CISG CASE PRESENTATION

ICC Arbitration Case No. 8908 of December 1998 (Pipes case) [English text]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/988908i1.html]

• 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 DECISION: 19981200 (December 1998)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; ICC

TRIBUNAL: Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 8908 of December 1998

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Italy (respondent)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Liechtenstein (claimant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Pipes

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes. For the supply of goods aspect of the transaction, in choosing Italian law the parties thereby chose the CISG, which is part of that legal system. [Article 1(1)(b)]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 18 ; 19 ; 78

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

19A ; 19B [Acceptance with modifications];

78B [Rate of interest]

Descriptors: Acceptance of offer ; Interest

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

• Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

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=401&step=Abstract>

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (English): ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 10/No. 2 (1999) 83-87; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=401&step=FullText>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: van Houtte, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 11/No. 2 (Fall 2000) 25 n.30 [choice of law], 26 n.39 [CISG and complementary national law], 27 n.42 ["a distribution relationship did not come under the CISG, although the sales performed within its framework did], 27 n.44 ["[W]here the issue of counter-offers to a contract to settle a sales dispute was at stake, the arbitrators referred to Art. 19 of the CISG relating to counter-offers, considering the CISG, along with the Unidroit Principles . . . to be 'normative texts that can be considered helpful in the interpretation of all contracts of an international nature'."]; Liu Chengwei, Recovery of interest (November 2003) nn.82, 228