He then referred to articles by Dr F.A. Mann (whose own expertise and reputation in the area were considerable) and Dr E.J. Cohn and pointed out that, from the 19th Century, civil law countries had accepted that a
waiver of sovereign
immunity by a contract was effective, that the speeches in Duff were obiter and did not constitute a majority and that both Duff and Kahan overlooked the fact that submission in the face
of the court was not the only form
of valid submission since the introduction
of a new Rule in the RSC in 1920 that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain an action where there was a contractual submission.
Each repeats the same formulation
of the ways in which
immunity may be waived, distinguishing between the equally
valid methods
of waiver in a prior written agreement and an acceptance
of the jurisdiction
of the court in the face
of the court and the proceedings in question.