▸case-01 A German manufacturer and a Swiss machinery distributor enter into a B2B agreement with standard terms choosing Swiss law. The German manufacturer claims that German AGB judicial review under §§ 305-310 BGB must invalidate a short limitation period because both companies conduct extensive business in Germany. How does Rome I Regulation treat this choice of law? | pass→pass | 11,900 | 10,562 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,232 | 3,172 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-20 A German software engineer residing in Frankfurt works for a Swiss technology company. The employment contract specifies Swiss law as governing law. The employee sues in Germany claiming German statutory dismissal protection (KSchG). How does Article 8 Rome I handle choice of law in individual employment contracts? | fail→pass | 11,100 | 15,396 | +39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,877 | 4,104 | +119% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-02 In a B2B dispute governed by Swiss law, a German party argues before a Frankfurt court that German AGB control (§§ 305-310 BGB) applies automatically as an overriding mandatory provision (Eingriffsnorm) under Article 9 Rome I. How does German high court jurisprudence (BGH) rule on this issue? | pass→pass | 12,533 | 13,574 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,300 | 3,700 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-03 A party facing an unfavorable Swiss law clause in a cross-border commercial contract contends that even if specific AGB statutes do not qualify under Art. 9 Rome I, the general German good faith principle (§ 242 BGB) functions as an overriding mandatory provision (Eingriffsnorm). Is this argument accepted under prevailing legal doctrine? | pass→pass | 14,991 | 13,442 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,578 | 3,672 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-04 A Swiss online platform operates a .de domain in German language with targeted ads for German residents. Its general terms choose Swiss law. A German consumer challenges an unexpected fee clause under German consumer protection laws. How does Article 6 Rome I apply? | pass→fail | 13,654 | 20,518 | +50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,463 | 5,026 | +104% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-05 In a B2B contract governed by Swiss law, a standard clause excludes liability for ordinary negligence. The German counterparty argues this violates German public policy (Ordre Public) under Article 21 Rome I because German AGB law strictly limits liability waivers. Does Article 21 Rome I invalidate the clause? | pass→pass | 12,412 | 14,023 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,163 | 3,750 | +73% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-06 A legal counsel argues that because Switzerland is not an EU member state, choosing Swiss substantive law in a contract between German and Swiss commercial firms is invalid under the Rome I Regulation. Is choosing third-country law permitted under Rome I? | pass→pass | 8,229 | 10,446 | +27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,395 | 3,151 | +126% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-07 In a cross-border B2B contract governed by Swiss law, the German buyer attempts to challenge standard terms using Swiss legal standards. How does Swiss statutory clause control (Article 8 UWG / CO) compare with German BGB §§ 307-309? | pass→pass | 17,282 | 21,014 | +22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,086 | 4,796 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-08 A German tourist physically purchases goods at a retail shop in Zurich, signing a sales contract choosing Swiss law. The Swiss retailer does not target or advertise in Germany. The consumer attempts to invoke German AGB rules upon returning to Munich. Does Article 6(1) Rome I apply German law? | pass→pass | 10,069 | 9,219 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,714 | 2,798 | +63% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-09 A German corporation asks how to structure a contract with a Swiss vendor to effectively avoid German AGB invalidation risks. What combination of governing law and dispute resolution mechanism is recommended? | pass→pass | 17,853 | 15,218 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,920 | 3,917 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-10 What primary factual assessment steps must be performed before determining whether choosing Swiss law will shield standard terms from German judicial AGB review? | fail→fail | 15,856 | 14,889 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,650 | 3,773 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-11 A Swiss subscription service targets German consumers and includes a Swiss choice of law clause. Deep in the terms, an automatic multi-year renewal clause is hidden. Can the consumer invoke § 305c BGB (surprising clauses)? | pass→pass | 11,881 | 14,069 | +18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,289 | 3,839 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-12 A German parent firm routes contract execution with German corporate buyers through its Swiss subsidiary, incorporating Swiss law in standard terms to avoid BGB AGB review. The buyer claims this is an illegal circumvention. Is the choice of law valid under Rome I? | pass→pass | 17,304 | 15,209 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,099 | 4,147 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-13 A Swiss e-commerce firm targeting German consumers includes a clause in its standard terms stating: 'This agreement is governed solely by Swiss law to the complete exclusion of foreign consumer protection statutes.' Is this clause valid under German AGB transparency standards? | pass→pass | 10,304 | 14,579 | +41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,969 | 3,801 | +93% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-14 A Swiss firm delivers SaaS and integration services to a German company, with servers in Frankfurt and support in Zurich. The contract explicitly selects Swiss law. The German firm argues German law applies under Article 4 Rome I due to the location of performance. Which rule takes precedence? | pass→pass | 8,755 | 11,593 | +32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,628 | 3,384 | +108% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-15 A Swiss sales representative visits a German consumer at home in Munich and closes a contract containing standard terms with a Swiss choice of law clause. Does Article 6 Rome I trigger German mandatory consumer protections? | pass→pass | 9,682 | 12,113 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,963 | 3,390 | +73% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-16 A cross-border B2B contract subject to Swiss law contains a clause waiving liability for gross negligence of auxiliary agents (Hilfspersonen). Under German § 309 Nr. 7 BGB this would be invalid. Will a court enforcing Swiss law hold this limitation valid? | pass→pass | 13,268 | 16,199 | +22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,437 | 4,170 | +71% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-17 A Swiss firm selling products online to German buyers drafts this clause: 'Swiss law applies, without prejudice to mandatory consumer protection laws of the consumer's country of residence pursuant to Art. 6(2) Rome I.' Does this clause satisfy German transparency standards? | pass→pass | 12,759 | 13,812 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,256 | 3,634 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-18 A Swiss firm emails an order confirmation with attached Swiss choice of law terms to a German buyer. The German buyer claims the terms were not validly incorporated under German § 305 Abs. 2 BGB requirements. Which law determines whether the terms were incorporated? | fail→pass | 10,398 | 16,249 | +56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,990 | 4,282 | +115% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-19 What factual data points should be systematically collected in an evidentiary matrix when evaluating whether a Swiss choice of law clause in standard terms will survive judicial challenge? | pass→pass | 20,973 | 18,146 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,325 | 4,404 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-21 A commercial truck owned by a Swiss logistics firm collides with a German commercial vehicle on a highway near Munich. The German transport company files a tort claim for damages. Do choice of law provisions under Rome I determine the governing law for this traffic accident? | pass→pass | 6,702 | 9,329 | +39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,270 | 3,056 | +141% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-22 A company based in Zurich purchases computer hardware from a supplier registered in Geneva, with delivery taking place in Zurich. The contract specifies Swiss law. The buyer attempts to challenge a clause using German BGB §§ 305-310 regulations. Do Rome I or German AGB controls apply? | pass→pass | 9,453 | 13,948 | +48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,676 | 3,623 | +116% | 0 | 0 | — |