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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Austria 26 April 2002 Appellate Court Innsbruck (Tapping equipment case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020426a3.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: UNCITRAL abstract

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20020426 (26 April 2002)

JURISDICTION: Austria

TRIBUNAL: Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Innsbruck

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 4 R 58/02i

CASE NAME: Austrian case citations do not generally identify parties to proceedings

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Austria

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany

GOODS INVOLVED: Tapping equipment for restaurant


Case abstract

AUSTRIA: Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck 26 April 2002

Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 538

Reproduced with permission from UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by Martin Adensamer, National Correspondent

An Austrian seller accepted an order to produce, deliver and set up tapping equipment at a restaurant in Germany. The equipment became operational in May 1996. Two months later the buyer informed the seller that it was not working properly, but a more specific notice of non-compliance was given only in December 1996, while alleged earlier notices of non-compliance given by telephone were not supported by sufficient evidence in court.

The Court of Appeal stated that under article 39(1) CISG the notice of noncompliance should be given within 14 days, unless special circumstances require otherwise. The Court also stated a number of principles on the examination of the goods. According to the Court, the examination should be carried out with the goal to get expeditely a clear picture, but experts may be consulted if the defects may not be discovered otherwise. Moreover, the burden of proof on the timeliness and sufficient specification of the notice of non-conformity lies with the buyer. Finally, though the requirements of the notice should not be too burdensome for the buyer, they should allow for an adequate redress action by the seller.

In the case, the Court of Appeal found that the buyer had failed to give proof that he had given sufficient notice of non-conformity within the time limit, and therefore held him liable to pay the full price.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 38 ; 39

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

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 (German): Unavailable

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated February 15, 2006
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography