|
||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| A Swiss couple consulted an Austrian kitchen manufacturing company in order to buy a fitted kitchen of a specific brand. Even if the seller was aware of the fact the buyers were only interested in a kitchen of that specific brand, it delivered a fitted kitchen manufactured by its own firm. A dispute arose when, few days after delivery, the buyers realized that the kitchen was not of the expected brand; therefore, they asked the seller to take back the kitchen against reimbursement of the deposit paid. The seller objected and brought an action against the buyers to recover the outstanding purchase price.
Both the First and the Second Instance Courts dismissed the seller’s claim. The Supreme Court confirmed the Appellate Court decision. In doing so, the Supreme Court held that the lower Court had appropriately established that the contract was governed by CISG, since both parties had their place of business in Contracting States. The fact that the buyers intended to purchase the kitchen for their family use was not taken into consideration by the Court. As to the merits, the Court ruled that no contract has beewn validly concluded because the parties were in disagreement as to the exact nature of the goods to be sold. Yet even assuming that a valid contract was concluded, the buyers were entitled to set it aside on the ground of a mistake on their part in accordance with the domestic law governing defects of consent. |