Queen Mary Case Translation Programme
Court of Appeal Rostock (Oberlandesgericht)
27 July 1995 [1 U 274/94]
Facts
The [seller] requests from [buyer 1 and buyer 2] payment for a sale.
["Buyer 1" and "Buyer 2" are hereinafter referred to simply as the "buyer" unless indicated otherwise.]
The [seller] is a Danish company with its place of business in Odense, Denmark. The [buyer] operates a flower wholesale business […] in Parchim and a market stand in Rostock, Germany. In 1992, the [buyer] ordered goods from the [seller]. The [seller] delivered the goods to the [buyer]. The [seller] has sent to the [buyer] a total of four invoices. This concerns the following invoices:
[…]
Total amount: DM [Deutsche Mark] 19,260.
Pertaining to the invoice of 19 November 1992, the [seller] issued to the [buyer] a credit for DM 10,015.20 on 26 November 1992. The [seller] also granted the [buyer] another price reduction of DM 10 per tree, due to a complaint. As there were 480 trees, the price reduction amounted to DM 4,800 net; with 7% Value-Added-Tax included the price reduction was DM 5,163. The claim of the [seller] according to the invoice of 19 November 1992 was [….] DM 10,146.99.
By letters of 31 October 1992 and 30 November 1992, the [seller] sent to the [buyer] two statements of account showing the [seller's] claim. The [seller] then engaged the services of a debt collection agency to enforce the claim against the [buyer]. The [buyer] did not react to a reminder by the collection agency, dated 3 December 1992. The [seller] incurred costs for the services of the collection agency in the amount of DM 843.83. On 12 January 1994, the [buyer] paid to the [seller] DM 1,000 on the main claim.
The [seller] has stated that:
- It has a claim against the [buyer] in the amount of DM 15,283.99 on account of the deliveries;
- The [seller] seeks reimbursement of the expenses for the collection agency in the amount of DM 843.83; and
- The [seller] is constantly using bank credit at 12% interest, exceeding the claim.
[Seller] alleges that [buyers 1 and 2] are jointly and severally liable to pay DM 15,283.99 plus 12% interest since 1 December 1992 as well as an additional amount of DM 843.83.
[Buyers 1 and 2] have pleaded to dismiss the complaint. They have stated that the [seller] has assigned the claim. They acknowledge that they owe an amount of DM 11,537.19.
The Landgericht [Court of First Instance] of Schwerin has ordered [buyers 1 and 2], as jointly and severally liable debtors, to pay to the [seller] DM 15,283.99 plus 12% interest since 1 December 1992 as well as DM 843.83 minus DM 1,000 paid on 18 January 1994.
The Court of First Instance has reasoned that the claim of the [seller] is undisputed due to the deliveries of the goods. The Court of First Instance held that [buyer] also had to pay the costs for the services of the collection agency. To the extent that the [buyer's] brief of 28 June 1994 contained new facts, this brief was not to be taken into consideration according to § 296 a ZPO [*]. The [buyer] opposes that ruling with this permissible appeal. The [buyer] contends that the [seller] stated the claim incomprehensibly.
The [buyer] pleads to have the judgment remanded and the complaint dismissed.
The [seller] pleads to dismiss the appeal. The [seller] defends the first instance decision and points out that the [buyer] had acknowledged the claim in the amount of DM 11,537.19. The [buyer] had not revoked the acknowledgment.
Reasons for the decision
A. The appeal of the [buyer] is partly justified.
1. The [buyer] is obligated to pay the [seller] DM 9,146.99 in accordance with Art. 53 CISG.
a. The Convention is applicable according to Art. 1(1)(a) CISG. The Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States where these States are Contracting States. The [seller] has its place of business in Denmark, the [buyer] resides in the Federal Republic of Germany. Both countries have adopted the CISG (von Caemmerer/Schlechtriem, Appendix 1 to [...] CISG, 2nd ed.).
The Convention also applies according to Art. 1(1)(b) CISG. Pursuant to this provision, the Convention applies when parties who have their places of business in different States have concluded a contract for the sale of goods when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State.
