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

Poland 11 December 2008 Supreme Court (Artistic jewellery case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081211p1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20081211 (11 December 2008)

JURISDICTION: Poland

TRIBUNAL: Supreme Court

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: IV CSK 331/08

CASE NAME: Ewa D. and Stanisław D. (Polish sellers) v. S. (French buyer)

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Poland

BUYER'S COUNTRY: France

GOODS INVOLVED: Artistic jewellery


UNCITRAL case abstract

POLAND: Supreme Court 11 December 2008

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/137],
CLOUT abstract no. 1303

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by Maciej Zachariasiewicz, National Correspondent

The Polish producers of artistic jewellery concluded an exclusive sales contract with the French buyer in 1986. The cooperation continued for many years but became troublesome with deliveries effectuated around early 2000. Those deliveries were supplemented by unsolicited new models of jewellery worth some 33,000 francs. The French buyer refused to pay for the unsolicited goods and it failed to make payments for the ordered products that were most recently delivered. Eventually, the buyer made further orders and promised to pay the outstanding debts, but the Polish sellers refused to deliver. Later on, in order to recover moneys of the unpaid goods, the Polish sellers empowered a Swiss company to carry out the enforcement of debts, but revoked the mandate half a year later, however not informing the French buyer about the revocation. Shortly after that, the French buyer returned the unsolicited goods by sending them back to the address of the Polish sellers. The sellers in turn refused to accept the goods arguing that they had not authorized such a method of settlement of accounts.

The Polish sellers sued for the unpaid debts. The Circuit Court held at first instance that although the buyer questioned that it had ordered the new models, it did not refuse to take delivery. Rather, its behaviour indicated that it accepted delivery and was thus obliged under Article 52 CISG to pay for it at the contract rate. Consequently, the Circuit Court ordered the French buyer to pay for the goods. The Court of Appeals confirmed.

The French buyer brought an appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the application of Article 52 CISG was not justified under the circumstances of the case. In particular, it alleged that not returning the unsolicited goods after their receipt cannot be treated as taking delivery under Article 52 CISG. The Supreme Court found that the review carried out by the Court of Appeals was insufficient, because it failed to assess whether not returning the goods by the buyer could have been treated as taking delivery under Article 52. In particular, the Court of Appeals did not examine to what extent the Circuit Court’s failure to hear a witness, who was to testify on crucial issues of the unsolicited goods, and the lack of their return by the buyer, could have affected the outcome of the case. For that reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case was remanded for further consideration.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: [-]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 52

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 case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Polish): Republic of Poland website <http://www.sn.pl>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated December 6, 2013
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography