Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Germany 11 July 1996 Appellate Court Düsseldorf (Lawn mower engines case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960711g1.html]

Primary source(s) for case presentation: Case text


Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19960711 (11 July 1996)

JURISDICTION: Germany

TRIBUNAL: OLG Düsseldorf [OLG = Oberlandesgericht = Provincial Court of Appeal]

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 6 U 152/95

CASE NAME: German case citations do not identify parties to proceedings

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance LG Düsseldorf 2 May 1995 [affirmed] [CISG overlooked]

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Germany (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Italy (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Engines for lawn mowers


Case abstract

GERMANY: OLG Düsseldorf 11 July 1996

Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 169

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

The German [seller] produces engines for lawn-mowers. The Italian [buyer] distributes these engines in Italy according to an exclusive distribution agreement with the [seller]. The [seller] demanded payment for delivered engines. Against this claim, the [buyer] set off a claim for damages caused by an alleged breach of the distribution agreement owing to [seller's] refusal to deliver further engines.

The appellate court held that the [seller] could demand payment under article 53 CISG but that a set-off was not possible. The appellate court distinguished between the distribution agreement as a framework contract and the separate sales contracts for the delivery of engines. The separate sales contracts were governed by the CISG. However, the CISG did not cover the distribution agreement, which was governed by the applicable law under conflict-of-laws rules. Under German conflict-of-laws rules, the distribution agreement in this case was governed by Italian law (article 7(2) CISG).

Similarly, the appellate court held that the set-off was not covered by the CISG since it arose from a distribution agreement and had to be determined by the applicable national law, which, in this case, was German law. However, according to German law, the [buyer] did not demonstrate that it had sustained damages. The appellate court also held that, under articles 61(1)(b) and 74 CISG, the [seller] could claim attorney's fees for a reminder that was sent prior to the lawsuit.

Go to Case Table of Contents


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(a)]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 4 ; 74 ; 78 [Also cited: Articles 7(2) ; 53 ; 61 ]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

4A ; 4B [Issues covered and excluded: Convention not applicable to distributorship agreement but applicable to contract of sale under distributorship agreement; Not applicable to set-off matter (governed by applicable domestic law)];

74A [General rules for measuring damages: includes costs for non-judicial request for payment];

78B [Interest on delay in receiving price: pursuant to Article 74, at rate seller actually charged for bank loans obtained after buyer's default]

Descriptors: Scope of Convention ; Distributorship agreements ; Set-off ; Damages ; Collection costs ; Interest ; Interest as element of damages

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

Go to Case Table of Contents


Citations to other abstracts, case texts and commentaries

CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=206&step=Abstract>

German: Schweizerisches Zeitschrift für Internationales und Europäisches Recht (SZIER) / Revue suisse de de droit international et de droit européen (1997) 139; Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht (EWiR) 1996, 843; Der Betrieb (DB) 1997, 323-324; [1997] Jahrbuch für Italienisches Recht (JbItR) 208

Polish: Hermanowski/Jastrzebski, Konwencja Narodow Zjednoczonych o umowach miedzynarodowej sprzedazy towarow (Konwencja wiedenska) - Komentarz (1997) 298-299

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (German): cisg-online.ch <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/201.htm> ; [1996] Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des internationalen Privatrechts im Jahre (IPRspr) No. 37 [85-88]; Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 1996, 958-960; Deutsche Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (DZWir) 1997, 71-81; Neue Juristische Wochenschrift - Rechtsprechungs-Report Zivilrecht (NJW-RR) 1997, 822-823; Wirtschaftsrechtliche Beratung (WiB) 1997, 149-151; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=206&step=FullText>

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Ferrari, International Legal Forum (4/1998) 138-255 [186 n.403, 226 n.792 (scope of CISG: applicability to sales under distribution agreement/set-off issues)]; Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales (1999) 54 [Art. 4 (scope of CISG: framework agreements)], 471 [Art. 78]; Thiele, 2 Vindobono Journal (1998) 3-35, citing this case [n.16] and 42 other interest rulings; Perales, 6:2 Vindobona Journal (2002) 217-228, n. 17 [set-off]; Larry A. DiMatteo et al., 34 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business (Winter 2004) 299-440 at nn.767, 872 (attorneys' fees allowed as damages); Article 78 and rate of interest: Mazzotta, Endless disagreement among commentators, much less among courts (2004) [citing this case and 275 other court and arbitral rulings]; [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Intro. 14-24 para. 7 Art. 74 para. 20

German: Aden, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (DZWir) 1997, 81-83; Kiel, Wirtschaftsrechtliche Beratung (WiB) 1997, 149-151; Piltz, [1999] Transportrecht, Beilage "Internationales Handelsrecht" (TranspR-IHR) 13 [15 n.21]; Schlechtriem, Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht (EWiR) 1996, 843-844

Go to Case Table of Contents
Case text (English translation) [second draft]

Queen Mary Case Translation Programme

Appellate Court (Oberlandesgericht) Düsseldorf

11 July 1996 [6 U 152/95]

Translation [*] by Kirstin Stadtländer [**]

[...]

FACTS

Plaintiff [Seller] is a company seated in Germany, namely in D., registered under the name T. E. GmbH & Co. KG, which produces among other things hydraulic engines for lawn-mowers under the product line "TORQMOTOR". Defendant [Buyer] is a company seated in M./Italy. In June 1992, Plaintiff [Seller] and Defendant [Buyer] concluded an exclusive distribution contract according to which [Buyer] was going to sell engines for lawn-mowers of the product line "TORQMOTOR" under its own name and on its own account. [Buyer] committed itself not to sell engines of other producers and [Seller] granted [Buyer] the sole sales right, but reserved for itself the right of direct selling of its product line in Italy, with [Buyer] receiving a commission of 5 % on direct sales. In the contract, a period for payment of 60 days from the date of invoice by [Buyer] was agreed upon. The parties agreed that the contract would be terminable within a notice period of six months to the end of each calendar year, for the first time to 31 December 1994. The contract was written in English - for the details of the contract, one may refer to the copy in the file (p. 11-13, translation p. 135-137). The contract refers to the "general conditions of delivery and payment" of [Seller] in so far as the conditions of delivery and warranty are concerned - a copy of these general conditions is in the file as well (p. 14).

During the period between 29 January 1993 and 2 April 1993, [Seller] delivered to [Buyer] a number of hydraulic lawn-mower engines. Thereon [Seller] issued eight invoices to [Buyer] (p. 15-22); [Seller] invoiced in total: Deutsche Mark [DM] 36,212.88.

Moreover, in the period between 19 January 1993 and 29 January 1993 [Seller] delivered additional engines and parts of engines to [Buyer], for which it issued seven invoices in the total amount of DM 36,013.00.

As [Buyer] did not pay at the agreed times for payment, [Seller] demanded payment from [Buyer] several times, among others by a writing of 8 July 1993 (p. 31) and by a writing of its legal counsel on 18 February 1994 (p. 36).

At a date at the end of March/beginning of April 1994 that cannot be exactly determined, [Buyer] paid the seven invoices mentioned above in the total amount of DM 36,013. The remaining invoices are claimed by [Seller] in this suit. [Seller] urges the court to order [Buyer] to pay to [Seller] DM 36,212.88 plus interest at the rate of 9 % for the period between 10 July 1993 to 3 September 1993; 8.25 % for the period between 4 September 1993 and 4 February 1994 and 7.5 % since 5 February 1994 and, in addition to that, the amount of DM 341.20.

A judgment by default was ordered against [Buyer] who was not present in the hearing, [Buyer] lodged a protest against that.

In the following proceedings, [Seller] seeks to have the Appellate Court uphold the judgment by default handed down by the District Court on 24 January 1995. Whereas [Buyer] seeks to have the Appellate Court reverse the judgment by default of 24 January 1995 and to reject the claim.

