- Russian Federation
- Tribunal of Int'l Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce
PRESERVATION OF GOODS - BUYER'S UNLAWFUL REFUSAL TO TAKE DELIVERY - SELLER'S DUTY TO PRESERVE AND DEPOSIT THE GOODS IN A WAREHOUSE (ARTS. 85 AND 87 CISG)
PRESERVATION OF GOODS - SELLER'S RIGHT TO SELL THE GOODS (ART. 88 CISG) - REASONABLE STORAGE COSTS AND OTHER EXPENSES NECESSARY TO ENSURE SUBSTITUTE SALE OF THE GOODS RECOVERABLE
DAMAGES - SUBSTITUTE SALE - DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTRACT PRICE AND PRICE IN THE SUBSTITUTE SALE
The contract concluded in March 1991 provided for the delivery of fifty trucks by the end of 1991. In November 1991 the seller began making deliveries. On December 3, 1991 the seller received the buyer's telex message asking it to stop deliveries until further notice. In April 1992 the buyer informed the seller that it would take no further deliveries of the trucks from the seller and declared the contract terminated. The seller requested the Tribunal to order the buyer to pay damages for the loss sustained by the seller as a result of the buyer's unlawful actions including the cost of storing the trucks and the expenses incurred in connection with servicing them while in storage.
The Tribunal held that since the contract provided that the time of delivery extended to the end of 1991, the seller had the right to start making deliveries in November 1991. The telex message to stop deliveries had been sent on December 3, 1991 after deliveries had already started. In accordance with Arts 85 and 87 CISG, since the buyer unlawfully refused to take delivery of the goods the seller was entitled to take such steps as were reasonable in the circumstances to preserve the goods and deposit them in a warehouse. Under Art. 88 CISG the seller was entitled to sell the goods at the market price.
The Tribunal held that the seller was entitled to be awarded: the difference between the contract price of the trucks and their market price when they were sold to the third party; the storage costs, since they were found to be reasonable; the expenses relating to the servicing of the trucks during storage, since the trucks could not have been resold on the market if this service had not been provided.
[Not yet available]}}
Original in Russian:
A.S. Komarov, President of the Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce, Moscow}}