|
||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| An Italian seller and a German buyer concluded a contract for the sale of socks. The contract was written in Italian. The seller assigned to a bank the right for payment of price. The seller notified the assignment to the buyer, with a document written in English and French. The buyer did not pay the price to the bank. The bank commenced action against the buyer claiming payment of price.
The Court held that CISG was applicable according to Art. 1(1)(a), as the parties to the sales contract had their places of business in two different contracting States. The Court further held that payment of price was due according to Art. 53 CISG. As regards the validity of the assignment of the seller's right to the bank, the Court found that this was a matter falling outside the scope of CISG, according to Art. 4, and to be decided under the domestic law otherwise applicable to the contract (in this case Italian law). The Court found that the assignment was valid under Italian law, as it had been notified to the buyer. As to the question of whether a notice written in a language other than the language in which the contract was made or than the language of the addressee was effective, the Court held it was to be decided taking into account the understanding of a reasonable person, giving due consideration to usages and practices observed in international trade, according to Art. 8(2) and Art. 8(3) CISG. The mere fact that a notice was given in a language which was not that of the contract or that of the addressee was not an obstacle for the notice to be effective. The foreign language could be the language normally used in the respective trade sector, to which the parties may be considered to have agreed upon; and even when this was not the case, the notice would be effective if the debtor, as it was true in the case at hand, could have reasonably been expected to request from the sender of the notice explanations or a translation. The Court held that the bank was entitled to recover interest on the price, according to Art. 78 CISG. The Court further held that, as CISG does not determine the interest rate, the bank was entitled, according to German rules of private international law, to an interest rate of 10%, this being the Italian statutory rate. |