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

Netherlands 15 April 2009 Rechtbank [District Court] Utrecht (Stainless steel case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090415n1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Website of the Dutch courts

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20090415 (15 April 2009)

JURISDICTION: Netherlands

TRIBUNAL: Rb Utrecht [Rb = Rechtbank = District Court]

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 239001 / HA ZA 07-2031

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Netherlands / Italy

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Netherlands

GOODS INVOLVED: Stainless steel


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: No, excluded by the parties

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 6

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

6A [Exclusion of Convention: agreement of parties to exclude (express and implicit)]

Descriptors: Choice of law

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Reproduced with permission of European Journal of Contract Law (3/2009) 163

EDITOR: Sonja Kruisinga, Utrecht University

Rechtbank Utrecht (Stainless steel case) 15 April 2009

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case concerned a contract for the sale of stainless steel between a Dutch buyer and a Dut3ch/Italian seller. The buyer sued the seller and claimed that the steel that was delivered was not in conformity with the contract.

REASONING

The District Court of Utrecht held that, in principle, the provisions of the CISG were applicable to the current contract for the sale of goods, because the contracting parties had their places of business in different Contracting States. The District Court emphasized that this can only be different if the application of the CISG had been excluded by the contracting parties.

The District Court held, however, that the contract in question was governed by Dutch national law because both contracting parties had explicitly mentioned in their respective general conditions that Dutch law was applicable, while excluding the CISG. This position was confirmed, according to the District Court, by the fact that the contracting parties had also implicitly excluded the CISG because they had only referred to the provisions of Dutch national law in their pleadings.

COMMENT

The case shows that a choice of law clause that refers to the national law of a Contracting State to the CISG will only be sufficient to exclude the application of the CISG if this exclusion is explicitly mentioned.

Unfortunately, the District Court did not explicitly address the question as to whether the current general conditions had become part of the contract for the international sale of goods.

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 (Dutch): Website of the Dutch courts <http://www.rechtspraak.nl/>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated May 21, 2010
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography