Facts
On 19 August 1987, M. Holding Anstalt in Vaduz granted loans bearing interest to A., B. and C. (the defendants), repayable in three instalments on 30 June 1989, 30 June 1990 and 30 June 1991. The parties agreed that the exclusive jurisdiction for any disputes related to these loan agreements would be Vaduz and that Liechtenstein law would be applicable. On 10 April 1990, the lender assigned to X. AG (the plaintiff) the claims due on 30 June 1990, as well as the accrued interest from 1 July 1989 to 30 June 1990. On 23 May 1990, X. AG filed an action before the District Court of Oberrheintal against A., B. and C. for repayment of the outstanding loan amounts. The District Court partially upheld the claim by judgment of 20 August/10 December 1991. On appeal by the defendants, the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen decided on 8 October 1992 not to enter into the matter, considering that the exclusive jurisdiction was Vaduz.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal examines the validity of the jurisdiction clause in light of the transitional law provided for in Art. 196 PILA. It considers that the effects of such a clause are subject to the new conflict of laws law if they occurred after 1 January 1989, the date of entry into force of the PILA. Thus, the validity of the jurisdiction clause must be assessed according to the old law, while its effects, such as the exclusive nature of the agreed jurisdiction, are…