Keywords
Abstract
FullText
Sources
Print
Close
Abstract
Date: 31.05.2007
Country: Argentina
Number: 87484
Court: Camara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires - Sala A
Parties: Sr. Carlos Manuel del Corazón de Jesús Bravo Barros v. Salvador Martínez Gares
Citation: http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?id=1197
An Argentine buyer and a Chilean seller concluded a contract for the sale of a certain quantity of almonds. The seller delivered the goods through a carrier, but the buyer refused to pay the price, alleging that the almonds were not of the quality agreed by the parties. The seller sued the buyer claiming the payment.

The First Instance Court ruled in favor of the seller and the Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance decision.

As to the applicable law, the Court stated that CISG was applicable according to art. 1(1)(a) CISG and, in accordance with art. 7(2) CISG, matters not expressly settled by CISG or by its general principles, were subjected to the Argentine private international law rules.

As to the merits, the Court held that, according to arts. 38 and 39 CISG, the buyer was obliged to examine the goods and to give notice of lack of conformity to the seller within a reasonable period of time. Otherwise it had to pay for the goods.

In the case at hand, the buyer would have had the opportunity to be aware of the lack of conformity of the goods if it had done a previous inspection before the carriage. However, the buyer discovered the lack of conformity at the time of the arrival of the cargo and notwithstanding it did not make any formal complaint.

Moreover, the Court of Appeal decided that the buyer had lost its right to solve the contract since it had resold the goods to a third party, preventing a posterior inspection and the proof that the defective almonds the buyer had sold were the same delivered by the seller.

In order to determine the currency of the payment, the Court referred to Chilean law (law of place of performance) according to the private international law rules of the forum, since art. 54 CISG is silent with regard to this problem. Finally the Court held that the price had to be paid in US dollars as it was the currency agreed upon by the parties.