Austria 1 July 1994 Appellate Court Innsbruck (Garden flowers case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940701a3.html]
Primary source(s) for case presentation: Case text
DATE OF DECISION:
JURISDICTION:
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE(S):
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 4 R 161/94
CASE NAME:
CASE HISTORY: 1st instance LG Feldkirch 29 March 1994 [affirmed]
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Denmark (plaintiff)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: Austria (defendant)
GOODS INVOLVED: Garden flowers (daisies)
Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 107
Reproduced with permission from UNCITRAL
The plaintiff, a Danish exporter of flowers, sold several shipments of
garden flowers to the
Austrian defendant, who refused to pay the price for some of them arguing
that the seller had
breached a guarantee or committed a fundamental breach of the contract since
the
flowers did
not bloom through the entire summer.
The court of first instance dismissed the buyer's arguments on the ground
that it had failed to
prove that the seller had guaranteed that the flowers would bloom through
the entire summer,
or that the seller had committed a fundamental breach of contract because
the flowers were not
conforming with contract specifications (Articles 36 and 49(1)(a) CISG).
The court further
held that, even if the buyer had been able to establish lack of conformity
of the goods, it
would have lost its right to avoid the contract, since it had failed to give
the
seller notice
within a reasonable period of time after discovery of the defect (Article
39(1) CISG; which, the
court found, was similar to Article 377 of the Austrian Commercial Code).
The court held that
two months after delivery of the goods was a reasonable period of time
within which the buyer
should have, and in fact had, discovered the lack of conformity of the
goods.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the court of first instance on
the
ground that
the buyer had failed to establish that the seller had breached a guarantee
or committed a
fundamental breach of contract in supplying flowers non-conforming with
contract
specifications (Articles 25, 35 and 49(1)(a) CISG).
APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(a)]
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code
numbers:
4A [Scope of Convention (issues covered): burden of proof (derived from general principles)];
36A ; 36B [Time for assessing conformity of goods: conformity
determined as of time when risk
passes to buyer; Lack of conformity occurring after passage of
risk];
39A [Requirement to notify seller of lack of conformity: buyer must notify seller within reasonable time]
Descriptors:
English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=132&step=Abstract> German: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Internationales und
Europäisches Recht (SZIER) / Revue suisse de droit international et de droit
européen 1996, 51 [cited as 1 June 1994]
Italian: Diritto del Commercio Internazionale (1996) 630-631 No. 102
Polish: Hermanowski/Jastrzebski, Konwencja Narodow Zjednoczonych o umowach
miedzynarodowej sprzedazy towarow (Konwencja wiedenska) - Komentarz (1997) 265-266
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (German): CISG online.ch website <http://www.cisg-online.ch./cisg/urteile/107.htm>; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=132&step=FullText>
Translation (English): Text presented below CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
English: Ferrari, International Legal Forum (4/1998) 138-225 [194 n.485 (definition of "goods")]; Schwenzer, in: Schlechtriem, Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (Oxford 1998) [Art. 36 (burden of proof)] 294 n. 37; Koch, Pace Review of Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods (1998) 235-236 n.201 [fundamental breach: quality of the goods]; for a survey of close to 100 judicial and arbitral rulings on Article 39(1), go to the 1998 Pace essay on this subject by Camilla Baasch Andersen; Saidov, Damages under the CISG (December 2001) n.352; Perales, Battle of the Forms and Burden of Proof, 6:2 Vindobona Journal (2002) 217-228, n. 22; CISG-AC advisory opinion on Examination of the Goods and Notice of Non-Conformity [7 June 2004] (this case and related cases cited in addendum to opinion); [2004] S.A. Kruisinga, (Non-)conformity in the 1980 UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: a uniform concept?, Intersentia at 164, 173; [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Art. 4 para. 22 Art. 35 para. 49 Art. 36 para. 13; Henschel, The Conformity of Goods in International Sales, Forlaget Thomson (2005) 157; Spaic, Analysis of Fundamental Breach under the CISG (December 2006) n.263Case abstract
AUSTRIA: Court of Appeal Innsbruck 1 July 1994
Classification of issues present
Editorial remarks
Citations to other abstracts, case texts and commentaries
CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
Queen Mary Case Translation Programme
Translation by [*] Ruth M. Janal [**]
Translation edited by Todd Fox [**]
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The [seller] delivered to the [buyer] several plants, among them some of the genus Oesteospermum ecklonis (African daisy). The first delivery was effected on 2 May 1991 with invoice no. 43567, issued on 24 April 1991. Of the invoiced amount, DM [Deutsche
Mark] 4,334.40 relate to the African daisies; the proportionate freight costs and custom duties
amount to DM 1,520,-. A second delivery was made on 17 May 1991 with invoice no. 43717,
in which an amount of DM 7,312.32 was made out for the African daisies; the proportionate
freight costs and custom duties come to DM 2,612.-.
Both invoices were fully paid by the [buyer].
Following a further order by the [buyer], another delivery was made by the [seller] on 30 May
1991. The entire invoice was over DM 16,674.20; an amount of DM 4,718.20 relates to African
daisies. The proportionate freight costs and custom duties for the African daisies amount to DM
1,430.-.
This invoiced amount remains outstanding.
The following findings of the Court of First Instance are not contested in the appellate
proceedings:
[Seller's submissions]
The [seller] requests that the [buyer] be ordered to pay it aS [Austrian Shillings] 107,062.12
plus 12% interest on aS 23,269.77 from 30 May 1991 to 31 May 1991, 12% interest on aS
20,054.27 from 1 June 1991 to 27 June 1991, 12% interest on aS 137,607.38 from 28 June to
30 June 1991, 12% interest on aS 187,825.44 from 1 July to 19 August 1991, 12% interest on
aS 191,000.19 from 20 August to 2 December 1991, and 12% interest on aS 107,062.19 from
3 December 1991 to 25 May 1992, at a yearly settlement of interest, plus 12% interest from the
time the [buyer] was served with the statement of claim, plus 20% turnover tax on interest and
compound interest. The [seller] submits that the delivered goods did not possess a lack of
conformity. The problems encountered with the African daisies possibly resulted from a storage
or treatment error made by the [buyer]. A damage during transport had to be ruled out.
Moreover, the [seller] had not given any guarantees. The [buyer] had notified the [seller] of the
alleged lack of conformity of the goods only after [buyer] had been issued a reminder of
payment. This was too late.
[Buyer's submissions]
The [buyer] requests that the claim be dismissed. [Buyer] submits that the delivered African
daisies were not fit for their purpose, because they did not bloom through the entire summer - a
feature which was usually taken for granted and which was furthermore explicitly guaranteed by
the [seller]. Already before the [buyer]'s vacation in the first three weeks of July 1991, a
number of the [buyer]'s customers had made complaints; initially, the [buyer] had not taken the
matter seriously and had assumed that its customers had treated the plants incorrectly. Then,
after the [buyer]'s vacation, it received an entire avalanche of angry complaints. [Buyer]
furthermore realized that the African daisies which stemmed from the last delivery and had been
planted by [buyer] had faded. [Buyer] then immediately notified the [seller] of the lack of
conformity via telephone (the non-conformity could not have been discovered earlier).
Therefore, [buyer] submits that the notice specifying the defect was given within reasonable
time. [Buyer] and [seller] had agreed that the [buyer] would inform the [seller] of its claims
resulting from the non-conformity. The [buyer] did so with letter of 3 October 1991. From the
open invoice no. 43972, a partial amount of DM 6,148.20 related to the African daisies and
consequently did not have to be paid. The remaining amount of DM 10,526.- did not have to be
paid because the [buyer] was entitled to claims amounting to DM 15,778.72 (= aS 111,239.97)
for the non-conforming deliveries which had been invoiced with the invoices no. 43567 and
43717.
[DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE]
The Court of First Instance held in the appealed decision that the [seller]'s claim of aS
107,062.19 was justified, whereas the [buyer]'s counterclaims were unfounded. The Court
therefore ordered the [buyer] to pay the [seller] aS 107,062.19 plus 5% interest on aS
23,269.77 from 30 May to 31 May 1991, 5% interest on aS 20,054.27 from 1 June to 27 June
1991, 5% interest on aS 137,607.38 from 28 June to 30 June 1991, 5% interest on aS
187,825.44 from 1 July to 19 August 1991, 5% interest of aS 191,000.19 from 20 August to 2
December 1991, 5% interest on aS 107,062.19 from 3 December 1991 to 25 May 1992, plus
5% interest from the time the [buyer] was served with the statement of claim, plus 20%
turnover tax on interest and compound interest. The further request for interest was denied.
The Court of First Instance further established the following facts:
The [seller] is a wholesaler of plants, the [buyer] is a plant retailer. In spring 1991, the [buyer]
visited Denmark with the plan of ordering plants from the [seller]. Together with Andreas
Schwabe, one of the [seller]'s employees, [buyer] went to the market-garden of Anders Jonsson,
who supplies the [seller] with plants of the genus Osteospermum ecklonis (among others). The
[buyer] inspected these plants, while Schwabe explained to [seller] that it was an open-beds plant,
which needed a sunny place. Schwabe did not give the [buyer] any further instructions for the
storage and treatment of the plant and did not guarantee the [buyer] that the flowers would
bloom through the entire summer.
The Oesteospermum ecklonis (also called African daisy) has its place of origin in South Africa.
There, the plant takes a rest throughout the winter, begins to bloom in spring and then blooms
through the entire summer. The winter rest is important for the plant. The pre-cultivation is
decisive for the plant's development. If the temperature is held too high during the pre-cultivation, the plant will bloom earlier, but then stops blooming in the summer. If the natural
conditions of South Africa are created, the flower starts blooming early on and blooms through
the entire summer. The plant needs a sunny place; the ground must be nutritious and permeable
so that the wetness does not build up. Therefore, one of the reasons that the plant does not
bloom can be a wrong location or too little or too much sun.
The term "bed-plant" refers to a plant which blooms through the entire summer up to the first
occurrence of frost. If it does not do so, it is missing a characteristic quality. An expert needs a
period of overall two months to determine that a flower will not bloom again. The plant blooms
for the first month, then it needs a certain period of time to get used to the new conditions. At
the earliest, one-month after the fading of the first flowers, the expert will be able to ascertain
that no new buds will sprout.
The [buyer] sold the African daisies delivered by the [seller] and promised its customers that
the plant would bloom through the entire summer.
Already before 6/8 July 1991, the first customers complained to the [buyer] that the plant did
not bloom beautifully and that it had fewer blossoms. The [buyer] did not take these complaints
seriously. [Buyer] told its customers that they should water and fertilize the plants better. It cannot
be ascertained to which delivery these plants belonged.
On 6 or 8 July 1991, the [buyer] went on vacation for three weeks. During [buyer]'s vacation, further
customers complained that the buds of the African daisies fell off and that subsequently the
plants longer bloomed, but only proliferated in green. It cannot be determined how many
customers complained.
After the [buyer]'s return, [buyer] established in its own garden that the African daisies set by [buyer] no longer bloomed after the first blossoms had fallen off. On that very day, [buyer] called Andreas
Schwabe and told [seller] that customers had complained about the African daisies; further, that
the plant grew to be rather large and did not develop new buds. It also did not bloom through
the entire summer. The [buyer] was pretty angry and declared that it would reserve action for
the time being and would not pay the open invoice. Schwabe did not accept the complaint.
Overall, the [buyer] bought 6,436 African daisies from the [seller]. It cannot be determined how
many of these plants did not bloom after their first blossom and only continued to proliferate in
green. The cause can also not be established. It cannot be ascertained that the plants delivered
by the [seller] were pre-cultivated in a false manner and that this was the cause for their failure
to bloom. A damage during transport can be ruled out.
With three letters of 3 October 1991, each with the same wording, the [buyer] complained to
the [seller] that the plants did not bloom after the first blossom, that [buyer] could not save [itself] from complaints by its customers and that up until now 129 customers had claimed their
damages. In these three writings, the [buyer] calculated its damages regarding the respective
invoices at DM 6,148.20, DM 9,924.32 and DM 5,854.40.
It cannot be determined how many customers the [buyer] did in fact grant restitution.
The [seller] does not take permanent bank credit.
In legal terms, the Court of First Instance held that the legal relations between the parties had to
be assessed according the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
Goods of 11 April 1980 (CISG). The [buyer], who bore the burden of proof in that respect, had
not established that the [seller] had guaranteed a continuous blooming of the plant through the
entire summer. Therefore, only a liability for the non-conformity of the delivered plants under
Art. 36 CISG could be considered. This required that a lack of conformity existed at the time
the risk passed to the [buyer] (even if the defect showed only later on). Again, this liability was
excluded by the Court of First Instance because the [buyer] did not present any proof - as [buyer] would have been obliged to - that the flowers were non-conforming at the time of delivery.
Even under the assumption that a lack of conformity of the African daisies had been proven, the
notice specifying the lack of conformity would have been issued too late by the standards of
Art. 38 et seq. CISG. According to these provisions, the buyer loses the right to rely on a lack
of conformity of the goods if it does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the
lack of conformity within a reasonable time after it has discovered it or ought to have
discovered it. According to the Court of First Instance, this stipulation corresponds to the
obligation to give notice under § 377 HGB [*]. If one allowed the [buyer] a period of two
months for the discovery of the non-conformity, the defect should have been discovered in the
beginning of July at the latest. Since the [buyer] notified the [seller] of the lack of conformity
only after the return from its vacation at the end of July, [buyer] was not entitled to a remedy of the
defect or to a claim for damages. Furthermore, the [buyer] did not declare the avoidance of
contract regarding the invoices no. 43567 and 43717 until its reply to the [seller]'s statement of
claim. With the letters of 3 October 1991, the [buyer] had solely claimed its damages. Under
Art. 49 CISG a buyer loses its right to declare the contract avoided unless it does so within a
reasonable period of time.
The Court of First Instance therefore only dismissed the claim for interest insofar as it exceeded
the interest rate of 5%.
The [buyer]'s timely appeal contests this decision to the extent that it grants the [seller]'s
claims. The [buyer] queries the decision for reasons of evidence and law and requests the Court
of Appeals to reverse the decision and dismiss the claim in its entirety; in the alternative, to
repeal and remand the decision.
The [seller] in its timely reply to the [buyer]'s appeal requests the Court not to grant the
appeal.
[Decision of the Court of Appeals]
The appeal is not justified.
I. Regarding the evidence
1.1. The [buyer's] contestation of the evidence is directed against the finding of the Court of
First Instance that Andreas Schwabe did not guarantee the [buyer] that the flowers would bloom
through the entire summer. The [buyer] desires the finding that Schwabe did issue it such a
guarantee. According to the [buyer], this is proven by the [buyer]'s and [buyer]'s wife's testimony
and, indirectly, the confirmation of the witness Helmut Lerchner. [Buyer] submits that the only
contradicting testimony, given by the witness Schwabe, was unsure; Schwabe had solely stated
that he believed not to have given a guarantee.
It is correct that the [buyer] and its wife Maria Frick testified that Andreas Schwabe guaranteed
them that the flower bloomed through the entire summer. The witness Helmut Lerchner
confirmed that the [buyer] told [seller] that [buyer] had been assured this quality.
The witness Schwabe on the other hand initially clearly testified that at no point in time did he
guarantee the [buyer] that the plant would bloom the entire summer; respectively, that it was
incorrect that he assured the [buyer] that the plants would bloom until the fall, continue to
produce new buds and constantly bloom. Insofar as Schwabe stated some sentences later that
neither he nor the gardeners (whom he had visited with the [buyer]) had said something to that
effect, Schwabe's uncertainty clearly seems to refer to what the gardeners said (otherwise the
confidence of the two earlier statements cited would not be understandable).
