France 13 February 2007 Supreme Court (Computer motherboard case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070213f1.html]
DATE OF DECISION:
JURISDICTION:
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE(S):
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Unavailable
CASE NAME:
CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Tribunal de Commerce de Bobigny 11 September 2003 [reversed]; 2d instance Cour d’appel de Paris 25 February 2005 [reversed and remanded]
SELLER'S COUNTRY: United States (defendant)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: France (plaintiff)
GOODS INVOLVED: Computer motherboards
APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue:
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
4B1 [Scope of Convention (issues excluded): validity under domestic law]
Descriptors:
CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable
(b) Other abstracts
Unavailable
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (French): CISG-France database <http://www.cisg-france.org/decisions/130207.htm>
Translation (English): Text presented below
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
Unavailable
Go to Case Table of ContentsCase text (English translation) [second draft]
Société DIG [Buyer] v. Société Sup [Seller]
13 February 2007
On the first argument of the second ground of appeal, and pursuant to article 4 of the Vienna Convention of 11 April 1980 on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the Commercial Chamber of the Court of cassation ruled as follows:
The contested judgment established that the [Buyer], a [company] registered in France, purchased computer components from [the Seller], [a company] registered in the United States. These components were delivered between May 1997 and December 1998. The [Buyer] contended that these products were faulty and secured the appointment of a legal expert [1] on 16 February 1999. On 11 September 2003, the [court] found the [Seller] to be liable in damages. The decision was overruled by the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the [Buyer]'s claims.
In order to dismiss the [Buyer]'s claims regarding both the contractual terms reducing the warranty's length and the exclusion/exemption clauses, the Court of Appeal held that under the Vienna Convention such clauses are valid between non-consumers. This is not adequately contested by the [Buyer], which merely relies on French case-law and legal provisions.
In so ruling, the Court of Appeal misapplied the aforementioned provision. [Indeed] the Vienna Convention governs exclusively both the formation of the contract for sale and the rights and obligations between seller and buyer which arise from such a contract but does not deal with the validity of the contract nor of any of its terms.
For these reasons, and without there being any need to rule on the other grounds of appeal, the Court quashes and annuls the decision of the Court of Appeal of Paris of 25 February 2005.
The Court returns both the matter and the parties to their respective positions prior to the aforementioned judgment and sends them back before the Court of Appeal of Paris, to sit with different judges.
The [Seller] is ordered to pay costs.
[The Court orders the] Procureur Géneral [2] of the Court of cassation to see to the transcription of this judgment in the margins of or immediately after [the official transcript] of the quashed decision.
Judgment of the Commercial Chamber of the Court of cassation delivered by the President in its public hearing of 13 February 2007.
FOOTNOTES
* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text.
1. A judicial expert is appointed to advise the Court on technical matters.
2. "Parquet Général": the procureur général heads the body of magistrates representing the State in the Court of cassation.
Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School
Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated December 14, 2007