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

Croatia 19 December 2006 High Commercial Court (Bridgestone/Firestone GmbH v. Weimar d.o.o.)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/061219cr.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Commentary by Marko Baretic & Sasa Niksik

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20061219 (19 December 2006)

JURISDICTION: Croatia

TRIBUNAL: High Commercial Court

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: XXVI Pz-2047/03-8

CASE NAME: Bridgestone/Firestone GmbH v. Weimar d.o.o.

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Commercial Court Rijeka [partly affirmed and partly reversed]

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Austria (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Croatia (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Automobile tires


UNCITRAL case abstract

CROATIA: High Commercial Court 19 December 2006 [Pz-2047/03-8]

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/91],
CLOUT abstract no. 916

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by David Babic

Over the period of several years, an Austrian company sold automobile tyres to a Croatian company. The Croatian company had instructed the seller to invoice an offshore company organized under the laws of Delaware and owned by a manager of the Croatian company. When the Croatian company refused to pay for the last delivery, the seller filed a suit for the payment of price in the Commercial Court of Zagreb. The Croatian company claimed that the seller had never entered into a contractual relationship with the Croatian company, but with the offshore company to which invoices were issued. The first instance court found that there was indeed a contract of sale under the CISG with the Croatian company and that the company was liable for the payment of price. The High Commercial Court referring to article 7 (2) CISG in the context of defining a contract of sale, held that although the CISG does not provide a definition of the contract of sale, this can be inferred in articles 30 and 53 CISG. Under article 30 CISG, the seller has an obligation to deliver the goods: in this particular case, the Austrian company had performed its obligation. However, the Croatian company had not performed its obligation ex article 53 CISG to pay for the delivery of the goods. Therefore, the Croatian company was liable for the payment of the price.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 7(2) ; 30 ; 53 ; 78

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Excerpt from Marko Baretic / Saka Niksik, "Croatia", in: Franco Ferrari ed., The CISG and its Impact on National Legal Systems, Sellier European Law Publishers (2008) 102.

"[T]he High Commercial Court rejected the appeal of the defendant and partly affirmed and partly reversed the decision of the Commercial Court in ‘Rijeke, arguing that the lower court had properly applied the CISG to resolve the dispute, but it had failed to calculate the interest properly."

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 (Croatian): Published at <http://www.vsrh.hr>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated May 10, 2010
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography