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

Belarus 23 July 2008 Economic Court of the Grodno Region (Broilers case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080723b5html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20080723 (23 July 2008)

JURISDICTION: Belarus

TRIBUNAL: Economic Court of the Grodno Region

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Unavailable

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Poland (Defendant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Belarus (Plaintiff)

GOODS INVOLVED: Broilers


UNCITRAL case abstract

BELARUS: Economic Court of the Grodno Region 23 July 2008

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/96],
CLOUT abstract no. 959

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by Viktor S. Kamenkov, National Correspondent

The plaintiff, a Belarusian company, contracted to buy broilers from the defendant, a Polish company. The contract provided for a prepayment of 30 per cent of the purchase price and a penalty charge amounting to 0.15 per cent of the received amount per day of late delivery. The parties stipulated in their agreement that all disputes arising under the contract be governed by the CISG. The plaintiff sued the defendant at the plaintiff's place of business, claiming that, despite timely prepayment, the defendant had failed to deliver the goods and seeking restitution of the prepayment and payment of the penalty charges, as stipulated in the contract, and damages. The defendant made no appearance in court.

The court held that the CISG applied by parties' choice and, pursuant to Articles 30 and 33 of the Convention, found the seller in breaching of its obligation to deliver the goods at the time specified in the contract. Furthermore, referring to Article 81 (2) of the Convention, the court held that the buyer had duly performed its obligation of advance payment, while the seller had not returned the payment received. Therefore, the court upheld the buyer's claim for restitution of the amount prepaid and for the penalty as specified under the contract. However, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages, since according to the Code of Economic Procedure the plaintiff had not submitted enough evidence on this point.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 30 ; 33 ; 81(2)

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): Unavailable

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated November 30, 2010
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography