United States 25 January 2005 Federal District Court [Iowa] (Kliff et al. v. Grace Label, Inc.)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050125u1.html]
DATE OF DECISION:
JURISDICTION:
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE(S):
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 4:02-CV-30538-RAW
CASE NAME:
CASE HISTORY: For related cases, see Mexico proceedings dated 3 October 2006, 21 November 2006, 13 March 2007 and 22 March 2007
SELLER'S COUNTRY: United States (plaintiff)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: United States (defendant)
GOODS INVOLVED: Foil trading cards bearing the likeness of Britney Spears
UNITED STATES: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of Iowa
Grace Label, Inc. v. Kliff, 25 January 2005
Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 697
Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL
A buyer with its place of business in California (USA) agreed with a seller with its place of business in Iowa (USA) to purchase foil trading cards bearing the likeness of a famous pop music star. The buyer purchased the cards for resale to a sub-buyer in Mexico that planned to include the cards in snack food packaging. The buyer rejected the cards because they became malodorous when they came in contact with food. The seller sued to recover the price of the cards. As part of its response, the buyer argued that the CISG governed the contract dispute because the seller was to ship the cards directly to the sub-buyer in Mexico.
The issue before the court was whether the CISG governed when the goods sold are to be shipped to a foreign country but the seller and buyer have their places of business in the same country. Citing art. 1(1) CISG, the court concluded that shipment of the goods to a foreign country is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the Convention applied. Therefore, the Court retained the CISG not applicable and that, being the contract at hand a contract for the sale of goods, the US Uniform Commercial Code would apply.
Go to Case Table of ContentsAPPLICATION OF CISG: No. The sole reference to the CISG is: "[Plaintiff] Kliff suggests that because the contract in question calls for the manufacture of goods in the United States for delivery in Mexico it may be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ("CISG"). The Court does not believe CISG is applicable. It expressly 'applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States.' Referring to different countries. 15 U.S.C.App., Art. 1(1). See Asante Technologies, Inc. v. PMC-Sierra, Inc., 164 F.Supp.2d 1142, 1147 & n.4 (N.D.Cal.2001). The contract was solely between two United States concerns with places of business in the United States. It provided for the shipment of the goods to Barcel in Mexico, but Barcel was not a party to the contract. As a contract for the sale of goods, the Uniform Commercial Code applies. The purchaser was a California proprietorship and the Seller an Iowa corporation."
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue:
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
1B [Relation to Contracting State]
Descriptors:
CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
Unavailable
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (English): 355 F.Supp.2d 965 (S.D.Iowa Jan 25, 2005)
Translation: Unavailable
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
English: Keith A. Rowley, "The Convention on the International Sale of Goods", in: Hunter ed., Modern Law of Contracts, Thomson/West (03/2007) § 23:7
Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School
Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated January 9, 2008