The witness Hubert Ludescher, a gardener who bought the African daisies from the [buyer],
stated that it was a bed-plant and that he assumed that it would bloom through the entire
summer. It is obvious that the witness did not ask the [buyer], and the [buyer] did not assure
the witness that the bed-plant would bloom through the entire summer; apparently because - as
the expert report clearly indicates - this is taken for granted between experts. For this reason, it
seems rather unlikely that an explicit guarantee should have been given between Schwabe and
the [buyer] (during a conversation among experts), that the bed-plant bloomed through the
entire summer. This thought speaks for the credibility of the witness Schwabe, who denies
having given a guarantee. Therefore, the Court would under no circumstances be able to reach
more than a negative finding in that matter; a positive finding, as desired by the appeal, has to
be ruled out for the above reasons. A negative finding regarding the guarantee of this quality
would not be of benefit to the [buyer], because it is without doubt that [buyer] bears the burden of
proof for the "fundamental breach of contract" in the meaning of the applicable CISG, BGBl.
[*] 1988/96. (This corresponds to the basic rule that each party needs to prove the prerequisites
of those provisions that benefit its standing of law. If the [buyer] contends that it may declare
the contract avoided under Art. 49 CISG, it is bound to prove the facts that entitle it to this
right; a factual prerequisite in this context is that the quality of the goods delivered by the
[seller] did not conform to the contract - cf. Art. 35 CISG). Moreover, the question whether an
additional assurance of a certain quality has been given is irrelevant in the present case, because
the characteristics allegedly assured by Schwabe is in any case a quality which is ordinarily
presupposed (in the meaning of Art. 35(2)(a) CISG). Schwabe's declaration - as alleged by the
[buyer] - could under no circumstances be interpreted as a real promissory guarantee which
goes beyond an explicit assurance of quality (for the differences cf. Reischauer in Rummel 2, §§
922, 923 ABGB [*] n. 5).
1.2 The contestation of evidence is further directed against the finding of the Court of First
Instance that the cause for the failure to bloom of an indeterminable amount of the African
daisies delivered by the [seller] could not be established. The [buyer] desires the finding that all
of the African daisies delivered by the [seller] did not possess the quality of blooming through
the summer and that the reason for this missing quality was the incorrect pre-cultivation by the
Danish gardeners that supplied to the [seller]. The [buyer] reasons that - according to its own
declaration - 300 to 400 customers made complaints, that each of those had acquired roughly 5
to 15 plants, and that this led to 3,500 non-conforming plants under averaged calculations. If
one considered that by far not every customer complained, the conclusion could be drawn that
all of the plants possessed the defect. This was further substantiated by the fact that the expert
witnesses Hubert and Stefan Ludescher and the [buyer] himself had to realize that the plants
bloomed only once; an incorrect treatment of the plants by these persons could probably be
ruled out. A damage during transport had to be excluded. The expert witness Siedler had
explained that the pre-cultivation of the plant with not too high a temperature was decisive.
The witness Schwabe, on the other hand, had testified that it was a problem of Danish market-gardens that the plants were sprouting too fast in the warm hothouses.
Regarding this submission, the following can be said:
Firstly, the Court agrees with the assessment of the Court of First Instance that the [buyer]'s
statements regarding the complaints it received are not credible, because they are obviously
wildly exaggerated. The Court of First Instance's explanation of its considerations regarding the
evidence in p. 11 to 13 of the decision is accurate (§ 500a ZPO [*]). It can be added that in its three letters of 3 October 1991 the [buyer] spoke of 129 cases in which it made restitution.
Since it is highly unlikely that a compensation of damages was made at a later point in time (the
letters were written at the end of the blooming period), and since - at least according to the
[buyer]'s submissions - it cannot be assumed that the [buyer] reacted with a compensation only
to a third of the complaints, the [buyer]'s pleadings regarding the amount of the complaints
received must be considered as wildly exaggerated for this reason alone.
The appeal contends that the Court of First Instance should have reached the more precise
finding (following the [buyer]'s declaration) that before the [buyer]'s vacation, only two or
three customers had issued complaints regarding the African daisies. The Court of First
Instance's argument gains importance that if this was the case, the plants of the first delivery
must have been predominantly without a non-conformity, as the buyers of plants from this first
delivery should have already realized the "laziness to bloom" (testimony of witness Hubert
Ludescher) before the [buyer] went on vacation.
