Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial
Law - Last updated June 27, 2003 Germany 14 May 1993 District Court Aachen
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930514g1.html]
Primary source(s) for case presentation: Michael R. Will; CISG online case overview; UNCITRAL abstract; Unilex abstract; case commentaries
DATE OF DECISION:
JURISDICTION:
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE(S):
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 43 O 136/92
CASE NAME:
CASE HISTORY: Unavailable
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Germany (plaintiff)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: Italy (defendant)
GOODS INVOLVED: Electronic hearing aid
The German seller of ten electronic ear devices demanded damages for breach of contract by the Italian buyer, who had failed to take delivery despite the additional period of time set by the seller for the buyer to take delivery.
The court held that it had jurisdiction under article 5(1) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, which provides that a party who is domiciled in a Contracting State can be sued before the courts of the place where the obligation giving rise to the dispute had to be performed. The court applied article 31(b) CISG, which was applicable under German private international law as part of German law, and determined that Aachen, where the goods had been manufactured, was the place where the seller was obliged to deliver (art. 31(b) CISG).
The court applied articles 61(1)(b), 63 and 74-77 CISG and found that the buyer had to pay damages to the seller for failing to take delivery of the goods, even after the additional period of time set by the seller had expired.
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:
29A [Modification of contract by agreement (settlement agreement governed by Article 29)]; 31B ; 31C [Place for delivery: contracts not involving carriage and parties knew location of goods; Other cases, goods at buyer's disposal at seller's place of business]; 63A [Notice fixing additional final period for buyer's performance]; 74B [Damages (general rules for measuring): foreseeability of loss (buyer's liability to third parties foreseeable when goods not timely delivered)]; 79F [Impediment excusing party from damages: preservation of remedies other than damages (right to claim performance)]
Descriptors:
"The Court held that the application of CISG precluded recourse to domestic law regarding mistake as to the quality of the goods as the matter is exhaustively covered by CISG." Kazimierska, Pace Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1999-2000) n.331
English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=23&step=Abstract>
French: Droit et pratique du commerce international/International Trade Law and Practice 1994, 96
German: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Internationales und Europäisches Recht (SZIER)/Revue suisse de droit international et de droit européen 1995, 270-271
Italian: Diritto del Commercio Internazionale (1993) 658 No. 21
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (German): cisg-online.ch <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/86.htm>; Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 1993, 760-761; Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des internationalen Privatrechts im Jahre (IPRspr) 1993 No. 141, 316-317; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=23&step=FullText>
Translation: Unavailable
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
English: Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales (1999) 241 [Art. 31]; Bernstein/Lookofsky, Understanding the CISG in Europe (1997) 16 n.38 n.39; Curran, 15 Journal of Law and Commerce (1995) 175-199 [181-183] [English summary of comments by Witz cited below]; Karollus, Cornell Review of the CISG (1995) 51 [58, 60, 66, 74-75] [comments on issues under Article 4, 29, 31 and 74 in the context of German case law on the CISG]; Herber in Schlechtriem, Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (Oxford 1998) [Art. 79 (preservation of right to claim performance even in event of force majeure)] 45 n.23; Schlechtriem, ibid, [Art. 29] 211 n.9,; Schwenzer, ibid, [Art. 35] 288 n.133; Kimbel, 18 Journal of Law and Commerce (1999) 301-331 (analysis of the remedy of Nachfrist citing this and other cases: 306 n.24, 321 n.83); Spanogle/Winship, International Sales Law: A Problem Oriented Coursebook (West 2000) [seller's obligation: delivery 164-187 (this case at 164-165)]; Bernstein & Lookofsky, Understanding the CISG in Europe, 2d ed., Kluwer (2003) § 2-6 n.63, n.76 & n.79; § 4-6 n.73; § 6-8 n.53
French: Witz, Les premières applications jurisprudentielles du droit uniforme de la vente internationale (L.G.D.J., Paris: 1995) 38-39 n.57, 82 n.10
German: Karollus, [österreichisches] Recht der Wirtschaft (öRdW) 1991, 319; Piltz, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1994, 1101 [1102 n.15, 1103 n.31]; Schlechtriem in von Caemmerer/Schlechtriem, Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht (2d ed. 1995) 254 n.9 [Art. 29]; Staudinger-Magnus (1994) Art. 4 No. 62, Art. 29 No. 8; Schlechtriem, Internationales UN-Kaufrecht (1996) 23 n.50, 99 n.100
Spanish: Piltz, La Ley (Buenos Aires: 5 September 1994) 1-4 n.11, n.20, n.25, n.26
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial
Law - Last updated June 27, 2003