Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

United States 29 March 2002 Federal District Court [New York] (TeeVee Toons v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020329u1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20020329 (29 March 2002)

JURISDICTION: United States [federal court]

TRIBUNAL: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York [federal court of 1st instance]

JUDGE(S): Casey

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 00 CIV. 5189 (RCC)

CASE NAME: TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH

CASE HISTORY: See futher proceeding at U.S. District Court, New York 23 August 2006

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: United States (plaintiff)

GOODS INVOLVED: Packaging system


Case abstract

UNITED STATES: Federal District Court for Southern District of New York, 28 March 2002
(TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH)

Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 615

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by Peter Winship, National Correspondent

The issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant should be dismissed before trial on the ground that there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The plaintiff, a corporation with its place of business in the United States, held a U.S. patent on packaging ("Biobox") for audio and video cassettes. The defendant, a German company with its place of business in Germany, entered into contract for the design and construction of a machine to manufacture the Biobox for the plaintiff. The plaintiff negotiated the contract with the exclusive agent of the defendant. The defendant delivered the machine almost two years after the agreed delivery date and the machine failed to meet the expected production rate. The plaintiff terminated the project and brought suit against the defendant (but not its exclusive agent) for failure to deliver conforming goods as required by the CISG.

The defendant brought a motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on the following grounds: that the defendant was not a party to the contract concluded by its exclusive agent, that the agent had not been joined in the action and was a necessary party to it, and forum non conveniens.

The district court denied the motion, because the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to suggest that the representative was either the actual or apparent agent of the defendant, creating contractual liability for the manufacturer. The court also concluded that the exclusive agent was not a necessary party to the litigation, and that it had authority over the parties (personal jurisdiction), based on the representative's contacts with the forum state as an agent for the defendant.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: [-]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 35

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

EDITOR: Albert H. Kritzer

The references to the CISG in this opinion are:

"[Buyers] bring this action against defendant [seller] claiming that [seller] improperly manufactured a packaging system commissioned by [buyers]. [Buyers] seek damages for fraudulent inducement and negligence, as well as for [seller]'s alleged failure to conform the system to the parties' contract terms and to fulfill its guarantee of fitness, as required by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ('CISG'), 15 U.S.C. App. ...

[...]

"[Seller] contends that [buyers]' contract claims under the CISG must be dismissed because 1995 Quotation, by its own terms, demonstrates that [a third party], not [seller] was the contracting party. [Seller] further disclaims any agency relationship with [the third party], arguing that [the third party] lacked the authority to bind [seller] to an agreement with [buyers]."

The court ruled:

"Dismissal is not appropriate at this stage of the litigation. [Buyers] have pled sufficient facts to suggest that, if true, [the third party] was either the actual or apparent agent of [seller] so as to create contractual liability for the principal. ..."

Go to Case Table of Contents


Citations to other abstracts, case texts and commentaries

CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (English): 2002 WL 498627 (S.D.N.Y.)

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated August 31, 2006
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography