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

Egypt 18 September 2006 Ad hoc arbitration at Egyptian National Committee for International Chambers of Commerce, Cairo (Electronic scales case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060918e1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Hossam El-Saghir

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20060918 (18 September 2006)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; Egypt

TRIBUNAL: Ad hoc arbitration

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Unavailable

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Austria (respondent)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Egypt (claimant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Electronic scales and spare parts


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Convention not applied although it appears to have been applicable

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles [-]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Excerpt from Hossam A. El-Saghir, "The Interpretation of the CISG in the Arab World" (2008)

"This award involves a dispute between an Austrian supplier and an Egyptian buyer who entered into a contract for the supply of electronic scales and their spare parts in January 2004. The contract contained a dispute settlement clause that provided for arbitration in Cairo. The buyer took delivery of the goods and found that they did not fulfill the technical specifications of the contract. The buyer thus initiated arbitration proceedings.

"The Panel failed to apply the CISG to the dispute, although the requirements for its application as laid by Articles 1(1)(a) and3 are met. First, the places of business of both contracting parties are located in Contracting States. Second, the contract qualifies as a sale contract within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention as the buyer did not undertake to provide a 'substantial part of the materials necessary for the manufacture or production.' The Panel subjected the dispute to the Egyptian Civil Code instead.

"[T]he Panel clearly erred in applying the Civil Code to the dispute. The parties have not opted out of the CISG. In addition, the contract qualifies as a commercial sale contract within the meaning of Article 88 of the Egyptian Commercial Code. Thus, even on the assumption that the parties opted out of the CISG, the Panel should have subjected the dispute to the rules mentioned in the Commercial Code. Applying the Civil Code is therefore unjustified."

Go to Case Table of Contents

Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language: Unavailable

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated October 20, 2008
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography