CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Russia 2 November 2010 Supreme Arbitration Court (or Presidium of Supreme Arbitration Court) of the Russian Federation
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/101102r1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: UNCITRAL case abstract

Case Table of Contents

Case identification
UNCITRAL abstract
Classification of issues present
Editorial remarks
Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

Guide to links contained in case presentations

Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20101102 (2 November 2010)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; Russian Federation

TRIBUNAL: Vysshi Arbitrazhnyi Sud Rossyiskoi Federatsii [High Arbitration Court (or Presidium of Supreme Arbitration Court) of the Russian Federation]

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: VAS-9900/10

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Spain

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Russia

GOODS INVOLVED: Ceramic tiles

UNCITRAL case abstract

RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Judicial Division of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation (VAS)
Case No. VAS-9900/10 of 2 November 2010

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/113],
CLOUT abstract no. 1107

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by A. S. Komarov, National Correspondent, A. I. Muranov and N. S. Karetnaya

A Spanish seller sued a Russian buyer, claiming compensation for moneys owed and interest for the respondent's failure to pay in full for goods supplied (raw materials for the manufacture of ceramic floor tiles). The goods were supplied in separate, one-off, duly documented deliveries, for which the respondent sent the plaintiff an order for a specified quantity, and the plaintiff sent the respondent an invoice and a request for payment for the goods shipped in fulfilment of the order.

The plaintiff's claims were upheld in part, and that decision was confirmed by the higher courts.

The respondent, claiming that the courts had incorrectly applied the substantive law, submitted a complaint to the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, which upheld the decisions, on the following grounds.

The courts did not accept the respondent's argument that the contract was invalid because it had not been submitted in writing, since the case file contained both bills of lading showing that goods had been accepted for transport by sea and customs freight declarations, which proved that the goods had been delivered to the respondent's address and that the respondent had paid part of the price for them.

The respondent's proposal included a specification of the goods and their quantity, which meets the requirements of article 14 CISG for a proposal for concluding a contract. The price was shown in the invoices submitted by the plaintiff, which must be considered as a counter-offer. The goods were delivered under an international transportation agreement and documented in a bill of lading, in which the respondent was shown as the receiver of the goods. Taking delivery of goods was an action which implied that a contract had been concluded. This view is supported by article 18(1) CISG, which states that a statement made by or other conduct of the offeree indicating assent to an offer is an acceptance.

Go to Case Table of Contents