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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Netherlands 12 September 2006 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] Arnhem (Yacht case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060912n1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20060912 (12 September 2006)

JURISDICTION: Netherlands

TRIBUNAL: Hof Arnhem [Hof = Gerechtshof = Appellate Court]

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Rolnummer 2000/605

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Rb Zwolle

SELLER'S COUNTRY: [-]

BUYER'S COUNTRY: [-]

GOODS INVOLVED: Yacht


Case abstract

NETHERLANDS: Gerechtshof Arnhem 12 September 2006

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/81],
CLOUT abstract no. 830

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by Jan Smits, National Correspondent, and Bas Megens

The appellant and the two defendants entered into negotiations for the sale of a yacht co-owned by the defendants. Parties drew up a document arranging for the yacht to be sold to the appellant, which was signed by the appellant and both defendants. One day later the defendants sold the yacht to a third party for a higher price. The first defendant informed the appellant of the rescission of the contract stating it was not authorized by the second owner to sell the yacht for the price agreed. Subsequently the appellant requested the seizure of the vessel to ensure it would be delivered to it. The appellant then commenced proceedings before the Court of First Instance, claiming several forms of damages resulting from the breach of contract. The Court of First Instance rejected the claim.

The appellant appealed that decision. In the proceedings the CISG was argued to be applicable to the case. In this regard, the Court of Appeals simply considered that the case concerned the sale of a yacht, or at least a preliminary agreement regarding the sale thereof, and that according to article 2(d) CISG [it may be presumed the Court intended to refer to article 2(e) CISG] for this reason alone the CISG could not be applicable. The Court thus requested further enquiries and reserved the decision, albeit on other grounds.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: No

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 2(d)

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

2E [Exclusions from Convention: sales of ships, vessels, hovercraft, aircraft]

Descriptors: Ships or vessels

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 (Dutch): Website of the Dutch courts <http://www.rechtspraak.nl/>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated January 16, 2009
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography