Denmark 3 May 2006 Højesteret [Supreme Court]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060503d1.html]
DATE OF DECISION:
JURISDICTION:
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE(S):
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Unavailable
CASE NAME:
CASE HISTORY: Earlier proceeding: Decision rendered by an (ad hoc) arbitral tribunal in Denmark on 10 November 2000
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Denmark
BUYER'S COUNTRY: Canada
GOODS INVOLVED: Machine designed to mass produce concrete slabs for pig sties
APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue:
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
7C22 [Gap-filling (recourse to general principles on which Convention is based): estoppel]
Descriptors:
EDITOR: Joseph Lookofsky
Decision by the Danish Supreme Court (Højesteret), 3 May 2006, as reported in UfR 2006.2210 (H), including excerpts from the award rendered by an (ad hoc) arbitral tribunal in Denmark on 10 November 2000.
In the dispute underlying these proceedings, which involved the interpretation of the relevant CISG rules, as well as Nordic standard terms of agreement (Nordiske Leveringsbetingelser), a Danish seller (S) had supplied a large machine (designed to mass-produce concrete slats for pig sties) to a Canadian buyer (B). The machine delivered proved unfit (Article 35(2)(a-b)), and after S's failure to repair, B declared the contract avoided. When S refused to acknowledge its (fundamental) breach, B revoked (tilbagekaldte) its declaration (and pursued other remedies, including damages). In these circumstances, the arbitral tribunal held B entitled to revoke: see id., p. 2219.
Although the extract of the award included in the Supreme Court judgment (at id., rejecting a malpractice claim by S against its attorney) includes neither the tribunal's own reasoning nor references to secondary sources of CISG law on the revocation issue, Professor Schlechtriem has persuasively argued that the "matter" of whether a declaration of avoidance is binding upon the declaring party is "governed but not settled" by the Convention and that "estoppel," a CISG general principle, can be used to "settle" it: see Schlechtriem in Schlechtriem & Schwenzer, Commentary, Art. 27, para. 14; accord Müller-Chen, id., Art. 45, para. 15(bb).
Go to Case Table of ContentsCITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable
(b) Other abstracts
Unavailable
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (Danish): UfR 2006.2210 (H)
Translation: Unavailable
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
Unavailable
Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School
Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated November 5, 2007