[Buyer] would set-off [Seller]'s claim against a claim of damages alleged by [Buyer], while not contesting [Seller]'s claim in general. [Buyer] alleges:

After [Seller]'s last invoice of 2 April 1993, [Seller] discontinued its deliveries to [Buyer]. [Seller] had suspended the product line "TORQMOTOR" and sold it to the company P.H. GmbH. Although P.H. GmbH informed by writing of 6 January 1993 (p. 82) that it wanted to continue the contract that was concluded between [Seller] and [Buyer] under the same conditions, this did not happen. On the contrary, [Buyer] could only purchase the products as a usual buyer, while P.H. GmbH did not grant [Buyer] the sole sales right. Due to this de facto termination of the contract by [Seller], [Buyer] suffered a loss of profit in the amount of Italian Lira [Itú] 139,209,071.40, which can be deduced from an estimated calculation of the profit [Buyer] made during the time of the delivery by [Seller]. This lost profit is now claimed from [Seller].

In contrast, [Seller] asserts that [Seller] sold the product line "TORQMOTOR" to P.H. GmbH and that P.H. GmbH now delivers to [Buyer] in the same way as [Seller] did before.

The District Court handed down a default judgment and thereby granted the [Seller]'s complete claim. As to the grounds for the decision, it elaborates that [Seller] was entitled to the price that was claimed and that [Buyer] could not set-off against it. The set-off against a counterclaim cannot be successful as [Buyer] failed to particularize that it suffered a loss of profit in the alleged amount due to the fact that [Seller] no longer delivered after 1 April 1993. Moreover, [Buyer] could not claim damages for the non-delivery as [Seller] had a right of retention against possible rights of delivery of [Buyer]. This is due to the fact that [Buyer] was in delay with the payment of the price.

[Buyer] challenges this decision with the present appeal. After [Buyer] first mainly asserted the lack of international jurisdiction of the German courts, it dropped this objection in the hearing before the Appellate Court, and now only puts forward objections relating to the merits of the case. In this respect, it asserts - while repeating, specifying and completing its assertions of the first instance - the following:

The judgment of the first instance cannot be upheld as the claim was extinguished by set-off against a claim for compensation. Concerning [Buyer]'s claim for damages, the assertions were sufficient in order to determine by estimate that [Buyer] suffered damages in at least the amount of the claim. Contrary to the opinion of the District Court, [Seller] did not have a right of retention. At least, [Seller] did not assert this right until the beginning of the court proceedings.

[Buyer] petitions to change the challenged judgment and to reject the [Seller]'s claim while setting aside the default judgment the District Court handed down on 24 January 1995.

[Seller] asks the court to reject the [Buyer]'s appeal. [Seller] repeats, specifies and completes its assertions of the first instance and defends the judgment of the District Court against the challenges of the appeal.

For the completion of the position at this stage of the proceedings, the Court refers to the memoranda that were exchanged by the parties and to the documents that were handed in to the file.

CONSIDERATIONS

The appeal of [Buyer] is admissible but unfounded.

The District Court was correct in deciding that [Buyer] was obliged to pay [Seller] the amount of DM 36,212.66 plus interest and the further amount of DM 341.20. [Buyer]'s appeal against this judgment is without success.

I. There is no doubt as to the admissibility of the [Seller]'s claim. In so far as [Buyer] asserts the objection of lack of international jurisdiction of the German courts for the first time in its grounds of appeal, [Buyer] explicitly dropped this objection in the hearing before the Appellate Court. [Buyer] also participated in the hearing before the Appellate Court without objection, after [Buyer] had already participated in the proceedings at the first instance without objection in a way that fulfils the requirements of Art. 18 European Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.

II. The claim is therefore admissible; it is also founded in its complete extension.

       1) Especially, [Seller] can claim from [Buyer] payment of the amount of DM 36,212.88 which is the main purpose of the [Seller]'s claim. Pursuant to Art. 53 CISG, [Seller] is entitled to that amount as payment of the price for the goods that were delivered by [Seller] in accordance with the contract and that were the subject of the eight invoices that [Seller] issued between 29 January 1993 and 2 April 1993 (p. 15-22).

             a) The provisions of the CISG must be applied to the contracts of sale on which the deliveries of the goods were based.

                   aa) Thereby it is fully appreciated that generally Italian law is applicable to the legal relations between the parties that were established by the contract of June 1992 (p. 11-13, translation p. 135-137). This results from the general principles of the German rules of international private law.

For a contract with relation to a foreign country - like here - the applicable law is mainly determined by a choice of law by the parties in accordance with Art. 27 EGBGB [8]. Such a choice of law was not made here. The contract that was concluded on the basis and with the content of the writing of [Seller] on 1 June 1992 does not contain an agreement about the law that should be applied to the contractual relationship. A clause of that content can only be found in the general conditions of delivery and payment by [Seller] (p. 14). However, this general clause of the conditions of delivery and payment was not validly included in the contract. According to the clear and unambiguous wording of the contractual agreement, the provisions of the general conditions of delivery and payment of [Seller] should only be valid in so far as the conditions of delivery and warranty are concerned ("for delivery and warranty conditions"). This means that the general conditions of delivery and payment of [Seller] are only partially - in so far as they were included in the contract concerning the provisions for delivery and warranty - applicable. The general provisions - which are concerned here - were not included.

Due to a lack of a choice of law by the parties, the law applicable to the contract of June 1992 must be determined by application of Art. 28 EGBGB [*]. According to that, a contract is subject to the law of the country to which it has the closest connection. Under Art. 28 EGBGB, it is assumed that the contract has the closest connection to the country in which the party that has to fulfil the characteristic duty of that contract has its residence or if it is - like here - a company, the country in which the company has its principal place of business.

The agreement between the parties of June 1992 constitutes a so-called exclusive distribution contract, which as a framework agreement entitles and obliges [Buyer] to sell the goods of [Seller] in its own name and on its own account in Italy as an appointed dealer (see BGHZ [*] 29, 83; BGHZ 34, 282, 285; BGHZ 54, 338, 340; BGHZ 74, 136, 140; Baumbach/Hopt, HGB [*], 29 ed. at section 373 Commercial Code, No. 13; Palandt/Thomas, Civil Code, 55 ed., section 675 Civil Code, No. 6). Concerning such a framework contract by which the appointed dealer is actually integrated into the organization of the selling by the producer, the duties of a commercial sales agent such as work on the market and the marketing strategy are generally most important (see BGH [*] NJW [*] 1958, 1138; BGH NJW 1979, 1782, 1783; Palandt/Thomas, see above; Baumbach/Hopt, see above, on section 373 Commercial Code, No. 13; Ulmer, The appointed dealer, 1969, p. 243 et. seq.). Consequently, the characteristic obligation of the framework agreement is to be fulfilled by the appointed dealer, so that the law of its principal place of business must be applied to the contract (see OLG [*] Hamm, NJW 1983, p. 523; MüKo/Martiny, Civil Code, 2nd ed, Art. 28 EGBGB, No. 159; Palandt/Heldrich, see above, Art. 28 EGBGB [*], No. 15; Staudinger/Firsching, Civil Code, 12nd ed., on Art. 12 EGBGB, No. 485; Baumbach/Hopt, see above, on section 373 Commercial Code, No. 19; Reithmann/Martiny/Kleinschmidt, International Contract Law, 4th ed., No. 777, 786; Ebenroth, RIW [*] 1984, 169; diverging opinion: Soergel/Kegel, Commercial Code, 12th ed., on Art. 7 EGBGB, No. 361). Concerning this contract that was concluded between the parties in June 1992, this leads to the application of Italian law, as [Buyer] as the appointed dealer has its seat in M./Italy.

                   bb) However, the same does not apply to the individual deliveries that were agreed for the fulfilment of the framework contract. Apart from the conditions of the framework contract, the contracts of sale on which these deliveries are based constitute legally independent contracts (see BGH [*] NJW [*] 1958, 1138; BGH [*] NJW 1968, 2286, 2287; BGHZ [*] 74, 136, 140; BGH NJW 1979, 1782, 1783; Baumbach/Hopt, see above, on section 373 Commercial Code, No. 13). With regard to the legal independence of these individual contracts, also the applicable law must be determined independently.

This leads to the result that, to the extent they are within the scope of application of the CISG, the individual contracts of sale are subject to the CISG (BGHZ [*] 74, 136, 140 = NJW 1979, 1782, 1783 (for EKG [*]); BGH NJW 1981, 1156 (for EKG); OLG Hamm NJW 1983, 523; MüKo/Martiny, see above Art. 28 EGBGB [*], No. 160) and in other cases, the law applicable to the respective contracts of sale must be determined according to Art. 28 EGBG. Contrary to an opinion that exists in the literature (see MüKo/Martiny, see above, Art. 28 EGBGB, No. 160), when doing this it must not generally be referred to the law that governs the framework contract; but the law must be applied that is determined by the characteristic duty of the respective contract (similar: BGH [*] NJW [*] 1972, 391). Such an independent linkage seems adequate as the character of the individual contract diverges despite the close connection of the two contracts in fundamental elements. In case of such a constellation, a special linkage is not unknown in German international private law. Art. 28 I 2 EGBGB explicitly states that if part of a contract can be separated from the rest of it and if this part of the contract has a closer connection to another country, the law of that other country can be applied as an exception. Thus, if the law itself provides the possibility to apply different laws to different parts of one contract, then this possibility must in any case be given if there are - like here - two contracts that are connected, but legally independent. Individual contracts of sale outside the scope of application of the CISG are generally subject to the law of the country in which the seller has its seat, as the seller fulfils the characteristic duty of that contract (see OLG Frankfurt/Main NJW 1991, 3102; OLG Köln, RIW 1993, 144; OLG Karlsruhe NJW RR 1993, 568; OLG Hamm RIW 1995, 54; Palandt/Heldrich, see above, Art. 28 EGBGB, No. 8; MüKo/Martiny, see above, Art. 28 EGBGB, No. 108; Staudinger/Firsching, see above, on Art. 12 EGBGB, No. 483; Soergel/Kegel, see above, on Art. 7 EGBGB, No. 369).

The application of these principles leads to the result that in the first line the provisions of the CISG must be applied in the present case. The seats of the parties are in Italy and Germany und therefore in different Contracting States to the CISG (Art. 1(1)(a), 100(2) CISG). While the Convention became effective on 1 January 1988 in Italy (see von Caemmerer/Schlechtriem, CISG, 2nd ed. Anh. I; MüKo/Martiny, see above, Anh II Art. 28 EGBGB [*], No. 2), in Germany it was only enforced by a ratifying law on 1 January 1991 (see announcement of 23 October 1990, BGBl [*] 1990, Part II, p. 1477).

             b) As to the substantive law, a set-off is subject to the law that governs the principal claim against which the set-off is made (see BGHZ [*] 38, 254, 256; BGH NJW 1994, 1413, 1416; OLG [*] Hamm, RIW [*] 1995, 55; Palandt/Heldrich, see above, Art. 32 EGBGB, No. 6; MüKo/Martiny, see above, Art. 32 EGBGB [*], No. 37). Therefore, in this case the law that governs the principle claim that is asserted by this court action is decisive, so that - as argued above - mainly the CISG and, as far as it does not contain a provision, German law is applicable. As the CISG does not provide any regulation concerning set-offs, the admissibility and the legal consequences of the set-off are not determined by the CISG, but by the applicable domestic law, in this case German law (OLG Koblenz RIW 1993, 934, 937; von Caemmerer/Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher, see above, Art. 78 CISG, No. 19; Piltz, International Law of Sales, section 2, No. 148).

             c) The declaration of set-off of [Buyer] which is to be considered according to section 387 et seq. German Civil Code, did not lead to the discharge of the claim of this court action. [Buyer] is not entitled to a claim of damages as it asserts as a cross-claim.

[Buyer] bases its cross-claim on the fact that [Seller] did not deliver to it any more after 2 April 1993. [Buyer] asserts that [Seller] sold the marketing of the "TORQMOTOR" product line to P.H. GmbH, which did not deliver to [Buyer] under the same circumstances as [Seller] did. This behavior of [Seller] is to be considered equal to an inopportune termination of contract and constitutes a violation of the exclusive distribution contract between the parties. Due to this, [Buyer] suffered a loss of profit in the marketing of the motors in an amount that exceeds the amount of this claim. With regard to the volume of trade and the profits of the sale of the motors through March 1993, a loss of profit of at least Itú 139,209,071.40 can be calculated for the period of time from 1 April 1993 until 31 December 1994.

On the basis of these facts, [Buyer] is not entitled to damages. It is not necessary to determine in detail whether under Italian law - which is applicable to the distribution contract due to the above mentioned principles - there is a provision granting compensation in a case like the present one and whether the requirements of such a provision are given. Most importantly, it can be left open whether [Seller] has actually committed a breach of contract. All this for the reason that a claim for compensation of [Buyer] fails due to factual reasons, as [Buyer] did not convincingly elaborate on the asserted loss of profit.

A loss of profit, as asserted by [Buyer], can only have taken place due to [Seller]'s behavior if [Buyer] did not have the possibility to get deliveries from P.H GmbH under the same conditions, or if such a continuation of the contractual relations was not acceptable for [Buyer]. [Buyer] who bears the burden of proof did not sufficiently elaborate on that. [Buyer] itself handed in the writing of P.H. GmbH from 6 January 1993 (p. 82) in which that company assured that it would continue all contracts that had been concluded with [Seller] under the same conditions. There are no sufficient hints that this intention was not practiced afterwards. Despite the disputing assertions of [Seller], [Buyer] does not explain why it could not use the possibility to get deliveries from P.H. GmbH. It does not even assert that it at least considered this possibility of receipt of deliveries, nor did it try to realize this possibility. Without such a consideration of this alternative possibility of delivery, it cannot be related to [Seller]'s behavior, but it must be related to [Buyer]'s behavior that the selling of the motors of the product line "TORQMOTOR" by [Buyer] was not continued after 1 April 1993. As a result [Buyer] did not conclusively show that it suffered a loss of profit of the alleged kind due to [Seller]'s behavior.

[Buyer]'s assertion that P.H. GmbH did not want to maintain the sole selling right of [Buyer] which was granted by [Seller] cannot change this result. Even if this was true, it cannot be concluded from this that [Buyer] suffered the alleged loss of profit.

       4) Concerning the amount of DM 36,212.88, [Seller] is also entitled to interest in the amount stated. This claim is based on Art. 61(1)(b) CISG in connection with Art. 74 CISG.

[Buyer] violated its obligation of payment by not paying the price of [Seller] mentioned at the beginning in the total amount of DM 36,212.88 at the time payment was due, 60 days after the respective date of invoice. [Buyer] is therefore obliged to compensate [Seller] for the damage caused by this, which is in this case [Seller] had to get credit in the amount of the outstanding price and had to pay interest on that. [Seller] proved that it raised the credit by its mother company and had to pay interest in the amount stated due to the non-fulfilment of [Buyer].

[...]


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, the Plaintiff-Appellee of Germany is referred to as [Seller] and the Defendant-Appellant of Italy is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the currency of Germany (Deutsche Mark) are indicated as [DM]; amounts in the currency of Italy (Italian Lira) are indicated as [Itú].

Translator's note on other abbreviations: BGB1 = Bundesgesetzblatt [German Law Gazette]; BGH = Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court of Germany]; BGHZ = Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen [Civil Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court of Germany]; EGBGB = Einführungsgesetzbuch zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche [German Code on Private International Law]; EKG = Einheitliches Gesetz über den Kauf von Gütern [1964 Hague Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods (ULIS)]; HGB = Handelsgesetzbnuch [German Commercial Code]; NJW = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [German law journal]; OLG = Oberlandesgeriacht [Regional Court of Appeal]; RIW = Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft [German law journal].

** Kirstin Stadtländer is a trainee lawyer at the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf. She obtained her law degree at Humboldt University Berlin and was a member of the team of Humboldt University at the 9th Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 2001/02 and a coach of the team at the 10th Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 2002/03.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated August 10, 2005
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography