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

Australia 23 June 2010 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Attorney-General of Botswana v. Aussie Diamond Products Pty Ltd)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/100623a2.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20100623 (23 June 2010)

JURISDICTION: Australia

TRIBUNAL: Supreme Court of Western Australia

JUDGE(S): J. Murphy

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: CIV 1139 of 2008

CASE NAME: Attorney-General of Botswana v. Aussie Diamond Products Pty Ltd

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Australia (Defendant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Republic of Botswana (Plaintiff)

GOODS INVOLVED: Multi-purpose drill rig and associated equipment


UNCITRAL case abstract

AUSTRALIA: Supreme Court of Western Australia, 23 June 2010
(Attorney-general of Botswana -v- Aussie Diamond Products Pty Ltd [No. 3] [2010] WASC 141 )

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/116],
CLOUT abstract no. 1135

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

A buyer from Botswana and a seller from Australia signed a contract for commissioning and installing a drill rig. The buyer claimed that “the consideration under the contract wholly failed, because the seller failed to commission the drill rig” and requested therefore the return of the sum paid.

Further, the buyer pleaded that Botswana law was the proper law of the contract. The seller contended that the law of Western Australia was the proper law, and that the Act (Sale of Goods Act 1895 [WA]) applied either for that reason, or because the buyer did not displace the presumption that the law of Botswana is the same as the law of the forum.

The court discussed the applicable law and came to the conclusion that Western Australian law was the governing law. The court was aware that the CISG forms part of the law of Australia and was applicable in this case. However the court noted that “Neither party in this case has suggested that there are provisions of the Convention which require consideration, or that the provisions of the Convention would operate inconsistently with the application of the Act in the circumstances of this case, and the general law of Western Australia. Having regard to the way the case was run it is unnecessary to refer to the Convention further …”.

Applying domestic law, the Court defined the particular nature and terms of the contract in between a contract for the sales of goods and a contract for work to be done and noted that the issue was the sale of the rig and not the construction which was a minor part of the agreement.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: No

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 5 ; 6

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

5A [Exclusion of claims based on death or personal injury];

6A [Exclusion or modification of Convention by contract]

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Go to Case Table of Contents

Citations to other abstracts, case texts and commentaries

CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (English): Australasian Legal Information Institute website: <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2010/141.html>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated June 12, 2012
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography