|
||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| AFrench seller and a Dutch buyer concluded a contract for the sale - inter alia- of panels to be used for building. When the delivered goods remained unpaid the seller commenced an action to recover the purchase price. The buyer counterclaimed firstly that the action was time-barred. Secondly the buyer claimed damages caused by lack of conformity of the goods (defects on the panels' surface) and ask for postponement of payment of price until receiving payment the said damages by the seller. Alternatively, it asked for set-off with the seller's claim. The seller on its turn alleged that the buyer had not given notice of the lack of conformity within reasonable time. The Court held that the contract was governed by CISG as the parties had their places of business in contracting States (art. 1(1)(a) CISG). The Court held that CISG does not govern the question of time limitation (prescription). Therefore it solved the question on the basis of the applicable domestic law (French law). Concerning the lack of conformity, the Court ruled that it was up to the buyer to prove that the goods were non conforming and that it had given notice of lack of conformity within a reasonable time after discovering the defects (Arts. 38(1) and 39(1) CISG). The Court suspended its decision on the substance allowing the buyer time to bring evidence thereof. |