Germany 7 November 2001 Supreme Court (Apple juice concentrate case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011107g1.html]
DATE OF DECISION:
JURISDICTION:
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE(S):
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: VIII ZR 263/00
CASE NAME:
CASE HISTORY: 1st instance LG Rostock (6 O 51/98) 9 June 1999; 2d instance OLG Rostock (2 U 69/99) 30 August 2000
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: Denmark (plaintiff)
GOODS INVOLVED: Juice (Apple Concentrate)
APPLICATION OF CISG: Minimal mention of the CISG. Court merely states that it was unnecessary to scrutinize the trial court's interpretation of Article 57 (CISG). [Court had to determine the place of payment in a case in which the right to demand payment had been assigned to a third party.]
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue:
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
Descriptors:
CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable
(b) Other abstracts
Unavailable
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (German): Click here for the German text of this case ; See also cisg-online.ch <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/682.htm>
Translation: Unavailable
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
English: [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Art. 14 para. 13 Art. 57 para. 8
Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School
Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated August 9, 2005