In 1994, a New York corporation entered into a written agreement with an Italian wine producer granting the former the exclusive right to import the wine produced by the latter in the United States. In 2008, after having received numerous complaints from its customers concerning the bad quality of the wine supplied by the Italian producer, the U.S. importer claimed damages in the amount of $1.7 million. In response, the Italian wine producer terminated the importation agreement and initiated a lawsuit against the U.S. importer in Italy. The latter rebutted by bringing suit against the Italian company in the U.S.
The Italian company sought dismissal of the complaint before the US Court basing its defence upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In analyzing the private and public factors necessary for a dismissal based upon such a doctrine to be declared, the Court addressed the issue of the applicability of the CISG raised by the Italian defendant. The argument brought by the wine producer was that the CISG, and not New York substantive law, should have governed the parties’ dispute in view of the fact that, according to the defendant, the U.S. Court would have had difficulties in dealing with the CISG as foreign law. Without addressing the issue as to whether CISG was to be treated as foreign law, the Court rejected the Italian party's argument by citing US case law related to the Convention, which in Court's view demonstrated that "Federal Courts (...) have had little difficulty in interpreting and applying the CISG". Having excluded the presence of the other factors necessary for a claim based upon forum non conveniens doctrine to be successful, the Court dismissed the Italian producer's action. |