Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Denmark 4 December 2000 Eastern Appellate Court Copenhagen (Steam plant case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001204d1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: CISG Nordic website

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20001204 (4 December 2000)

JURISDICTION: Denmark

TRIBUNAL: Østre Landret [Appellate Court] København (ØLK)

JUDGE(S): Black, Hedegaard Madsen, Britt F. Klitgaard

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: U.2001.713Ø

CASE NAME: BJR Trading v. Ekasa GmbH

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Roskilde Rets Kendelse 4 April 2000

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Denmark

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany

GOODS INVOLVED: Steam plant


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: The court applied the CISG even though the CISG is not the substantive law of the case.

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 3 ; 57(1)(a)

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

EDITOR: Camilla Baasch Andersen

The case concerns the application of the CISG to the "place of payment" criterion in the Brussels Convention (1968 EC Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Decisions in Civil and Commercial Matters). The case is one of many using Article 57(1) CISG to determine the place of payment in accordance with the jurisdictional rule in Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention, and according to this provision, the buyer was obliged to pay the purchase price at the seller's place of business, since no other agreement on payment was made between the parties. On this basis, the Danish courts had jurisdiction.

What is curious in this case is that, as it concerns the leasing of a steam Plant, the subject matter is in fact outside the scope of the CISG, but the court uses the CISG to determine place of payment regardless of this -- almost as a general principle, but without acknowledging this. The subtantive isues are settled according to Danish law as appointed by the Rome Convention. In its application of 57(1), the court makes a curious reference to Article 3 not precluding the use of this provision of the CISG in this case, but does not explain why as the CISG is clearly not the substantive law of the case.

Go to Case Table of Contents


Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=765&step=Abstract>

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Danish): CISG Nordic website <http://www.cisgnordic.net/001204DK.shtml>; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=765&step=FullText>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Larry A. DiMatteo et al., 34 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business (Winter 2004) 299-440 at n.441

German: Fogt, 23 Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts [IPRax], no. 4 (July/August 2003) 364-269

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated October 1, 2013
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography