|
||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| A French seller and a Spanish buyer concluded several contracts for the sale of maize. All the goods were delivered, but the buyer did not pay the whole price. The seller commenced an action against the buyer before a French Court, claiming payment of price as well as interest. At first instance the Court, without applying CISG, ordered the buyer to pay the full price but held that the seller was not entitled to interest.
The buyer appealed, arguing that the French Court did not have jurisdiction. The appellate Court applied Art. 5(1) of the EC Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels 1968), under which a person domiciled in a Contracting State [i.e. the buyer] may be sued in the Court for the place of performance of the obligation in question (payment of price). The Court applied CISG to determine the place of payment of the price as at the time of the conclusion of the contract the parties had their places of business in contracting States (Spain and France) (Art. 1(1)(a) CISG). The Court left open the question whether Art. 57(1)(a) or (b) CISG applied, as in both cases it would have jurisdiction. According to Art. 57(1)(a) CISG, in absence of an agreement to the contrary, the price has to be paid at the seller's place of business. If the parties had agreed instead that payment should be made against the handing over of the goods (Art. 57(1)(b) CISG), the obligation to deliver the goods was to be executed at the place of business of the seller or by handing the goods over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer (Art. 31(a) and (c) CISG). So, in both cases, the price had to be paid within the sphere of jurisdiction of the Court. The seller was awarded the purchase price plus interest, accruing from the date when payment was due. The Court observed that the duty to pay interest for the delay in payment is not conditional on a formal request by the seller. |