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 20 February 2007 High Commercial Court (Rondine S.p.A. v. Larva d.o.o.)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070220cr.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20070220 (20 February 2007)

JURISDICTION: Croatia

TRIBUNAL: High Commercial Court

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Pz-4301/4-3

CASE NAME: Rondine S.p.A. v. Larva d.o.o.

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

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Italy (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Croatia (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: [-]


UNCITRAL case abstract

CROATIA: High Commercial Court 20 February 2007 [Pz-4301/04-3]

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/91],
CLOUT abstract no. 915

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by David Babic

An Italian seller commenced an action against a Croatian buyer in the Commercial Court of Rijeka seeking payment of the price for goods which were delivered without objections. The court ruled in the seller's favour. Deciding on appeal, the High Commercial Court affirmed the lower instance decision. The Court held that the first instance court erred in the application of substantive law because it had applied the Croatian Obligations Act instead of the CISG. The court found the CISG was applicable under article 1 (1)(a) CISG because the parties had their places of business in different Contracting States. Because there was no express or implied exclusion of the CISG, the court held that the convention governed the contract. The court applied article 53 CISG which defines the obligation of the buyer to pay the price. Even though the Rijeka court applied the Croatian municipal law, the Court affirmed the first instance decision because the outcome under the CISG would have been the same as in the first instance. The Court reasoned that the claimant had proved that it had performed its obligation to deliver the goods according to article 30 CISG and that on the other hand, the respondent had not performed its obligation to pay the price under article 53 CISG.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(a)]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 30 ; 53

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) 101.

"[T]he High Commercial Court rejected the appeal of the defendant and affirmed the decision of the Commercial Court in Rijeka. The High Commercial Court was of the opinion that the lower court had properly applied the CISG and that it had reached the decision in accordance with Arts. 53-60 of the CISG."

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