Data

Date:
31-01-1991
Country:
Germany
Number:
32 C 1074/90-91
Court:
Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main
Parties:
Unknown

Keywords

APPLICATION OF CISG - RULES OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW REFERRING TO LAW OF CONTRACTING STATE (ART. 1(1)(B) CISG)

DELIVERY OF GOODS CONDITIONAL UPON PAYMENT OF PRICE (ART. 58 CISG)

PERFORMANCE - SELLER'S RIGHT TO SUSPEND PERFORMANCE AFTER DISPATCH OF GOODS - NOTICE OF SUSPENSION MANDATORY (ART. 71(3) CISG)

DAMAGES (ART. 45(1)(B) CISG) - DAMAGES FOR DELAY IN PERFORMANCE

Abstract

On September 25, 1988 a German buyer and an Italian seller concluded a contract for the sale of shoes at the price of DM 10107,19. The parties agreed that the goods should be delivered at the buyer's place of business, at the seller's expense. They also agreed that the carrier would not deliver the goods to the buyer until the buyer had paid 40% of the price ('Leistung Zug um Zug' clause). The balance was to be paid within 60 days of delivery of the goods. The seller handed over the goods to the carrier together with an invoice for the amount of DM 10107,19. However, upon the seller's request, the carrier suspended delivery of the goods, which was resumed five months later, that is only when the buyer had paid 40% of the agreed price. Following delivery of the goods, the buyer, instead of paying the remaining 60% of the price, only paid DM 1000. The seller commenced legal proceedings claiming payment of the balance of the purchase price.

The court held that the contract was governed by CISG, as the German private international law rules led to the application of the law of Italy, a contracting State (Art. 1(1)(b) CISG).

The court dismissed the seller's claim. In accordance with Art. 71(3) CISG where a party suspends performance it must immediately give notice of the suspension to the other party. In this case the seller did not give notice to the buyer of its suspension and as such the buyer was entitled to recover damages pursuant to Art. 45(1)(b) CISG.

Fulltext

[...]

Aus den Gründen:

[...]

Dabei kann es dahinstehen, ob nach Absendung der Ware überhaupt tatsächlich begründete Zweifel an der Zahlungsfähigkeit der Bekl. [...] offenbar geworden sind, die u. U. zu einer Ausübung eines Anhalterechts hätten führen können, jedoch ist dieses Anhalterecht geknüpft an eine Informationspflicht nach Art. 71 Abs. 3 VNK. Damit war die Klägerseite verpflichtet, über etwaige Zweifel an der Zahlungsfähigkeit die Beklagtenseite zu benachrichtigen, wenn sie von ihrem Anhalterecht Gebrauch machen wollte. Entsprechende Mitteilungen sind von der Klägerseite nicht vorgetragen worden. Dies aber wäre Voraussetzung der berechtigten Ausübung eines Anhalterechts. Damit steht der Beklagtenseite ein Schadensersatzanspruch bezüglich des entgangenen Gewinns zu. [...].}}

Source

Published in German:
- Praxis des Internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax), 1991, 345
- Commented on by: E. Jayme, IPRax, 1991, 345}}