Germany 22 September 1995 Appellate Court München (Forklifts case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950922g1.html]
Primary source(s) for case presentation: UNCITRAL abstract ; Unilex abstract
DATE OF DECISION:
JURISDICTION:
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE(S):
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 23 U 3750/95
CASE NAME:
CASE HISTORY: 1st instance LG Landshut 10 May 1995 [affirming]
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Germany (plaintiff)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: France (defendant)
GOODS INVOLVED: Forklifts
GERMANY: Oberlandesgericht München 22 September 1995 Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 286 Reproduced with permission from UNCITRAL A German manufacturer of fork lifts, plaintiff, brought an action for a declaratory judgment that the
French buyer, defendant, had no right to distribute the manufacturer's fork lifts in France. The buyer
argued that it had the right to do so according to an exclusive distribution contract between the
parties. The court of first instance allowed the manufacturer's claim. On appeal, the buyer objected
to the jurisdiction of the German court. The appellate court held that it had jurisdiction. Under article 5(1) of the European Communities
Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters,
jurisdiction is based on the place of performance of the contract and, in this case, the place of
performance was the manufacturer's place of business in Germany (articles 31(a), 31(b) and 57(1)
CISG). The court found that the CISG was applicable even though, in general, the CISG applies to contracts
of sale and not to agency contracts. In this case, although the dispute was not over a contract of sale,
the question for determination was whether the manufacturer was obliged to deliver the goods to the
buyer. Such an obligation does not only provide the other party with the right to distribute the goods,
it also includes the general obligation by the manufacturer to supply the goods to the other party under
certain conditions. This general obligation to supply goods constitutes the basis for future contracts
of sale. Therefore, the question of whether or not such an obligation exists must be answered
according to the Convention (article 1(1) CISG). As the buyer had failed to provide particulars as to
the alleged exclusivity arrangement, the manufacturer's claim was allowed. 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: 57A [Place for payment: in absence of agreement, payment at seller's place of business] Descriptors: CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=221&step=Abstract>
German: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Internationales und Europäisches Recht (SZIER) / Revue Suisse de droit international et de droit européen (1997) 138-139
Italian: [1998] Diritto del Commercio Internazionale 1089 No. 192
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (German): cisg-online.ch <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/208.htm>; Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 1996, 1035-1036; Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des internationalen Privatrechts im Jahre (IPRspr) 1995 No. 152 [307-308]; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=221&step=FullText>
Translation: Unavailable CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
English: [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Art. 1 para. 16a Intro. 14-24 para. 7 German: Klima, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 1996, 1036Case abstract
Classification of issues present
Editorial remarks
Citations to other abstracts, case texts and commentaries
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated August 11, 2005