Case

Abstract

Date:	18.02.1997
Country:	Finland
Number:	S 95/1023
Court:	Court of Appeal, Turku
Parties:	Unknown

A German seller and a Finnish buyer concluded a contract in 1992 for the sale of animal food. Following the delivery in 1993 the seller sent an invoice on the total amount due to the buyer, but the purchase price remained unpaid by the buyer. Subsequently the seller filed a lawsuit against the buyer claiming payment of the purchase price.
The buyer submitted that it had declared the contract avoided even prior to the delivery as it had some problems with its new factory. Upon the delivery the buyer repeatedly declared the contract avoided and at the same time the buyer gave notice of fundamental delay of the delivery.

The seller submitted that the buyer had not declared any avoidance of the contract, and that the buyer had shown his acceptance of the delivery of the goods by arranging and paying for the transportation of the goods under the Ex works term.

The case was on appeal from the Lower Court (District Court of Turku, June 16 1995, case number S 94/4988).
The Appeal Court held in favour of the seller and found that buyer had to pay the full amount due according to the contract.
In reaching this conclusion the Court applied CISG on the contract (Art. 1 (1) (a) CISG).
The Court found that the delivery had been delayed. The usual reasonable time of delivery in this field of business was a maximum of 8 weeks, but in this case the time of delivery had amounted to 14 weeks.
In the Courts opinion however, this delay did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract as it did not substantially deprive the buyer of what he was entitled to expect under the contract (Art. 25 CISG). In this connection the Court took into consideration the quality of the goods and that the buyer was engaged in a wholesale business selling daily goods and that the delivery was delayed about 6 weeks.
The Court then held that the buyer had no grounds to declare the contract avoided as the delay did not amount to any fundamental breach of the contract (Art. 49 (1) (a) CISG). It was then of no relevance to the case to assess the question of whether or not the buyer had declared the contract avoided.