CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Netherlands 7 November 1997 Supreme Court (J.T. Schuermans v. Boomsma Distilleerderij/Wijnkoperij)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971107n1.html]

Case Table of Contents

• Case identification
• Classification of issues present
• Editorial remarks
• Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries
• Guide to links contained in case presentations

Case identification

DATE OF DECISIONS: 19971107 (7 November 1997)

JURISDICTION: Netherlands

TRIBUNAL: Hoge Raad [Supreme Court]

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 16.436

CASE NAME: J.T. Schuermans v. Boomsma Distilleerderij/Wijnkoperij BV

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Rb Leeuwarden 11 August 1994; Hof Leeuwarden 5 June 1996 [affirmed]

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Netherlands (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Russia [Belgian tradesman with place of business in Russian Federation] (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Vodka

Classification of issues present

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

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 1(1)(b) ; 8(1) and 8(2) ; 9 ; 12 ; 14 ; 96 [Also relevant: Article 11 ]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

1B2 [Basic rules of applicability: private international law points to Contracting State];

8A ; 8B [Intent of party making statement or engaging in conduct; Interpretation based on objective standards];

9C [Practices established by the parties];

12A [Effect of reservation under Article 96 rejecting Article 11];

14A [Criteria for an offer]

Descriptors: Applicability ; Formal requirements ; Offers ; Intent ; Usages and practices ; Declaration, Art. 96

Editorial remarks

• Unavailable

Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=333&step=Abstract>

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Dutch): Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 1998 No. 91 [100-102]; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=333&step=FullText>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Larry A. DiMatteo et al., 34 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business (Winter 2004) 299-440 at n.327 ("court found that a contract based on an oral offer was valid despite the fact that one of the parties had its place of business in the Russian Federation, a state which had made an Article 96 declaration, because the private international law of the forum pointed to the law of the Netherlands, which required the court to apply the CISG as adopted by the Netherlands"); [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Art. 8 para. 60; Schwenzer & Fountoulakis ed., International Sales Law, Routledge-Cavendish (2007) at p. 114