|
||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| A United States seller and a Spanish buyer concluded a contract for the sale and purchase of office water dispensers, for a price of 59.878,85 Pounds Sterling. The goods were delivered and the price was not paid by the buyer. The seller commenced action in order to obtain the payment of the contract price of the goods. The buyer brought then a cross-action alleging the lack of conformity of the goods, also alleging that costly repairs were necessary as a consequence of the lack of conformity.
The Court found that the goods were delivered in the autumn of 1997, that the agreed price was not paid, and that the buyer, who had the possibility to examine the goods, had never notified the seller about the lack of conformity of goods until the seller's judicial action to obtain the payment of the price for the goods, in may1998. In the opinion of the Court, according to Art. 36.2 CISG the Seller is liable for any lack of conformity of the goods, including in this liability the non-performance of the seller's obligation to guarantee the lack of defects in the goods sold. The Court then held that the cross-action brought by the buyer was to be rejected, as the buyer had never requested the seller to perform its obligations to guarantee the lack of conformity, and as the buyer should anyway have notified the seller about the defects of the goods instead of repairing them without the seller's knowledge.. The Court also observed that according to Art. 46.3 CISG the buyer may ask the seller to repair the goods, provided a notification is made within a reasonable term after the lack of conformity is discovered. The Court finally held that the lapse of time between the alleged discovery of the lack of conformity in autumn 1997 and the judicial cross-action in may 1998 was not reasonable, and condemned the buyer to pay the price of the goods. |