Slovak Republic 18 October 2007 District Court in Brezno (Office supplies case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/071018k1.html]
DATE OF DECISION:
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 17 Cb/10/2007
CASE HISTORY: Unavailable
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Czech Republic (plaintiff)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: Slovak Republic (defendant)
GOODS INVOLVED: Office supplies
APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue:
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable
(b) Other abstracts
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (Slovak): Unavailable
Translation (English): Text presented below
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
UnavailableGo to Case Table of Contents
Case text (English translation) [second draft]
Queen Mary Case Translation Programme
18 October 2007 [7 Cb/10/2007]
Translation [*] by Juraj Kotrusz [**]
IN THE NAME OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
The District Court of Brezno, deciding by a single judge, JUDr. Alica Gavalcova, in the case of Plaintiff L. B. A., [Seller], with its registered office in D.I., Czech Republic, represented by J. A. R. -- attorney, versus Defendant H., S., S.r.o. [Buyer], with its registered office in C. B., ___, [Slovak Republic], regarding payment of 140,370.- Czech koruna [Kc] with appurtenances
h a s d e c i d e d a s f o l l o w s:
I. The [Buyer] is o b l i g e d to pay to the [Seller] the sum of 140,370.- Kc and a sum of 10,566.- Slovak koruna [Sk] as a reimbursement of the court fee paid for the action and a sum of 1,901.- Kc as a reimbursement of the costs of attorneys' fees, all within three days after the judgment comes into force.
II. The court stays the proceedings with respect to the claimed interest of 9.5% annually on the sum of 140,370.- Kc for the period from 27 November 2006 until 16 January 2007 and subsequently for the period until payment and the interest corresponding to the repo rate fixed by the Czech National Bank on the first day of the half-year in which the default lasts raised by 7%.
The [Seller] claimed in the proceedings by its action filed with the court on 18 January 2007 its right to payment of 140,370.- Kc as the purchase price for goods -- office supplies delivered to the [Buyer]. As evidenced by international bill of lading no. ___, the [Buyer] took possession of the goods from the carrier P. S. The delivery included a copy of a certificate of delivery which stated that the [Seller] delivered to the [Buyer] the goods in value of 155,734.71 Kc. By invoice no. 6/2/65 of 26 October 2006, the [Seller] billed the [Buyer] for the purchase price amounting to 140,370.- Kc with the due date of 26 November 2006. Since the [Buyer] did not pay the purchase price, the [Seller] filed this action with the court.
The court ordered a hearing and summoned both parties to the proceedings. The [Buyer] did not appear before the court and did not excuse its absence; the [Seller] was present at the hearing accompanied by its legal counsel.
The court examined the evidence on the hearing held on 18 October 2007 by interrogation of the [Seller] and its legal counsel and by reading of the documents presented by the parties to the proceedings. The court read the action and international bill of lading no. ___ which evidenced that the [Seller] dispatched goods by the carrier to a place H., S. determined by the [Buyer] as a place of delivery. The [Buyer] took possession of the goods on 26 October 2006 and approved the delivery on the certificate of delivery by its signature and seal. The court determined from the invoice drawn on 26 October 2006 due on 26 November 2006 that the purchase price claimed for the goods delivered amounted to 140,369.50 Kc.
The [Seller] stated at the hearing held on 18 October 2007 that it repeatedly urged the [Buyer] by phone but the [Buyer] failed to pay the purchase price despite several promises.
With reference to the evidence gathered, the court found the [Seller]'s claim to be justified.
The court qualified the relationship between the [Buyer] and the [Seller] as an international contract of sale governed by the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter referred to as "Convention").
|-||Under article 53 of the Convention, the buyer must pay the price for the goods and take
delivery of them as required by the contract and this Convention.
|-||Under article 59 of the Convention, the buyer must pay the price on the date fixed by or determinable from the contract and this Convention without the need for any request or compliance with any formality on the part of the seller.|
The [Buyer] took possession of the goods delivered by the [Seller] and received the certificate of delivery and the invoice, as it was determined by the court from the same dates of issuance of these documents and of the international bill of lading. When taking possession of the goods, the [Buyer] did not oppose the invoiced purchase price. The court therefore determined that the parties to the contract made an agreement about the purchase price.
Since the [Seller] fulfilled its obligation to deliver the goods and the [Buyer] took possession of the goods and did not fulfil its obligation to pay the purchase price for the goods delivered, the court imposed such obligation on the [Buyer] by its judgment.
The legal counsel of the [Seller] withdrew its action partially at the hearing with respect to the claimed interest on 18 October 2007 and the court therefore stayed the proceedings with respect to this part of the action.
The court ruled on the reimbursement of costs of the proceedings with reference to sec. 142 part 1 CPC and granted to the [Seller] full reimbursement of the court fee for the action and its travelling costs, as it was successful in its entire claim.
Instruction: An appeal against this judgment must be filed via this court within fifteen days from its receipt.
District Court Brezno, 18 October 2008.
JUDr. Alica Gavalcova, Judge
* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, Plaintiff of the Czech Republic is referred to as [Seller] and Defendant of the Slovak Republic is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the currency of the Czech Republic (Czech koruna) are indicated as [Kc] and amounts in the currency of the Slovak Republic (Slovak koruna) are indicated as [Sk].
** Juraj Kotrusz is a Slovak lawyer who studied law at the University of Trnava, Slovakia, and at the Hague Academy of International Law. He is the Editor of the CISG Slovakia website.Go to Case Table of Contents