Spain 3 March 1997 Supreme Court (Tana v. Naviera del O. v. Iberica)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970303s4.html]
Primary source(s) for this case presentation: Pilar Perales Viscasillas; text of case
DATE OF DECISION:
JURISDICTION:
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE (S):
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 3.766
CASE NAME:
CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Juzgado de Primera Instancia [JPI] No. 18 (Madrid) 20 February 1990 [affirmed]; 2d instance Audiencia Provincial [AP] Secc. 21 (Madrid) 12 January 1993 (838/1993) [affirmed]
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Spain (plaintiff)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: U.S.A. [defendant was the transportation company, not the buyer (Affiliated Food Corporation (EEUU))]
GOODS INVOLVED: Lemons
Spain: Tribunal Suprema 3 March 1997
Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 188 Reproduced with permission from UNCITRAL Prior to 1990, a Spanish company, the seller, concluded with a USA company, the buyer, successive FOB contracts for the sale of lemons.
As a consequence of the breach by the buyer of its duty to pay the purchase price agreed upon, the seller made a series of joint claims for the unpaid amounts against the buyer and the sea carrier, which had been charged with the transportation of the goods.
The court noted that the CISG did not become part of Spanish law until after the dispute arose between the parties. Accordingly and in view of the interpretation of articles 99(2) and 100(2) CISG, the court held that the CISG was not applicable to the dispute, which arose from a contract for the sale of goods concluded prior to the entry into force of the CISG in Spain. APPLICATION OF CISG: No [Article 100]
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue: Article Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
Descriptors: EDITOR: Pilar Perales Viscasillas
The CISG was held inapplicable as the contract was concluded
prior to its effective date. The sole references to the CISG in
the opinion read:
"Denuncia la recurrente (art. 1692.4 LEC) la infracción
por interpretación errónea de los arts. 338 y 339 CCom. en
relación con la Convención de Viena a la que España se ha
adherido por instrumento publicado en el BOE De 30 Ene. 1991 . .
.
Mas las pretendidas infracciones que se arguyen no
resultan atendibles, ya que excluida la invocada Convención de
Viena, que no se integró en el ordenamiento jurídico español
(art. 1.5 CC) hasta el día 30 Ene. 1991, es decir, con
posterioridad al nacimiento de la relación jurídica litigiosa .
. ."
CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=242&step=Abstract>
Spanish: CISG-Spain and Latin America database at http://www.uc3m.es/cisg/respan1.htm
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (Spanish): CISG-Spain and Latin America database at http://www.uc3m.es/cisg/sespan1.htm; [1997] Aranzadi No. 1638; [1997] 13 Revista de la Corte Española de arbitrage 259-264; La Ley (7 April 1997) 9-12; Unilex database [excerpt] <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=242&step=FullText>
Translation: Unavailable
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
Spanish: Illescas, Derecho de los Negocios (June 1997) 87-89; Martínez Cañellas, in: Michael R. Will ed., Rudolf Meyer zum Abschied: Dialog Deutschland-Schweiz VII (1999), 165-183 n.28
Case 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 September 3, 2002