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

Slovenia 9 February 2007 Višje sodišče v Kopru [Koper High Court]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070209sv.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20070209 (9 February 2007)

JURISDICTION: Slovenia

TRIBUNAL: Višje sodišče v Kopru [Koper High Court]

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: VSK sodba I Cpg 125/2006

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Unavailable

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Slovenia

GOODS INVOLVED: Fish


UNCITRAL case abstract

SLOVENIA: Višje sodišče v Kopru [Koper High Court] 9 February 2007

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/118],
CLOUT abstract no. 1152

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

A Slovenian buyer and a foreign seller were involved in a long-term contractual relationship for the sale of fish and other seafood. On 23 March 2004, the buyer placed an order for a new shipment, but the seller did not deliver the goods.

After the seller brought a claim against the buyer for payment of an unrelated debt at the court of first instance, the buyer filed a counter-claim where it claimed that the seller had breached the contract by not delivering the goods and claimed damages, including lost profit. The seller responded that the buyer’s document of 23 March 2004 did not constitute an offer and was merely to be regarded as a price query. This position was confirmed by the court of first instance.

The appellate court determined that the CISG applied to the dispute. It directed the parties’ attention to article 18(3) under which, by virtue of the offer or as a result of practices which the parties have established between themselves or of usage, the offeree may indicate assent by performing an act, such as one relating to the dispatch of the goods or payment of the price, without notice to the offeror. The acceptance is effective at the moment the act is performed, provided that the act is performed within the period of time laid down in article 18(2). Based on this provision, the court found that, even if the document of 23 March 2004 could be considered as an offer, the contract was not validly concluded because of the fact that the seller had not reacted and had not delivered the goods — i.e., no assent was given by the seller to conclude the contract.

The appellate court, therefore, rejected the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 18(2) and 18(3)

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

18B [Effectiveness - time limits for acceptance];

18C [Assent by performing an act]

Descriptors: Acceptance of offer

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 (Slovene): Slovenian court website <http://www.sodisce.si/znanje/sodna_praksa/visja_sodisca/40501/>

Translation (English): Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated June 13, 2012
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography