Even if there is no explicit authorization for representation, with the idea of the apparent mandate or the supposed authority granted by certain courts and arbitral awards, the client may be bound to the arbitration agreement concluded by the representative.5 English decisions have already been commented on the blog, here and here. This contribution presents an analysis of the French legal perspective on the main contentious issues, i.e. the provision of the law applicable to the arbitration agreement and the extension of an arbitration agreement to a third party.1) A French commentary on the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal can be found here. This rule is not clear; for most legal systems, particularly in Swiss law, this theory cannot justify the extension clause of non-signatories, but by justifying the legal basis, such as abusive shareholder fraud, contempt for the company`s personality can be confronted with abusive shareholder behaviour such as fraud.” In principle, the rights and obligations arising from the arbitration agreement are bipolar in nature; Only those who are parties to the arbitration agreement have that right. Despite this bipolar nature of arbitration as accepted by the many courts, arbitral awards and doctrines, in some cases arbitrators may assume the jurisdiction of appeals against a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement may be extended to the non-signatory by a representative or agency acting on behalf of the non-signatory and linked to the arbitration agreement. “The principle of representation and representation is invoked in a group of corporate situations and the binding effect of representation or agency derives from the general principles of law”3, so that validity is determined by substantive laws. But French law goes further and recognises that the compromise clause is also independent of any national law. This independence is the result of a series of decisions of the Court of Cassation. In 1972, it found that an arbitration agreement could be subject to a law other than that of the underlying contract (Court of Cassation, July 4, 1972, Hecht v. Buismans). And in 1993, it acknowledged that an arbitration agreement was independent of any domestic law (Court of Cassation, December 20, 1993, Dalico v. Khoms and El Mergeb).
In its decision on the KFG`s fallow application, the Paris Court of Appeal followed this approach in a surprising way and stated: “… The arbitration clause… should be extended to the parties directly involved in the performance of the contract and to all disputes arising from the contract, provided that it is shown that their contractual situation and activity are the fact of having accepted the compromise clause which they knew existed and the scope of, regardless of the fact that they had not signed the contract which contained the arbitration agreement.” [paragraph 34] The analysis of the law of law of the arbitration agreement, carried out by the Court of Appeal of Paris, is surprisingly in line with French jurisprudence. In the absence of an explicit choice of the law applicable to the arbitration agreement in the contract, the Paris Court of Appeal applied the well-known standard of French law of international arbitration, which recognizes the full autonomy of the arbitration agreement.