Case 1:

ViF (buyer) is a car retailer in Vietnam. It has contracted to buy 100 cars from Poto (seller 1) – a car’s
manufacturer in Poland (incorporated in Poland), and 50 cars from Acar (seller 2) – a car’s manufacturer
in Germany (incorporated in Germany). Both contract was signed in Vietnam. Poto and Acar then delivers
100 and 50 cars, respectively, to ViF’s warehouse on the contracts delivery date. After receiving the cars
from Poto and Acar, ViF sold some of the cars to its consumers, including one car (this car was
manufactured by Poto) to Mr.A (Vietnamese nationality, resides in Vietnam), and 2 cars (these cars were
manufactured by Acar) to Mr.B (Chinese nationality, resides in Vietnam), and Ms.C (Thai nationality,
resides in Vietnam). After a week of use, Mr.A, Mr.B, and Ms.C could not start the car anymore. These
customers have informed and asked ViF for a refund but have not received any responses from this
company. After receiving notices from Mr.A, Mr.B, and Ms.C, ViF inspected and determined that nearly
40% of the cars from Poto as well as nearly 20% of the cars from Acar cannot operate normally.ViF then
contacted Poto and Acar and claimed for damages. However, ViF cannot reach agreements with both
companies on the amount of the compensation.
Mr.A, Mr.B, and Ms.C also asked ViF for a refund but have not received any responses.
Know that:
- In the contract between ViF and Poto, parties did not express any choice of the applicable law of the
whole contract, but agreed clearly in the contract that, under any circumstances, The CISG 1980 shall not
govern the contract; The contract also did not agree any terms on dispute settlement.
- In the contract between ViF and Acar, parties agreed that the applicable law of the whole contract shall
be German Law; they also agreed (expressed in the contract) that disputes arising out of or in connection
with the contract shall be referred to a German court in Germany;
- In the contract between ViF and Mr.A, ViF and Mr.B as well as between ViF and Ms.C, the contract
also did not express any choice of the governing law of the contract.
- Assume that the domestic conflict of law rules of Poland, Germany, Thailand, and China relating to
sale contract relationships involving foreign elements is similar to the law of Vietnam;
- Assume that the domestic conflict of law rules of Poland, Germany, and China relating to consuming
contract relationships involving foreign elements is similar to the law of Vietnam, but in the law of
Thailand, the applicable law of consuming contracts involving foreign elements is the law of the country
where the consumer holds nationality.
- Assume that the laws of Poland, Germany, China, and Vietnam recognize the doctrine of single
renvoi. Thailand, however, does not recognizes the doctrine of renvoi.
- Every country in the above case except Thailand, at the time contracts in the cases above is signed, are
member states of CISG 1980 convention.
Questions:
a. If ViF brought lawsuits against Poto and Acar in Vietnamese courts (in 2 separate cases, in different
courts, and assume that these courts decided to hear the case), which system of laws (law of which
countries) should these Vietnamese courts applied to solve the disputes between ViF and Poto; and ViF
and Acar? Why?
b.If Mr.A, Mr.B, and Ms.C started lawsuits against ViF in Vietnamese courts (in 3 separate cases, in
different courts, and assume that these courts decided to hear the case) which system of laws (law of
which countries) should these Vietnamese courts applied to solve the dispute between ViF and Mr.A; ViF
and Mr.B; and ViF and Ms.C? Why?
c. Assume that before ViF sues Poto for damages in a Vietnamese court, Poto had brought the case to a
court of Poland to claim for the payment of ViF according to the contract.
Assume that such court settled the case and issued a judgment in Poto favor in absence of ViF which
states that ViF has an obligation to pay the contract price (Note that: ViF had been served1 in accordance
with the law of procedures of Poland)
Can this judgment be recognized and enforced in Vietnam by a Vietnamese court? Why?
Answer
ViF – Poto
- Determine foreign element (Art 464.2.a VN CPC 2015), one of the party of the foreign (Polish)
- Because there is no agreement in the contract about applicable law. Additionally, they agreed that The
CISG 1980 shall not govern the contract
- Between the two nations have mutal legal assistant agreement => The mutual legal assitant agreement
can be applied if there is unified conflict of law rules regulated in this agreement, but there is no conflict
of law rules in the MLAA so MLAA cant be applied
=> Conflict of law of Vietnam will be applied to hear the case
According to Art 683.2.a of Vietnam Civil Code 2015 (VCC2015), the law shall be applied is the law of
the country where the seller being natural person resides or the seller being juridical person is established
in terms of sale contracts
 The law of Poland shall be applied to hear the case
ViF – Acar
Determine foreign element (Art 464.2.a VN CPC 2015), one of the party of the foreign (German)
2 nations are the member of CISG 1980. Both parties agreed that the applicable law of the whole contract
shall be German Law. However, they did not state that the CISG 1980 shall not govern the contract =>
CISG 1980 might be applied
According to Art 1.1.b CISG 1980, 2 nations chose German Law but German is the member of CISG
1980
 CISG 1980 will be applied to hear to case
Additionally, this case does not fall into Art 2 CISG 1980
ViF – A
This case does not have foreign element because A and ViF have Vietnamese nationality => The law of
Vietnam will be applied to hear the case
ViF – B
- Determine foreign element (Art 464.2.a VN CPC 2015), one of the party of the foreign (China)
- Between the two nations have mutal legal assistant agreement ⇒ MLAA might be applied
- But there is no conflict of law in MLAA between Vietnam and China => We need to use conflict of law
rules of Vietnam to settle the case
- According to Art 683.2.đ VCC 2015, the law shall be applied is the law of the country where consumers
resides in terms of consume contract => And B resides in Vietnam
- Additionally, according to Art 668.2 of VCC 2015, where the Vietnamese law is referred to, regulations
of Vietnamese law on rights and obligations of participants of a civil relation shall apply.
=> The law shall be applied to hear the case is the law of Vietnam
ViF – C
- Determine foreign element (Art 464.2.a VN CPC 2015), one of the party of the foreign (Thailand)
- Between the two nations do not have mutal legal assistant agreement => We need to use conflict of law
rules of Vietnam to settle the case
- According to Art 683.2.đ VCC 2015, the law shall be applied is the law of the country where consumers
resides in terms of consume contract => And C resides in Vietnam
- Additionally, according to Art 668.2 of VCC 2015, where the Vietnamese law is referred to, regulations
of Vietnamese law on rights and obligations of participants of a civil relation shall apply.
=> The law shall be applied to hear the case is the law of Vietnam
c) Determine foreign element (Art 464.2.a VN CPC 2015), one of the party of the foreign (Poland)
Between the two nations have mutal legal assistant agreement => The mutual legal assitant agreement
will be applied
According to Art 45.b of MLAA , the losing party has participated in the proceedings or, if absent, has
been served with a court summons in accordance with the form prescribed by law.
 Vietnamese court has to recognize and enfored the judment
Case 2:
Mr. A is a citizen of Russia. He married B, also a Russian, and had a child together, named Maria. Sadly,
their marriage was not happy as they had expected. So after five years of marriage, they agreed to
divorce. After the divorce, Mr. A came to Vietnam for work and met Ms. C, a lovely Vietnamese girl, live
in HCM city. They decided to get married in Vietnam. They were resided in an apartment in Ho Chi Minh
city (which had been bought by Mr. A before he married Ms. C), and had with each other a little girl
named Lisa. While the spouse was living happily together, Mr. A, unfortunately, died intestate in a car
accident. His heritage includes: an apartment in HCM city, a real estate in Vung Tau city, some movable
properties placed in Ho Chi Minh city. Besides, Mr. A also owned a house in Moskva (capital of Russia)
which he had inherited from his father before he married to B.
a. Can Ms. C request a Vietnamese court to distribute the heritage of Mr. A (you should determine the
jurisdiction of Vietnamese court)? Why?
b. Assume that a Vietnamese decide it has jurisdiction to settle that case, determine the applicable law
such court should apply to distribute the heritage of Mr. A
Answer
- Determine foreign element (Art 464.2.a VN CPC 2015), one of the party of the foreign (Russia)
- Between the two nations have mutal legal assistant agreement ⇒ MLAA will be applied
- According to Art 42.1 of MLAA, because A was a citizen of Russoa at the time of death => Russian
court has jurisdiction to distribute the movable properties of Mr. A
- According to Art 42. 2 of MLAA, Russian Court has jurisdiction to distribute a house in Moskva of
Mr.A and Vietnamese Court has jurisdiction to distribute an apartment in HCM City, a real estate in Vung
Tàu City
b) According to Art 39.1 and Art 39.2 of MLAA
The Vietnamese Court only has jurisdiction to distribute an apartment in HCM City, a real estate in Vung
Tàu City => Vietnamese Court will apply Vietnamese law to distribute the heritage of Mr.A