|
||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| A Spanish seller and a German buyer concluded a contract for the sale of goods with an “ex-factory Caravaca” clause, making reference to the Spanish location where the seller had its place of business.
The buyer did not take delivery of the goods. As the seller commenced action before the Spanish court of its place of business for payment of damages due to the buyer’s breach of contract, the buyer objected to the court’s jurisdiction to deal with the case. The buyer alleged the non-existence of the contract and consequently the jurisdiction of German courts, as the competent courts of the defendant’s place of business, according to Art. 5.1 of Brussels Convention of 1968. The court held that the contract existed and that CISG was applicable in the case at hand as the parties had their place of business in different contracting States. The court also held that according to the “ex factory Caravaca” clause and Art. 31(a) CISG the delivery should have taken place in the place of the handing over of the goods to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer. It therefore affirmed the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts. |