|
||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| A sales contract was concluded between a Finnish manufacturer of industrial equipment and a Swiss buyer. The seller commenced an action to recover a remaining part of the price. The buyer denied that the Cantonal Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Court stated that CISG was applicable, even though the contract had been concluded before the entry into force of CISG in Switzerland as the applicable rules of private international law led to Finnish law (Art. 1(1)(b) CISG). Moreover the Court decided that CISG was applicable as the seller was obliged to supply goods to be manufactured or produced according to Art. 3(1) CISG. Moreover the supply of labour and other services was not a preponderant part of the seller's obligations (Art. 3(2) CISG). In order to establish jurisdiction, the Cantonal court had to decide whether CISG was to be considered federal Swiss law and so falling within the jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court, or as foreign law. The Court stated that from a formal point of view CISG was applicable as foreign law, because the applicable rule of private international law led to Finnish law (Art. 1(1)(b) CISG). However the Court considered also that CISG, as international substantive law, was also part of Swiss federal law at the time the decision was rendered. Considering this fact, the Court decided that an appeal to the Swiss Federal Court should be possible in order to guarantee a uniform and autonomous interpretation of CISG. |