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 8 July 2004 Randers County Court (Mobile grain dryer case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040708d1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20040708 (8 July 2004)

JURISDICTION: Denmark

TRIBUNAL: Randers Byret [County Court]

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: BS 2-2229/2002

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Randers County Court 12 September 2003

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Denmark (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Mobile grain dryer


UNCITRAL case abstract

DENMARK: Randers City Court, 8 July 2004 (Mobile grain dryer case)

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/100],
CLOUT abstract no. 995

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by Joseph Lookofsky, National Correspondent

A Danish seller agreed to sell and deliver a mobile grain dryer to a buyer in Germany. The dryer was to be delivered by truck to Wiesenburg, Germany, a few kilometres from the field where the buyer intended to use the machine. Upon arrival of the truck, the driver (seller's employee) requested the buyer to help unload the dryer. After the buyer's personnel, using their own tractor and chain, had successfully lifted the dryer down from the truck and then driven a few metres, the chain holding the dryer broke, causing substantial damage to it. Some time later, hidden deformities attributable to the accident were discovered which made the drier unsuitable for its intended use.

When the buyer refused to pay for the dryer, the seller brought suit against the buyer in Denmark. Making a general reference to article 69 CISG, the court found it natural to interpret the contract between the parties to mean that delivery of the dryer took place at the latest when the buyer took possession, i.e., when the dryer was unloaded from the truck by the buyer's personnel. For this reason and since the court found that the accident was not attributable to the seller or its personnel, the court held the buyer liable to the seller for the agreed price.[1]

1. Although the court's opinion does not indicate whether its decision was based on article 69(1) or 69(2) CISG, the fact that paragraph (1) applies only to delivery at the seller's place of business suggests that the court based its decision on paragraph (2) which provides that the risk passes when delivery is due and the buyer is aware of the fact that the goods are placed at his disposal at that place -- requirements which accord with the circumstances of the case.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 69 [Also cited: Article 67 ]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

69B [Passage of risk (buyer to take goods other than at seller's place of business): risk passes when buyer takes goods]

Descriptors: Passage of risk

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 (Danish): CISG Nordic website <http://www.cisgnordic.net/040708DK.shtml>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Lookofsky & Henschel, Comments on issues relating to the passing of risk (December 2004)

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