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

Russia 23 October 2007 Judicial Division of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Moscow
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/071023r1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: UNCITRAL case abstract

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20071023 (23 October 2007)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; Russian Federation

TRIBUNAL: Judicial Division of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Moscow

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 8127/05

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Croatia

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Russia

GOODS INVOLVED: [-]


UNCITRAL case abstract

RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Judicial Division of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Moscow
[No. 8127/05] 23 October 2007

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/145],
CLOUT abstract no. 1370

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by A. I. Muranov, National Correspondent, D. L. Davydenko and D. D. Yalaletdinova

A Croatian company (the seller) filed a claim against a Russian buyer to recover money for goods delivered, with interest. The court of first instance allowed the claim in part. The courts of second and third instance upheld the decision.

The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation rejected the buyer's request for a review of the courts' rulings, on the following grounds.

In considering the claims, the courts had proceeded on the basis of the provisions of article 1211 of the Russian Civil Code, according to which the law of the seller's country -- in this case, Croatia -- applied to the parties' legal relations. However, as the contracts of the parties fell within the scope of the CISG, the provisions of

Croatian law were subject to the principle of subsidiarity, that is, they applied only to matters not covered by the Convention.

In a separate agreement, the parties had defined the procedure for repayment of the buyer's debt, which provided that the agreement was valid only if the buyer paid the seller a given amount. Otherwise, the agreement would be null and void and the other terms and conditions specified in the original contract would begin to take effect. The buyer had then transferred funds to the seller, but not in the full amount provided for under the separate agreement. At the same time, it had transferred promissory notes to the seller in writing. The seller had not disputed the fact of the transfer of promissory notes or the validity of these securities.

Article 18 CISG provides for the possibility of amending a contract by means of a written proposal by one of the parties and its implementation by the other.

Assessing the behaviour of each of the parties in the performance of their agreements, it could be concluded that, with the evidence of the transfer and acceptance of the promissory notes, formalized with a written document, the buyer had lawfully paid the remaining debt. In view of this, the parties should be considered to have discarded in their separate agreement the provision that, if the buyer failed to pay a given sum to the seller, the agreement would be null and void and that the other terms and conditions specified in the original contract would begin to take effect.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 18

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

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Russian): online database of court judgements <http://kad.arbitr.ru>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated August 26, 2014
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography