United States 10 December 2009 Federal District Court [New York] (David S. Taub et al. v. Marchesi Di Barolo S.p.A.)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/091210u1.html]
DATE OF DECISION:
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-599 (ADS) (ETB)
CASE HISTORY: Unavailable
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Italy (defendant)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: United States (plaintiff)
GOODS INVOLVED: Wine
APPLICATION OF CISG: Unclear. A suit had been filed in the United States by the U.S. buyer and a suit had been filed in Italy by Marchesi, the Italian seller. This is a proceeding in which Marchesi moved to dismiss the suit in the U.S. based on forum non conveniens and in deference to the Italian litigation. The sole reference to the CISG in the court's opinion is as follows:
"The public convenience factors courts must consider include: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the interest in having local disputes decided at home; (3) the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action; (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and (5) the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 241 n.6.
"Here, Marchesi addresses only one of these factors. Marchesi goes on at some length to convince the Court that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ('CISG'), and not New York law, will govern the parties' dispute. The apparent implication of this discussion is that the 'foreign law' factor counsels in favor of deferring to the Italian court because this Court will have some difficulty in interpreting and applying the CISG.
"However, even if the Court assumes for the purposes of this motion that the CISG governs the instant dispute and further assumes that the CISG can be properly characterized as foreign law, Marchesi's argument is still unpersuasive. Federal courts, including this Court, have had little difficulty in interpreting and applying the CISG. See Delchi Carrier v. Rotorex Corp., 71 F.3d 1024, 1027-28 (2d Cir. 1995), Chicago Prime Packers v. Northam Food Trading, 408 F.3d 894, 898-99 (7th Cir. 2005); Genpharm Inc. v. Pliva-Lachema a.s., 361 F. Supp. 2d 49, 53-54 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (Spatt, J). As such, the Court does not share Marchesi's apparent concern about the potential difficulties in applying the CISG."
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue:
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable
(b) Other abstracts
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (English): 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 115565
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
UnavailableGo to Case Table of Contents