Germany 11 June 2003 District Court Hannover (Commercial vehicle case) [translation available (excerpt)]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030611g1.html]
DATE OF DECISION:
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 11 O 3236/00
CASE HISTORY: 2d instance OLG Celle 10 March 2004 [affirming in major part]
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: Poland (plaintiff)
GOODS INVOLVED: Commercial vehicle (three-axle semi-trailer)
APPLICATION OF CISG: The presentation of this case is purely to shed added light on the facts as the CISG was not mentioned in this 11 June 2002 opinion of the Court of First Instance. The CISG is, however, ruled upon in the appellate opinion of 10 March 2004.
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue:
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable
(b) Other abstracts
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (German): Unavailable
Translation (English): Text presented below
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
UnavailableGo to Case Table of Contents
Case text (English translation) [second draft]
Queen Mary Case Translation Programme
Translation [*] by Tobias Koppitz [**]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 27 January 1999, the Plaintiff [Buyer] bought from the Defendant [Seller] a used three-axis semi-trailer of the brand Carnehl. According to the delivery invoice of the same day, the chassis number was 2370. As the date of the initial registration, 15 March 1993 was denoted. After payment of the 18,000.00 Deutsche Mark [DM], the [Buyer] had a forwarding agency pick up the semi-trailer from the [Seller] at the beginning of March 1999. On this occasion, the [Seller] handed out a new delivery invoice of 17 March 1999, in which the chassis number of the semi-trailer was said to be 2336 and the date of the initial registration was denoted as 21 September 1992. This vehicle was then also delivered to the [Buyer]. In the follow-up time there were complaints by the [Buyer] because of a misdelivery, which were, however, not accepted by the [Seller].
In this litigation, the [Buyer] claims damages for non-performance. [Buyer] is of the opinion, that according to the agreement of 27 January 1999, it has not been delivered the semi-trailer with the chassis number 2370 and the date of the first licensing of 15 March 1993, as it was entitled to. This was rather a so-called delivery of other goods. It never came to a subsequent change of the contractual agreement, so that the [Seller] was obliged to pay damages. With regard to the amount of the damages, the [Buyer] alleges, that the delivered vehicle was worth 10,000.00 DM at most. Decisive is first, that the delivered vehicle had an earlier date of licensing “September 1992”. Also, the delivered semi-trailer did not have extendable footholds. The Original-Aluminum bottom had been damaged, so that a steel-bottom had been built in. This caused enormous detriments. Finally, the bad state of repair led to the fact, that enormous costs in the amount of about 15,000.00 DM had been necessary for the removal of the damages.
* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purpose of this translation, the Plaintiff of Poland is referred to as [Buyer]; the Defendant of Germany is referred to as [Seller].
** Tobias Koppitz holds a degree in law. With the team of Humboldt University, Berlin, he won the Frédéric Eisemann Award for third place in the 8th Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 2000-2001. He was coach to the team of Humboldt University Berlin in the 9th Willem C.Vis Moot 2001-2002.Go to Case Table of Contents