

The judgement of the Italian United Sections is important because it has definitively confirmed, consistently with the European uniform trend, that the place of delivery is the only autonomous linking factor to be applied to all claims grounded on contracts for the sale of goods and not only to claims based on the non-performance of the delivery obligation itself.

The author of this article is Silvia Petruzzino.

[Initial note: This article is not aimed as a political article pro or con boycott movements or the Israeli government, but rather as a legal informative overview, in light of the actual and financial impact or exposure international business may have in the referred to matter.]

It is perhaps not known to many international trading players, but under Israeli law, Bill for prevention of damage to the State of Israel through boycott – 2011, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 (after a slight interpretive adjustment), boycotting Israeli origin products, or deliberate avoidance of economic or academic ties, may give rise to a lawsuit for actual damages under civil law.

In light of the international BDS movement, attempting to place pressure upon the State of Israel by means of economic and cultural pressure, Israel has realized such activity, indeed, causes actual harm and damage to Israeli based business, manufacturers, importers/exporters, etc., as well as to academic students and professors, and so on, in cultural ties of many sorts – just because the origin is Israel.

This boycott movement affects the people and businesses of Israel, as opposed to  Israeli leaders or politicians or  the State of Israel as a state, and conveys questionable (to say the least) economic and cultural negative effects upon the people facing unprecedented obstacles in trade in the international arena – for no wrongdoing on their part.

Regardless of the political opinion one may have concerning the legitimacy, or rather the non-legitimacy, of the BDS movement or concerning the current political policy of the State of Israel – the relatively new law provides actual legal tools to deal with negative economic outcomes (damages, loss of profits, etc.) that businesses or private people encounter or suffer from boycott measures, solely because of their affiliation or relation to the State of Israel.

Regardless of any opinion of the act itself or its enactment, at the end of the day the act exists and may be used and exploited by filing civil lawsuits against anyone who called for or participated in a boycott. In that sense it creates a new civil wrong as part of the Israeli tort laws.

Moreover, even a deliberate avoidance of economic, cultural or academic ties can raise liability for the avoider towards the business or ties avoided, as well as liability for anyone who has called for the boycott or publicly expressed support of it.

The law goes even further – and also excludes the defense argument of “sufficient justification” and thus provides that anyone who has caused or led to a breach of a contract, by calling for a boycott, may be liable for damages, as well.

As for the damages that can be claimed, after the adjustment to the law according to the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 (ruling that compensation must be awarded in correspondence with the actual damages or loss of profit caused, and cancelled the clause for penal compensation) – the entity that may sue for torts is the entity that suffered the damage and what can be sued for is the actual damage according to the regular Israeli torts law.

The law also prohibits a person who calls for a boycott from participating in any public tender, but this is a different focus from the side of the state.

It is worth mentioning  that the rationale for this legislation was also reviewed by the widely respected Israeli Supreme Court, that has strongly elaborated that such legislation is constitutional and, inter alia, that international entities and individuals such as the BDS movement (as opposed perhaps to states) should not be able to harm or interfere with international or domestic economic affairs without at least being accountable for the outcome of such, and that freedom of speech cannot be unlimitedly protected when it in fact calls for action (or for refraining from action)  that has an actual impact on another and is not simply an expression of an opinion.

To date, it seems that the Magistrates and District Courts of Israel have yet to render judgments in actual cases based on the boycott act, indicating that the implementation of the act is still inchoate. However, it seems that instances and measures of boycotting are on the rise and the methods of boycotting are becoming increasingly overt, in a manner that is bound to lead to considerable litigation in the near future.

Needless to say, issues of jurisdiction, and other aspects of private international law, or imposing jurisdiction on foreign players, are also yet to be resolved in reference to the emergence of lawsuits under the boycott law, but these will surely find their creative legal solutions with the actual submission of lawsuits concerning real life cases.

Per descrivere le trattative precontrattuali in Cina è necessario spendere qualche parola sulle differenze culturali, sulle abilità da utilizzare durante la fase negoziale e sulle tecniche di redazione dei contratti.

Tutti questi 3 punti sono importanti quando si avvia una negoziazione con una controparte straniera, ma lo sono ancor di più quando si contratta con una controparte cinese.

In primis è fondamentale fare conoscenza con la cultura cinese prima di cominciare le trattative, specialmente se l’altro contraente (come spesso accade) non è molto esperto nel commercio internazionale e solo in poche occasioni ha negoziato con uomini d’affari o consulenti stranieri.

È bene aver presente che un businessman cinese si siederà al tavolo delle trattative solo dopo aver instaurato un rapporto personale con l’altro contraente, basato sulla fiducia ed il rispetto reciproco.

Chi crede che si possa giungere alla stipula di un contratto importante con una semplice viaggio di un paio di giorni in Cina o, ancor peggio, a distanza, è molto distante dalla realtà. Serviranno diversi incontri, diversi pranzi di lavoro e qualche drink per rompere il ghiaccio e preparare il terreno per i discorsi d’affari. È probabile, perciò, che siano necessari diversi viaggi in Cina per concludere l’affare: la fretta è sempre una cattiva consigliera e i cinesi sono negoziatori molto pazienti.

Nell’era di Internet può accadere che gli accordi siano conclusi a distanza, tramite lo scambio digitale di proposta e accettazione: ciò è raro con una controparte cinese, e non è un caso che molto spesso gli accordi così conclusi siano quelli più insidiosi, che spesso nascondono vere e proprie truffe.

Meglio, allora, prepararsi a lunghi negoziati e, anche se il contratto è concluso, non sovrastimarne il valore. Se nei paesi occidentali l’accordo scritto è visto come il punto d’arrivo dei negoziati, come una sorta di Bibbia del rapporto d’affari, in Cina i contratti sono considerati come non più di una tappa – seppur importante – del rapporto: spesso, infatti, il contratto viene visto più come una mera lettera d’intenti orientativa che come un accordo vincolante.

Accade frequentemente che la controparte cinese richieda cambiamenti dopo la firma del contratto, o semplicemente disapplichi gli accordi presi con tanta fatica, accampando le motivazioni più varie: occorre essere consapevoli di questo atteggiamento e farsi trovare pronti a richieste di rinegoziare l’accordo o – soluzione preferibile – inserire sin dall’inizio clausole e procedure per adattare il testo contrattuale alle frequenti modifiche che potrebbero essere necessarie.

Prima di sedersi finalmente al tavolo delle trattative è meglio essere sicuri che sia presente un traduttore affidabile: spesso la vostra controparte non parlerà in inglese e si affiderà completamente al traduttore, che potrebbe rovinare lo svolgimento della discussione nel caso in cui non padroneggiasse correttamente la terminologia necessaria.

Inoltre è fondamentale essere pazienti e non perdere mai il controllo: non bisogna dimenticare che mentre la tradizione del mondo occidentale è quella di procedere in maniera lineare nelle trattative, passando ordinatamente da una clausola all’altra, in Cina si adotta spesso un approccio olistico, discutendo sempre il contratto nella sua integrità: può allora capitare di trovarsi a ridiscutere clausole su cui si era già trovato un accordo il giorno prima, senza alcuna motivazione specifica.

Occorre tenere a mente, infine, che i negoziatori cinesi non amano il confronto diretto e in caso di disaccordo difficilmente prendono posizioni nette sulle questioni oggetto di discussione: spesso un sì in realtà significa no, e “ci devo pensare” quasi sicuramente equivale ad un futuro diniego.

La linea di fondo non è diversa da quella che dovrebbe orientare tutte le negoziazioni contrattuali: trovare un accordo bilanciato, che soddisfi gli interessi di tutte le parti; iniziare le trattative con una bozza di contratto chiaramente sbilanciata a vostro favore non solo complicherà il negoziato, ma potrebbe addirittura comprometterlo sul nascere.

The Italian Court of Cassation, United Sections (judgement no. 24244 of 27 November 2015), recently issued a judgement on the applicability of article 5 no. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, now corresponding to article 7 no. 1 of the Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).

The above-referenced provision sets a special forum in matters relating to a contract, providing for the competence of the courts located in the place of performance of the obligation in question. According to letter b) of this provision, in case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.

In the case brought before the Court of Cassation, an Italian company – while objecting the claim of a French company regarding the conclusion of some sale agreements that the latter stated to have entered into with the first one – asked for a declaratory judgement stating the inexistence of any contractual obligation between the parties, and, alternatively, for a declaration that the alleged agreements were null and void.

First of all, the Court of Cassation asserted the applicability of article 5, letter b) of the Brussels I Regulation to the case de quo.

Albeit recognizing that the abovementioned provision seems to refer only to actions addressed to the performance of a contract and not to actions regarding the dissolution of a contractual obligation, the Italian Supreme Court has considered that also claims aiming at ascertaining the inexistence, invalidity or ineffectiveness of an agreement concern matters relating to a contract. More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that such claims involve an initial, actual or alleged, voluntary assumption of an obligation, of which they tend, in several ways, to default. In the light of this assumption and considering that the delivery of the goods was supposed to take place in France (according to the contractual documents evidenced during the proceedings), the Court of Cassation has found that Italian Courts were lacking jurisdiction over the case, thus confirming the judgement previously issued by the Court of Appeal.

The judgement of the Italian United Sections is important because it has definitively confirmed, consistently with the European uniform trend, that the place of delivery is the only autonomous linking factor to be applied to all claims grounded on contracts for the sale of goods and not only to claims based on the non-performance of the delivery obligation itself.

The author of this article is Silvia Petruzzino.