The court of appeal had held that t

The court of appeal had held that the Auxerre Commercial Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, on the grounds that the vendor had a duty of delivery distinct from that of making the goods available. The fact that the delivery order contained a reference not only to “ex works” but also to “delivery address” meant that the parties had intended to override the duty of delivery whereby the vendor was required simply to place the goods at the disposal of the buyer. The court of appeal had therefore concluded, on the basis of the reference to a delivery order, that the vendors had a duty of delivery in France.

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

上訴法院舉行了歐塞爾商業法院有管轄權審理此案，理由是在供應商交貨義務，有別于提供貨物。交貨單所載不僅是對"前工程"，到"收信人位址"的引用的事實意味著雙方原本打算重寫交貨義務，藉以供應商為只須將貨物交給買方處置。上訴法院因此得出結論，借鑒到交付訂單，供應商在法國的交貨義務。

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

上訴法院曾裁定，歐塞爾商業法院有管轄權審理此案，理由是供應商必須交付從製造的貨物提供的不同的責任。在該交貨訂單不僅包含以“出廠價”也以“收貨地址”的意思，雙方本來打算重寫交貨義務據此，賣方被要求簡單地把貨物交給處置的參考事實買方。因此，上訴法院的結論，提到一個交貨單的基礎上，該供應商必須交付的稅在法國。

結果 (繁體中文) 3:

上訴法院還認為，歐塞爾商事法院管轄審理案件，在供應商，使產品有一個明顯的理由交貨義務。事實上，交貨訂單包含一個參攷，不僅“前工程”，但也“交貨地址”，意思是當事人的意圖，以取代交貨的義務，即賣方必須把貨物放在買方處置。囙此，上訴法院根據對一個交付令的引用訂立了結論，供應商在法國有一個交付的義務。