Finally, the argument of the Court of First Instance is justified that if an incorrect pre-cultivation
had occurred, the non-conformity should have shown itself with all of the plants. Instead, there
are the above reasons to conclude that the non-conformity did not affect a large part of the
African daisies. This is an important indication that the defect had other causes. The findings of
the Court of First Instance, which follow the explanation of the expert witness Fiedler, certainly
leave room for other causes for which the [seller] is not responsible. Not even the [buyer]'s
argument that an incorrect treatment of the plants could be excluded as the cause for the
laziness to bloom in the instance of Hubert and Stefan Ludescher and the [buyer] himself is
entirely conclusive: The testimony of the witness Lerchner, who is a gardener himself, reveals
that the treatment of the plant is evidently difficult and needs experience; that Lerchner himself
experienced difficulties with this plant; that he, however - apparently after it had become more
experienced - managed to make the plants bloom at least from June to August. Therefore, the
possibility can not be excluded that Hubert and Stefan Ludescher and the [buyer] itself did
not give the plants an optimal treatment due to insufficient experience.
In conclusion, it can be conceded to the appeal that there are some reasons to conclude that the
laziness to bloom of the African daisies delivered by the [seller] was caused by the incorrect
pre-cultivation through the [seller]'s suppliers. However, there are also good reasons that speak
against such an assumption, so that the Court of Appeals shares the opinion of the Court of
First Instance that the cause for the non-conformity can no longer be established.
The complaint regarding the evidence is therefore unjustified.
2. Regarding the legal assessment
The legal assessment reached by the Court of First Instance cannot be queried on the basis of
these factual findings. The appeal argues that it is certain that a part of the flowers did not
bloom, and that this means that a fundamental breach of contract in the meaning of Art. 25 and
Art. 35 CISG was committed because qualities of the goods, which are ordinarily presupposed,
were missing. The [buyer] pleads that it does not bear the burden of proof for the cause of the
lack of conformity, rather that the [seller] needs to prove the cause of the defect.
The [buyer] overlooks that a defect (in the words of the Convention: the lack of conformity of
the goods - cf. Wilhelm, UN-Kaufrecht, p. 16) is not identical with the only single-blooming of
the African daisies. If the single-blooming was caused by a wrong treatment of the plants on the
part of the [buyer] and its customers (which cannot be excluded according to the factual
findings), it does not constitute a lack of conformity of the goods. As has been explained above,
the [buyer] bears the burden of proof for the lack of conformity of the goods as a prerequisite
for the avoidance of contract desired by it under Art. 49(1)(a) CISG. Since [buyer] was unable to
present such proof according to the findings of the Court of First Instance, the [buyer] is unable
to effectively counter the [seller]'s claim for payment of the purchase price (which is undisputed
with respect to the amount claimed).
It is therefore just as irrelevant whether the [buyer] declared the "cancellation" in a sufficiently
clear manner (cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 22; Loewe, Internationales Kaufrecht, p. 72; Niggemann
in Hoyer-Posch, Das einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht, p. 103), as it is to determine whether the
notice specifying the lack of conformity was given in due time and whether an application of
Art. 44 CISG is possible.
The appeal is therefore denied, the appealed decision is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, the Plaintiff-Appellee of Denmark is referred to as [seller]; the Defendant-Appellant of Austria is referred to as [buyer]. Amounts in German currency [Deutsche Mark] are indicated as [DM]; amounts in Austrian currency [Austrian Shillings] are indicated as [aS].
Translator's note on other abbreviations: ABGB = Algemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [Austrian Civil Code]; BGBl = Bundesgesetzblatt [Austrian Federal Law Gazette] HGB = Handelsgesetzbuch [Austrian Commercial Code]; ZPO = Zivilprozessordnung [Austrian Code of Civil Procedure].
** Ruth M. Janal, LL.M. (UNSW), a PhD candidate at Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, has been an active participant in the CISG online website of the University of Freiburg. Todd Fox is an Associate of the Institute of International Commercial Law of the Pace University School of Law. He received his LL.M. summa cum laude from the University of Freiburg,
Germany.
Case text (English translation)
Appellate Court (Oberlandesgericht) Innsbruck
1 July 1994 [4 R 161/94]
Pace Law School Institute of International
Commercial Law - Last updated March 19, 2007