According to Art. 28(1), (2) EGBGB [*], the law of Denmark would apply, as the [seller] who has to perform the characteristic contractual obligation has its place of business there. But Denmark has declared in the course of the ratification of the Convention, according to Art. 92(2) CISG, that Part II of the Convention is not binding on Denmark. Part II of the Convention, which consists of Arts. 14-24 CISG, regulates the formation of the sales contract. As these provisions do not apply here, according to Arts. 31(1); 28(1), (2) EGBGB, Danish law is to be applied.
b. According to §§ 1 -9 Aftl. (Aftaleloven [Law on Agreements and Other Legal Transactions on the Sector of Property Law]), a sales contract comes into existence by offer and acceptance (Handbuch des Kaufvertragsrechts in den EG-Staaten [Manual of the Sales Law in the EU-States], Graf-von-Westphalen-Steinrcke, Dänemark [ Denmark], Annotation 1-6).
The [seller] has stated its case sufficiently by presenting the invoices that the [buyer] has ordered goods from the [seller] and that the [buyer] accepted the order.
c. It is undisputed that the sales price was DM 10,146.99. This Court has taken into consideration the claims of the [buyer] according to Arts. 50, 51 CISG for a reduction in the sales price - the [seller] has credited the [buyer's] account, etc.
d. With the undisputed payment of DM 1,000 on the purchase price debt, the claim of the [seller] was partially satisfied. The remainder of [seller's] invoice claim is thus DM 9,146.99.
e. […]
2. In accordance with Art. 78 CISG, the [seller] can request from the [buyer] the payment of 7% interest on the purchase price debt since 1 December 1992.
The only prerequisite for the obligation to pay interest is that the purchase price is due (cf. von Caemmerer/Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher, op. cit., Art. 78, Annotation 9). According to Art. 58(1) CISG, the purchase price in the amount of DM 10,146.99 became due not later than 1 December 1992.
Due to the absence of a different regulation in the CISG, the interest rate is regulated by the national law to which the rules of the private international law refer (cf. von Caemmerer/Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher, op. cit., Art. 78, Annotations 26, 27). According to Art. 32(1) (No. 3) EGBGB [*], Danish law has to be applied. Under this law, the interest rate while in default amounts to 6% p.a. above the respective discount rate of the Danish National Bank (§§ 3, 5 Renteloven [Law on Interest]). The [seller] has not stated how high the discount rate of the Danish National Bank has been since 1 December 1992. The [seller] also did not prove that the claimed default damage of 12% occurred. The Court estimates that the discount rate of the Danish National Bank was at least 1%, so that a unified interest rate of 7% exists since 1 December 1992.
The [buyer] owed the [seller] DM 10,146.99 for the period from 1 December 1992 until 12 January 1994; DM 10,146.99 and 7% interest has to be paid on this amount. Since the partial payment of the purchase price on 12 January 1994, the obligation of the [buyer] amounts to DM 9,146.99, so that 7% interest has to be paid on the debt since 13 January 1994.
3. The [seller] cannot request reimbursement of the costs for the collection agency amounting to DM 843.83 according to § 30 Kbl (Lov om kob [Sales Law]). According to Art. 32(1) (No. 3) EGBGB [*], Danish law applies due to the default. The CISG does not contain a provision pertaining to the requested damages for the costs of the collection agency.
Under § 30 Kbl, the seller can request reimbursement of the damages suffered from the default (Handbuch des Kaufvertragsrechts in den EG-Staaten [Manual of the Sales Law in the EU-States], Graf-von-Westphalen-Steinrcke, Dänemark [Denmark], Annotation 111).The prerequisites of default are provided to § 28 Kbl: the [buyer] is in default if he does not pay the purchase price in time. As already stated elsewhere, the purchase price was due on 1 December 1992. But the [seller] can only request as damages those expenses which were necessary to enforce the claim. In the opinion of this Court, the use of a collection agency was not necessary. The [seller] contended at this time to have a main claim of DM 1,283.99. As the claim is now much lower, as is now undisputed, it was predictable that the [buyer] would not pay on the payment request of the collection agency.
B. The decision on the costs is based on § 92(1) ZPO [*]. The additional side decisions result from §§ 708 No. 10, 711, 713, 546(2) ZPO.
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]. There are two Defendant-Appellants of Germany, they are referred to simply as [buyer] unless indicated otherwise. Amounts in German currency (Deutsche Mark) are indicated as [DM].
Translator's note on other abbreviations: EGBGB = Einführungsgesetzbuch zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche [German Code on the Conflict of Laws]; ZPO = Zivilprozessordnung [German Civil Procedure Code].
Pace Law School
Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated December 5, 2005
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography