It could be argued that because Chris has an office in London, the English jurisdiction applies in this case. This is because he is a domicile member. He rents the office not on temporary but permanent basis. In this case, English jurisdiction applies because Companies Act 2006 states that England can sue overseas companies if one of the parties in the case has offices located in England.1 The traditional rules govern foreign enterprises in this case. What is more, they are derived from Article 5(5). Companies Act 2006 also applies in this case; because Bratwurst GmbH and Havana entered into a contract, and was to sell some of their products in England; the England laws, therefore, govern the whole enterprise as well.2
The foreign company is this case has set shop in England as well, therefore the case can be determined by the English jurisdiction. Havana has the option of depending on the Companies Act. They have a right to do business in any place within the English Jurisdiction. Whether the company is legally registered in England or not, English courts have jurisdiction because Chris is involved and he has offices in London, England. An important law, CPR 6 states that whether a business takes a few days or the England is a market for the commodities produced; the English jurisdiction shall apply.3 In this case, the complainant, Havana, has lenient choices. The fact that in the original agreement the Spanish jurisdiction would apply is overridden.
Naturally, English jurisdiction would have failed to apply because the complainant is not from England. However, he is allowed by law to request for an English jurisdiction. Despite the fact that both parties agreed to have a Spanish jurisdiction, the English jurisdiction still applies because the agreement was just mutual (oral). There was no written and legally binding agreement. Forum nonconvenience allows the claimant (Havana) the right to choose where he thinks it is convenient to have