Spain 16 May 2007 Supreme Court (Water apparatus case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070516s4.html]
DATE OF DECISION:
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Recurso No. 2375/2000
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
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
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.
APPLICATION OF CISG: [-]
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue:
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
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)
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
UnavailableGo to Case Table of Contents