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

Spain 15 July 2010 Audiencia Provincial de Murcia (Crane case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/100715s4.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: CISG-Spain and Latin America website

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20100715 (15 July 2010)

JURISDICTION: Spain

TRIBUNAL: Audiencia Provincial de Murcia

JUDGE(S): D. Juan Martnez Prez and D. Juan Antonio Jover Coy

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 439/10

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Sentencia de Primera Instancia nm.5 de Murcia, 23 December 2009

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Spain

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany

GOODS INVOLVED: Crane


UNCITRAL case abstract

SPAIN: Murcia Provincial High Court (Crane case) 15 July 2010

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/105],
CLOUT abstract no. 1033

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by María del Pilar Perales Viscasillas

The parties to a contract on the international sale of a crane were in dispute over the conclusion of the contract. The Court of First Instance deemed the contract to have been concluded, on the grounds that the Spanish seller had offered a deal on the goods and a price that had been accepted by the German buyer. The appellant (the seller) considered that the contract had been subject to the condition that payment for the goods would take place before any other buyer was accepted and that, if that condition had not been fulfilled, there was no contract. However, the Provincial High Court upheld the judgement of the Court of First Instance, in view of the provisions of articles 14 to 16 of CISG, since it was clear from the electronic mails exchanged by the parties that the seller had given the buyer first refusal to carry out the transaction, so long as it was carried out before a specified date. This the buyer had done, when it paid the agreed amount by bank transfer. That transaction had, however, been refused by the seller's bank. The seller had thus made a firm and binding offer that it had failed to honour for unjustified reasons, since it had not sought to extend the deadline granted for paying the cost of the transaction but had gone on to sell the goods to a third party. There had thus been an offer and an acceptance, which meant that the sale contract had been concluded and its failure was due to the seller.

The Court considered whether article 74 of CISG applied, since the breach of contract by the seller had caused damage to the buyer in the form of loss of profit. In endorsement of the lower court's judgement, damages were set at the difference between the amount of the resale and the price of the crane acquired by the buyer, in addition to the buyer's costs. Lastly, the Court considered that there had been no breach of the provisions of articles 74, 75 and 77 of CISG, since the seller had not established that the damages claimed exceeded the loss that the party in breach had foreseen or ought to have foreseen, it had not established that the possibility of a replacement purchase was possible and it had not established that the buyer had not taken reasonable measures, given the circumstances, to reduce the damage. The exercise of discretion provided for in article 1.103 of the Civil Code was not appropriate in the present case.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 14 ; 15 ; 16 ; 18 ; 74 ; 75 ; 76 ; 77

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

14A [Criteria for an offer ; Basic criterion -- intention to be bound in case of acceptance];

15A ; 15B [When Offer becomes Effective ; Prior Withdrawal ; Effective on reaching offeree ; withdrawal of offer];

16A ; 16B [Revocation that reaches offeree prior to dispatch of acceptance ; restriction on revocability];

18A [Criteria for acceptance];

74 [Damages -- General Rules for Measuring];

75 [Avoidance: Damages Established by Substitute Transaction];

76 [Avoidance: Damages Based on Current Price];

77 [Mitigation of Damages]

Descriptors: Offer

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 (Spanish): CISG-Spain and Latin America website <http://turan.uc3m.es/uc3m/dpto/PR/dppr03/cisg/sespan85.htm>

Translation: CISG-Spain and Latin America website <http://turan.uc3m.es/uc3m/dpto/PR/dppr03/cisg/trad85.htm>

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated June 9, 2011
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography