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

Spain 16 May 2007 Supreme Court (Water apparatus case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070516s4.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: CISG-Spain and Latin America website

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20070516 (16 May 2007)

JURISDICTION: Spain

TRIBUNAL: Tribunal Supremo, sección 1ª, sala de lo Civil

JUDGE(S): Francisco Marín Castán

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Recurso No. 2375/2000

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Juzgado de Primera Instancia No. 2 de Pamplona 16 March 1999; 2d instance Audiencia Provincial de Navarra 27 March 2003

SELLER'S COUNTRY: EEUU

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Spain

GOODS INVOLVED: Water apparatus


UNCITRAL case abstract

SPAIN: Supreme Cour 27 March 2003

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/115],
Also presented as (CLOUT) abstract no. 800
Also presented as (CLOUT) abstract no. 850

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by María del Pilar Perales Viscasillas, National Correspondent

The Spanish buyer submitted an application for judicial review by the Supreme Court of the judgement of the Navarra Provincial High Court of 27 March 2003. The Supreme Court rejected the application.

Firstly, it was claimed that article 1 of CISG had been violated in that the provisions of the Spanish Civil Code and Commercial Code, and not those of CISG, had been applied. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, taking the view that the judgement appealed against used as a legal basis various provisions of CISG: articles 50, 31(c), 30, 53 et seq, 58, 36(2) and 45 in conjunction with 46(3). The Supreme Court found that the mention in the judgement of the Provincial High Court, in addition to provisions of CISG, of various provisions of the Commercial Code and the Civil Code "was no more than a reinforcement of its arguments on the basis that domestic law would lead to the same result as international law."

Secondly, it was argued that articles 36(2) and 50 of CISG had been violated, since the judgement appealed against had recognized that 184 apparatuses were defective but had nevertheless rejected its claim based on the five-year guarantee clause, in spite of the provisions of CISG. The Supreme Court considered, however, that the judgement appealed against had regarded the alleged defects in the apparatuses as unproven in view of the absence of a complaint by the buyer within a reasonable period of time, and on the basis of an assessment of the evidence casting doubt on the reliability of the expert's opinion.

Thirdly, it was argued that there had been a violation of article 27 of CISG read in conjunction with article 39(2) in that the judgement of the Provincial High Court had not taken into account certain documents; the Supreme Court rejected this argument also on the grounds that it constituted an indirect attempt to obtain a re-evaluation of the evidence, something that was not permissible in the case of a judicial review by the Supreme Court.
__________________
Translator's note: Article 35 in the original text; this is presumably an error.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: [-]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 27 ; 36(2) ; 39(2) ; 50 [Also cited: Articles 30 ; 31 ; 45 ; 53 ; 58 ]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

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

Spanish: CISG-Spain and Latin America website <http://www.uc3m.es/cisg/respan61.htm>

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Spanish): CISG-Spain and Latin America website <http://www.uc3m.es/cisg/sespan61.htm>; see also Fuente: Aranzadi Westlaw RJ 2007\4004; Aranzadi/Westlaw (RA 2007/4004)

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated March 21, 2012
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography