Por Jose María Baño Fos
La reciente sentencia del Tribunal de Apelaciones británico (Court of Appeals) en el asunto Ryanair Ltd v. Esso Italiana trata una cuestión relacionada con la de nuestro anterior post sobre el cómputo del plazo de prescripción de las acciones por daños y perjuicios.
"If at any time a price or fee provided in this Agreement shall not conform to the applicable laws, regulations or orders of a government or other competent authority, appropriate price or fee adjustments will be made; provided, however, that in the event the Seller is at any time prevented from collecting, or Buyer is required to pay more than, the full price or fee provided for in this Agreement, including changes in said price or fee pursuant to other provisions hereof, the party adversely affected shall have the option at any time thereafter while such condition exists to cancel this Agreement as to any affected delivery location upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice to the other."
"This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and there are no other promises, representations or warranties affecting it. This Agreement cannot be modified in any way except in writing signed by the parties. No claims shall be made hereunder for prospective profits or for indirect or consequential damages except as otherwise provided in the footnotes attached to the schedule.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of England excluding its conflict of law rules and the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods Act shall not apply. For the purposes of the resolution of disputes under this Agreement, each party expressly submits itself to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England."
“Article 101 does not operate by either invalidating contractual arrangements with customers of cartel operators or by requiring the prices charged to such customers to be adjusted to some new and acceptable norm. A cartel in breach of article 101 does not render any price or fee specified in a customer contract unlawful. On the contrary, article 101 operates by invalidating the arrangements between the cartel parties, and it gives their customers a remedy not in the form of adjusted contractual prices but in the form of damages for losses created by the cartel parties' breach of statutory duty. Those damages are to be quantified not necessarily by any uplift beyond some other hypothetical price, but by what the customer has lost.”
“En el caso de ejercicio de la acción de responsabilidad por dolo in contrahendo, se ha de convenir con la más autorizada doctrina en que la acción de responsabilidad es de naturaleza contractual, y por ende en cuanto a la prescripción se regiría por el artículo 1964 del Código civil. A esta conclusión se llega tanto al considerar que la presencia de un contrato en vigor aparta el tema de los supuestos de responsabilidad precontractual , cuanto si se estima que la moderna dogmática contractual exige la incorporación de las declaraciones efectuadas durante los tratos preliminares como promesas contractuales, lo que ya se establece de modo expreso para la protección de los consumidores en la legislación protectora (…). Las representaciones efectuadas durante la fase de tratos preliminares pueden configurar el comportamiento que se espera del deudor y servir de pauta para determinar la existencia de un incumplimiento. Además, esta responsabilidad comprendería no sólo el llamado "interés contractual negativo", sino el "interés contractual positivo", pues la indemnización por dolo ha de referirse a la totalidad del daño provocado por el engaño que ha frustrado el desarrollo normal del contrato y ha impedido la satisfacción del interés del deceptus.”
“In Fiona Trust the question was whether issues arising out of the formation and validity of contract, rooted in the claimants' purported rescission of charterparties which they claimed to have been induced by bribery, to which purported rescission were added claims in tort for conspiracy and bribery, were all disputes "arising under this charter" for the purpose of the charter's arbitration clause. It was held that they were. Contractual and tortious issues again arose on the same facts. (…) Such reasoning, however, does not carry over into a situation where there is no contractual dispute (by which I intend to include disputes about contracts), but all that has happened is that a buyer has bought goods from a seller who has participated in a cartel. I think that rational businessmen would be surprised to be told that a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause bound or entitled the parties to that sale to litigate in a contractually agreed forum an entirely non-contractual claim for breach of statutory duty pursuant to article 101, the essence of which depended on proof of unlawful arrangements between the seller and third parties with whom the buyer had no relationship whatsoever, and the gravamen of which was a matter which probably affected many other potential claimants, with whom such a buyer might very well wish to link itself.”