Russia 26 March 2009 Judicial Division of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090326r1.html]
DATE OF DECISION:
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: VAS-2261/09
CASE HISTORY: Unavailable
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Russia
BUYER'S COUNTRY: Lithuania
GOODS INVOLVED: [-]
RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Judicial Division of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Moscow
[No. VAS-2261/09] 26 March 2009
Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/145],
CLOUT abstract no. 1368
Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL
A Russian company (the seller) lodged a claim against a Lithuanian company (the buyer) to recover money for goods delivered.
The court of first instance allowed the seller's claims. 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.
A contract had been concluded between the parties in the Russian Federation, according to which the seller undertook to deliver timber to the buyer. Pursuant to the contract, disputes and disagreements between the parties were to be referred to the Russian courts, the applicable law being that of the Russian Federation.
The courts found, on the basis of the relevant invoices, customs declarations and international commodity invoices, that the goods had been received by the buyer without complaint as to quantity and quality. The buyer however had not met its obligation to pay for the goods.
The Russian Federation and Lithuania are party to the CISG and the disputed contract falls within its scope. Under article 7(2) CISG, the subject matter of a dispute under CISG should be governed by the provisions of the Convention and, in the case of matters not expressly settled therein, in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law. Thus, the settlement of the dispute at hand should be governed by the provisions of the Convention and, in case, by Russian law.
In the buyer's opinion, the buyer was not in arrears in the payment for the goods since, in accordance with the contract, only the ownership of the goods it had paid for had passed to it. Inasmuch as the unpaid goods were still property of the seller, the buyer could not be considered in arrears.
The basic obligations of the buyer were set out in article 53 CISG, according to which the buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract. Thus, the incurrence of a liability to accept and pay for the goods was related to the seller's obligation to deliver the goods and not with any right of ownership of the goods on the part of the buyer. Under article 62 CISG, the seller had the right to require the buyer to pay the price for the goods. The buyer's obligation to pay for the goods was also provided for by the Civil Code of the
Russian Federation. The courts had rightly allowed the claims on the basis of the facts of the case, having weighed the evidence submitted by the parties.Go to Case Table of Contents
APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)]
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue:
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (Russian): online database of court judgements <http://kad.arbitr.ru>
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
UnavailableGo to Case Table of Contents