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

China 25 December 2008 Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court [District Court] (Shanghai Anlili International Trading Co. Ltd. v. J & P Golden Wings Corp.) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081225c1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20081225 (25 December 2008)

JURISDICTION: People's Republic of China

TRIBUNAL: Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court [District Court]

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Unavailable

CASE NAME: Shanghai Anlili International Trading Co. Ltd. v. J & P Golden Wings Corp.

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: France (defendant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: People's Republic of China (plaintiff)

GOODS INVOLVED: Liquors


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 25 ; 40 ; 51 ; 81 [Articles 38 ; 39 ]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

25B [Definition of fundamental breach: substantial deprivation of expectation, etc.];

40B [Seller's knowledge of non-conformity (seller fails to disclose known non-conformity): seller loses right to rely on articles 38 and 39];

51B1 [Non-conformity of part of goods (avoidance of entire contract): must be based on fundamental breach of contract as a whole];

81C [Effect of avoidance on obligations: restitution by each party of benefits received]

Descriptors: Avoidance ; Fundamental breach ; Lack of conformity known to seller ; Restitution

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 (Chinese): Click here for Chinese text of case; see also CISG-China No. [IPC/34] <http://aff.whu.edu.cn/cisgchina/en/news_view.asp?newsid=122>

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Case text (English translation)

Joint translation project:
New York University School of Law
and Pace University School of Law

Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court [2008]

Shanghai Anlily International Trading Co., Ltd.
v.
J&P Golden Wings Corp.

25 December 2008

Translation [*] by Jing Li [**]

Edited by Yu Ma [***]

[PROCEEDINGS]

PARTIES AND COUNSEL. Plaintiff: Shanghai Anlily International Trading Co., Ltd. [of the People's Republic of China] (hereinafter, the "[Buyer]"); Legal Representative: Anli Zhang, General Manager; Attorneys: Ying Yuan, Lawyer and Jianguo Xu, Lawyers with Shanghai Boss & Young Law Firm; Defendant: J&P Golden Wings Corp. [of France] (hereinafter, the "[Seller]"); Legal Representative: Jean-Marc Henry, Manager; Attorney: Changyi Shen, Lawyer with Shanghai Hexin Law Firm.

COURT. Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter, the "Court") accepted the case involving a dispute between the [Buyer] and the [Seller] and, in accordance with the law, formed a collegial bench to hear the case in public on 12 December 2007 and 14 August 2008. The attorney for the [Buyer], Ying Yuan, and the attorney for the [Seller], Changyi Shen, attended the court sessions. This case has been concluded.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[Buyer]'s position

The [Buyer] claimed that:

      In August 2005, the [Buyer] and the [Seller] concluded a sales contract (hereinafter, the "Contract") for 13,000 bottles of liquors of six types from France and Scotland at the price of EUR 237,960. After the conclusion of the Contract, the [Buyer] performed the Contract accordingly and paid 50% of the contract price as down payment in the amount of EUR 118,980. However, the [Seller] delivered merely one type of the liquors after a delay of several months. The [Buyer] took delivery of the goods upon paying RMB 784,000 which includes the residue of the price of this installment, import duty, and service expense. Thereafter, the [Buyer] discovered that the goods delivered were severely defective, and were not fit for the standard agreed upon in the Contract. Since the [Seller]'s conduct constituted a fundamental breach of the Contract, and the parties could not agree on a solution after several negotiations, in order to protect its legal rights, the [Buyer] filed this case with the Court and requested the Court to:

1)    Terminate the Contract (No. JW0500812) concluded by the parties on 13 August 2005;
2)    Require the [Seller] to return the down payment of EUR 118,980 made by the [Buyer], as well as the residue, import duty, and service expense in the amount of RMB 784,000;
3)    Require the [Seller] to compensate the [Buyer]'s loss arising out of the [Seller]'s breach; and
4)    Require the [Seller] to pay for the litigation fee.

After the court sessions, the [Buyer] withdrew its third claim on 19 December 2008. This was approved by the Court in accordance with the law.

[Seller]'s position

In response, the [Seller] alleged that:

      The Contract between the parties was valid. The [Buyer] failed to raise objections to the quality of the goods within the agreed time period after receiving the first installment. The [Buyer] should therefore be considered to have accepted the goods. The [Buyer] did not object to the first installment until the [Seller] delivered the second installment and requested the [Buyer] to pay for the residue. The [Buyer]'s objection was not raised within the contractual time period for quality disputes. Moreover, the goods provided by the [Seller] conformed to the standard stipulated in the Contract. Therefore, the [Seller] denied the [Buyer]'s claims. However, as the [Seller] had disposed of the second installment by itself to mitigate its loss under the situation that the [Buyer] had not paid the residue of the price, the [Seller] would accept the Court's decision on how to deal with the said installment of goods which has become unavailable for delivery.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES

Evidence submitted by the [Buyer]

To support its claims, the [Buyer] submitted the following evidence.

1. Contract (No. JW0500812), proving the contractual relationship between the parties for the sale of six types of liquors;

2. The payment voucher issued by Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, "HSBC"), proving that the [Buyer] made the down payment of half of the contract price as agreed in the Contract;

3. The letter from the [Buyer]'s legal representative to the [Seller], proving that the goods delivered by the [Seller] were severely defective and did not conform to the Contract;

4. A bottle of Henry V, Grande Champagne Cognac X.O. (hereinafter, "Henry V"), proving that the goods provided by the [Seller] were severely defective and that they did not conform to the Contract;

5. The facsimile dated 30 May 2006 sent to the [Buyer] by Xiangcong Wu, Sales Manager of the [Seller]'s Shanghai subsidiary company Golden Wines and Spirits Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, "Golden Wines & Spirits");

6. The facsimile dated 21 June 2006 sent to the [Buyer]'s legal representative Anli Zhang from Xiangcong Wu of Golden Wines & Spirits;

7. A second facsimile dated 21 June 2006 sent to Anli Zhang from Xiangcong Wu;

8. The facsimile dated 22 June 2006 sent to Anli Zhang from Xiangcong Wu;

9. The facsimile dated 23 June 2006 sent to Anli Zhang from Xiangcong Wu;

The aforesaid evidence exhibits 5-9 were submitted to prove that the parties had been negotiating on the issue of the quality of the goods.

10. Application for Settlement Business by the Bank of Communications (Shantou Branch, Longhu Sub-branch), proving that the [Buyer] made payment to the [Seller]'s subsidiary Golden Wines & Spirits in the amount of RMB 784,000.

[Seller]'s response

In response, the [Seller] alleged that:

The [Seller] did not object to the authenticity of the [Buyer]'s evidence exhibits 1, 2, and 5-10. However, the [Seller] alleged that it was not in breach of the Contract, and that the goods provided were not defective. Instead, the impossibility of delivery of the second installment resulted from the [Buyer]'s failure to pay for the residue.

The [Seller] objected to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s exhibit 3 alleging that it did not receive that letter.

The [Seller] objected to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s exhibit 4 alleging that the [Buyer] could not prove that this bottle of Henry V was one of the bottles delivered by the [Seller].

Evidence submitted by the [Seller]

In order to support its allegation, the [Seller] submitted the following evidence.

1. The facsimile dated 21 June 2006 sent to the [Buyer]'s legal representative Anli Zhang from Xiangcong Wu of Golden Wines & Spirits (identical to Exhibit 6 of the [Buyer]'s evidence);

2. The facsimile dated 8 January 2006 sent to the [Buyer] from Xiangcong Wu of Golden Wings & Spirits;

3. The facsimile dated 12 January 2006 sent to the [Buyer] from Xiangcong Wu of Golden Wings & Spirits;

4. Application for Settlement Business by the Bank of Communications (Shantou Branch, Longhu Sub-branch) (identical to Exhibit 10 of the [Buyer]'s evidence);

5. The facsimile dated 27 December 2005 sent to the [Buyer] from Xiangcong Wu of Golden Wings & Spirits;

The aforesaid evidence exhibits 1-5 were submitted to prove that the [Buyer] merely made payment of the residue of the first installment, and that the goods provided by the [Seller] were not defective as claimed by the [Buyer]. Moreover, though the [Seller] had urged the [Buyer] to pay the residue for the second installment after its arrival, the [Buyer] failed to do so.

6. Application for Settlement Business by the Bank of Communications (Shantou Branch, Longhu Sub-branch) (Note: Exhibit 10 submitted by the [Buyer] was a duplicated copy with two Applications for Settlement Business on the same piece of A4 paper. The [Buyer] only submitted the Application dated 18 January 2006 as evidence, and confirmed at court that it did not wish to submit the other Application dated 23 February 2006 as evidence. However, the [Seller] submitted this other Application as evidence), proving that the [Buyer] appointed Shanghai Mint International Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, "Mint Co., Ltd.") as the agent to make customs declaration.

7. Letter of Representation and delivery note issued by Shanghai Ganxing Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, "Ganxing Co., Ltd."), proving that the [Seller] performed its obligations under the Contract appropriately and delivered 1,000 bottles of Henry V to the [Buyer]'s warehouse in Shantou.

[Buyer]'s response

In response:

      The [Buyer] did not object to the authenticity of the aforesaid evidence exhibits 1-7. However, the [Buyer] alleged that the evidence could neither prove that the goods provided by the [Seller] were fit for the Contract, nor could it prove that the [Seller] itself declared the goods at the customs. It could not even prove that the goods delivered went through the customs legitimately.

REASONING OF THE COURT

With regard to the evidence and the opinions submitted, along with the claims and allegations of the parties, the Court verifies that:

      Neither of the parties objected to the authenticity of Exhibits 1, 2, and 5-10 submitted by the [Buyer] or Exhibits 1-7 submitted by the [Seller]. Therefore, these exhibits shall be regarded as authentic.

The [Seller] objected to the authenticity of Exhibit 3 submitted by the [Buyer]. Additionally, the [Seller] alleged that it had not received this letter. This Court finds that the letter was unilaterally written by the [Buyer], and that the [Buyer] merely alleged that it was sent via facsimile to the [Seller] without any other supportive evidence. Therefore, this Court does not verify the authenticity of this letter.

The [Seller] objected to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s Exhibit 4. However, the [Seller], as the supplier, failed to provide any sample liquor or the relevant label. Judging by the fact that the label of Exhibit 4, which says "Henry V", shared the same name with the name mentioned in the facsimile correspondence between the parties, and the one shown on the documents issued by Ganxing Co., Ltd., this Court verifies the authenticity of Exhibit 4 without any opposing evidence on hand.

Based on the above verification, this Court ascertains the following facts.

[1] On 13 August 2005, the [Buyer] and the [Seller] concluded the Contract at issue (No. JW0500812). The Contract stipulated that the [Seller] shall provide six types of liquors to the [Buyer]:

(a)    French Docher Henry Grande Champagne Cognac X.O. (70cl, 40 vol., 3,000 bottles, EUR 14.00 per bottle, totaled EUR 42,000);<
 
(b)    French Magutlee Grande Champagne Cognac X.O. (70cl, 40 vol., 3,000 bottles, EUR 14.00 per bottle, totaled EUR 42,000);
 
(c)    French Magutlee Brandy X.O. (70cl, 40 vol., 2,000 bottles, EUR 4.57 per bottle, totaled EUR 9,140);
 
(d)    French Magutlee Brandy X.O. (70cl, 40 vol., 2,000 bottles, EUR 4.56 per bottle, totaled EUR 9,140);
 
(e)    Magutlee Scotch Whiskey (70cl, 40 vol., 2,000 bottles, EUR 5.34 per bottle, totaled EUR 10,680);<
 
(f)    French Docher Henry Crystal Decanter 50 Years Grande Champagne Cognac X.O. (60cl, 40 vol., 1,000 bottles, EUR 125.00 per bottle, totaled EUR 125,000).

The Contract required delivery of 13,000 bottles of liquors, and the contract price was EUR 237,960 in total. The agreed delivery terms were CIF Shanghai, not including tariff, customs brokerage fee, or freight. Types (a) and (b) were equivalent to or better than Hennessy X.O., while Type (f) was equivalent to or better than Louis XIII. Additionally, the [Seller] was required to provide historical data on the 50-year Grande Champagne Cognac X.O. for the [Buyer]'s marketing. Finally, the [Seller] was obligated to provide the crystal decanters for Type (f), as well as the corks, caps, and labels.

[2] In addition, the Contract included the following terms concerning payment, transportation, and damages:

"Should any loss arise out of the quality or quantity of the goods, the buyer must give notice to the seller within ten days after the arrival of the goods and provide the relevant proofs within this period of time. … The production shall commence within three days after the seller receives the buyer's down payment in the amount of EUR 118,980. The goods shall be shipped from France to Shanghai. The buyer may appoint a freight company or assign the seller's freight company at the cost of the buyer. … After the conclusion of this contract, the buyer is required to make a down payment of 50% of the contract price within three working days and to pay for the residue of EUR 118,980 within five working days after the goods arrive at Shanghai."

[3] After conclusion of the Contract, the [Buyer] made the down payment of EUR 118,980 to the [Seller] on 16 August 2005. Thereafter, the [Buyer] paid the [Seller] for import duty, service expense, and the residue of the price of Type (f) totaling RMB 784,000 on 18 January 2006. This payment was made to the [Seller]'s Shanghai subsidiary Golden Wines & Spirits via an account held by "Jinye Development Corporation of Longhu District, Shantou" in the Bank of Communications (Shantou Branch, Longhu Sub-branch).

[4] In late April of 2006, Ganxing Co., Ltd. delivered 125 boxes of Henry V to the [Buyer]'s warehouse in Shantou, Guangdong. The delivery note showed that the quantity delivered was 1,000 bottles.

[5] On 30 May 2006, Xiangcong Wu, Sales Manager of Golden Wines & Spirits, sent a facsimile to Mr. Gao of the [Buyer] , notifying the [Buyer] that Types (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) would be delivered to Shanghai, and requesting the [Buyer] to wire the remaining contract price in the amount of EUR 56,480 within five working days to Golden Wines & Spirits. Moreover, the facsimile stated that after Golden Wines & Spirits confirmed the payment, the [Seller] would transfer the goods to Mint Co., Ltd. for customs declaration.

[6] On 21 June 2006, Xiangcong Wu, Sales Manager of Golden Wines & Spirits, sent two facsimiles to Anli Zhang, legal representative of the [Buyer]. The first facsimile was a reply to the earlier facsimile sent by the [Buyer] objecting to the quality of the goods. The [Seller] replied that the Henry Vs delivered were not defective, and that it rejected the requests by the [Buyer]. The second facsimile was an objection to the [Buyer]'s request to make payment upon inspections of Types (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). In addition, the [Seller] required the [Buyer] to pay the remaining contract price, before which the goods were neither able to go through the customs nor could they be inspected and accepted. The [Seller] also stated that the [Seller] was not responsible for the customs declaration.

[7] On 22 and 23 June of 2006, Xiangcong Wu, Sales Manager of Golden Wines & Spirits, sent two facsimiles to Anli Zhang, legal representative of the [Buyer], requesting the residue of the contract price. However, the [Buyer] insisted that the goods delivered by the [Seller] were defective and did not conform to the Contract. Therefore, the [Buyer] refused to pay for the residue. The parties did not come to a solution after negotiations. Consequently, the [Buyer] filed this lawsuit with this Court.

After investigation, this Court also finds that:

[8] The front of the labels provided by the [Seller] to the [Buyer] was marked "Henry V", "65cl 40% vol.", and "J&P Golden Wings"; and the back of the labels was marked "Henry V Grande Champagne Cognac X.O.", "Place of Origin: France; Date of Bottling: 13 October 2005; Distributor: Shanghai New Star Import & Export Co., Ltd.", and "650ml 40% vol."

[9] Between December 2005 and January 2006, Xiangcong Wu, Sales Manager of Golden Wines & Spirits, sent several facsimiles to Mr. Gao of the [Buyer]'s firm concerning the payment of the residue for Type (f) liquor. The [Seller] also required the [Buyer] to confirm that the customs declaration would be done by Mint Co., Ltd.

[10] On 23 February 2006, Jinye Development Corporation of Longhu District, Shantou made payment in the amount of RMB 7,500 via its account in the Bank of Communications (Shantou Branch, Longhu Sub-branch) to Mint Co., Ltd.

During the court sessions, the [Buyer] alleged that it objected to Type (f) immediately after receiving the goods. Its supportive evidence was a letter sent via facsimile from the [Buyer]'s legal representative to the [Seller], stating that the Henry Vs delivered by the [Seller] were not "Docher Henry" as stipulated in the Contract, and that the liquors delivered were not sealed and suffered severe air leaks. Therefore, the [Buyer] requested a return of the goods. The [Seller] alleged that it had never received this letter and that the [Buyer] objected to the quality of the goods one month after receiving the goods instead of ten days. Thus, the [Seller] did not agree to the [Buyer]'s request to terminate the Contract. The [Seller] confirmed that it received a down payment in the amount of EUR 118,980 and payment in the amount of RMB 784,000 from the [Buyer]. In addition, the parties could not agree on the issue of customs declaration. Each party alleged that the other party appointed Mint Co., Ltd. for the customs declaration. However, neither of the parties could provide evidence such as a Bill of Entry or a contract for import and export agency.

This Court finds that this case involves an international sales contract dispute. The places of business of the parties are in two different Contracting States of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980) (hereinafter, the "CISG"). Hence, the CISG applies to the present dispute.

The issues in dispute are:

a)    Whether the Contract can be terminated; and
b)    Whether the [Seller] should return the paid contract price, import duty, and service expense.

This Court finds that the intention to contract by the parties was genuine and legal. Therefore, the Contract was valid. Once the Contract was concluded, the parties were legally bound to perform their obligations thoroughly and appropriately under the Contract. According to the ascertained facts, the parties divided the six types of liquors into two installments. The first installment included 1,000 bottles of Docher Henry Crystal Decanter 50 Years Grande Champagne Cognac X.O. The second installment included the remaining 12,000 bottles of the five other types of liquors.

After conclusion of the Contract, the [Buyer] paid 50% of the total contract price in the amount of EUR 118,980. Thereafter, the [Buyer] made payment of the residue of the first installment, import duty, and service expense totaling RMB 784,000. However, the [Buyer] did not pay for the residue of the second installment of 12,000 bottles.

This Court decides that whether or not the Contract can be terminated should depend on the actual performance by the parties.

The first installment of 1,000 bottles

As for the first installment of 1,000 bottles, the [Buyer] claimed that the goods provided by the [Seller] were severely defective and did not conform to the Contract, while the [Seller] alleged that the goods were fit for the Contract. In addition, the [Seller] alleged that assuming but not conceding that the goods were defective, the [Buyer] failed to object to the quality of the goods within ten days after their arrival, and thus, the [Buyer]'s conduct shall be considered as accepting the goods.

This Court finds that the parties have agreed on the quality of the goods expressly in the Contract, i.e., the [Seller] had to provide French Docher Henry Crystal Decanter 50 Years Grande Champagne Cognac X.O., with quality equivalent to or better than Louis XIII, and the [Seller] had to provide its historical data for the [Buyer]'s marketing. Although the [Seller] objected to the authenticity of the bottle of liquor submitted by the [Buyer], the Contract provided that the [Seller] was responsible for producing and supplying the [Buyer] with the Docher Henry crystal decanters, corks, caps, and labels. The [Seller] failed to provide opposing evidence.

      Therefore, with the Letter of Representation issued by Ganxing Co., Ltd. and the facsimiles sent from the [Seller] to the [Buyer], the Court finds that the bottles of Henry V delivered by the [Seller] were not the particular goods agreed on in the Contract. Moreover, the [Seller] did not submit evidence proving that in the course of performing the Contract, the parties agreed to substitute Docher Henry for Henry V. Consequently, the [Buyer]'s contractual purpose, i.e., to purchase Docher Henry Crystal Decanter 50 Years Grande Champagne Cognac X.O. for resale in order to obtain monetary benefits was frustrated by the [Seller]'s failure to deliver the goods under the Contract.

      Therefore, the Court finds that the [Seller] is in breach of the Contract and shall bear the liability thereof. The [Buyer]'s request to terminate the Contract concerning the performance of the first installment was in accordance with the CISG.

      Therefore, the Court supports this claim by the [Buyer]. The [Seller] should return to the [Buyer] the payment of the first installment, along with the import duty and service expense. The [Buyer] should return to the [Seller] the entire stock of the first installment, i.e., Henry V.

The second installment of 12,000 bottles

As for the second installment, the [Buyer] merely paid for 50% of the contract price as down payment, and refused to pay for the residue because of its objection to the first installment. In court, the [Seller] confirmed that it had already disposed of this installment by itself. The Court finds that the Contract signed by the parties was based on their mutual trust. Had the [Seller] delivered liquors from the place of origin as agreed in the Contract, the [Buyer] would make payment accordingly and resell the goods for profit. However, because of the dispute over the first installment, the trust between the parties was broken, which led to the impossibility to perform regarding the second installment. The mistrust between the parties arose mainly from the breach of the contract by the [Seller] in delivering the first installment. Both of the parties agreed to follow the decision of the Court on the disposal of the second installment. Since it is impossible for the [Seller] to perform regarding this installment, the performance should be terminated and the [Seller] should return to the [Buyer] the partial payment for this installment.

The [Seller]'s allegation that the [Buyer] did not object to the quality of the goods in a timely manner

The [Seller] alleged that the [Buyer] did not object to the quality of the goods within the stipulated time period for raising a quality dispute, and thus, it shall be considered that the [Buyer] had accepted the goods. Articles 38 and 39 of the CISG provide that:

"The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. …" and that

"The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it."

However, Article 40 provides that:

"The seller is not entitled to rely on the provisions of articles 38 and 39 if the lack of conformity relates to facts of which he knew or could not have been unaware and which he did not disclose to the buyer."

The goods delivered by the [Seller] in the present case were not the ones provided in the Contract. The [Seller] could not have been unaware of this. Moreover, the [Buyer] had been trying to negotiate with the [Seller] about this dispute before it filed this lawsuit with the Court. Hence, Article 40 of the CISG applies to the present case. The [Seller]'s allegation is not founded. The Court does not support this allegation.

Remaining issues and resolution of the case

With regard to the issue of which party appointed Mint Co., Ltd. to declare the goods at the customs, the Court finds that the [Seller] confirmed that it received the full amount of the down payment and the succeeding payment in RMB (including the partial contract price, import duty, and service expense). Therefore, this Court verifies that, in the circumstances, the entire Contract is terminated, the [Seller] should return to the [Buyer] the down payment of EUR 118,980 and the partial payment of the contract price, import duty, and service expense in the amount of RMB 784,000.

RULING OF THE COURT

In conclusion, according to Articles 51(2) and 81(2) of the CISG, the Court hands down the following ruling:

1)    The Contract (No. JW0500812) between the [Buyer] and the [Seller] concluded on 13 August 2005 is terminated;
 
2)    The [Seller] is responsible to return the down payment in the amount of EUR 118,980 and the partial contract price, import duty, and service expense in the amount of RMB 784,000 within ten days after this ruling comes into effect.

If the [Seller] fails to perform its obligation of the payment within the time limit specified above, it is responsible for multiple interest on the debt for the period of deferred performance under Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

The litigation fee of this case is RMB 22,705 and the application fee for the pre-trial custody of property is RMB 6,148, totaling RMB 28,853, for which the [Seller] is fully responsible. The [Seller] should make payment of the entire amount within seven days after this ruling comes into effect.

For any objection to this ruling, the [Buyer] may appeal within fifteen days upon the receipt of this ruling and the [Seller] may appeal within thirty days upon the receipt of this ruling. The appeal may be made to the Shanghai High People's Court by filing application to the Court, preparing copies for the other party.


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, Plaintiff Shanghai Anlily International Trading Co., Ltd. of the People's Republic of China is referred to as the [Buyer] and Defendant J&P Golden Wings Corp. of France is referred to as the [Seller]. Amounts in the currency of the European Union (euro) are indicated as [EUR]; amounts in the currency of the People's Republic of China (renminbi) are indicated as [RMB].

** Jing Li, LL.M., University of Texas at Austin, School of Law; Master of Law, Sun Yat-Sen University School of Law, China; LL.B., Sun Yat-Sen University School of Law, China; Associate, Institute of International Commercial Law, Pace University School of Law.

*** Yu MA, LL.M., New York University, School of Law, Specialization: General Studies; LL.B., East China University of Political Science and Law, Major: Jurisprudence (International Economic Law Oriented).

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated May 7, 2010
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography