Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Italy 24 October 1988 Supreme Court (Kretschmer v. Muratori Enzo)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/881024i3.html]

Primary source(s) for case presentation: Michael R. Will; translated text of case


Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19981024 (24 October 1988)

JURISDICTION: Italy

TRIBUNAL: Corte di Cassazione [Supreme Court]

JUDGE(S): Granata, Lo Coco

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 5739

CASE NAME: Kretschmer GmbH & Co. K.G. v. Muratori Enzo

CASE HISTORY: Trib. Modena [affirmed]

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Italy (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Fruit (cherries)


Case abstract

ITALY: Corte Suprema di Cassazione 24 October 1988 [cited as 3 March 1988]

Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 8

Reproduced with permission from UNCITRAL

An Italian exporter had concluded a contract for the sale of a cargo of fruit with a German importer. The court, noting that Italy's ratification of CISG according to Article 99(6) had taken effect only after its denunciation of the 1964 Hague Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, i.e. as from 1 January 1988, held that CISG did not apply in the case at hand since the contract had been concluded before that date.

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 90 ; 99(3) ; 99(6) ; 100(2) [by analogy, see also Article 57(1)(a) ]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

57A [Place for payment: in absence of agreement, payment at seller's place of business];

90A [Relationship to other conventions: conventions with provisions governing same matters];

99B [Denunciation of 1964 Hague Conventions on Sale (ULF & ULIS)];

100B1 [Applicability based on date of contract]

Descriptors: Applicability

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

EDITOR: Albert H. Kritzer

Applicability/Relations with other conventions. The sole reference to the CISG in this opinion reads as follows:

"Given the period at which the contract which gives rise to the obligations the subject of these proceedings was made, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods has no bearing on this dispute, having been adopted at Vienna on 11 April 1980 and having been ratified and executed by Act 765 of 11 December 1985. . . ."

"It is opportune to recall in that regard that, by its Article 100, the Convention applies to contracts entered into as the result of an offer made after the entry into force of the Convention which, as has just been pointed out, is effective from 1 January 1988, in accordance with Article 99 which specifies that in the case of States bound by the Hague Convention ratifications will enter into force only on the date on which the denunciations requested by the aforesaid States in respect of those Conventions have come into force. This form of coordination was made necessary because the Convention, as stated in its Article 90 does not prevail over an international agreement which has been concluded or is to be concluded and which contains provisions relating to matters regulated by the Convention."

Jurisdiction/Payment, place of. At issue in this case was jurisdiction of the court. ULIS Article 59 was deemed relevant in this respect. ULIS Article 59 is similar to CISG Article 57(1)(a). ULIS Article 59 states: "The buyer shall pay the price to the seller at the seller's place of business . . ." CISG Article 57(1)(a) states: "If the buyer is not bound to pay the price at any other particular place, he must pay it to the seller at the seller's place of business . . ." The court stated that "the provisions of Article 59 of [ULIS] must be applied . . . The result is that, in this case, the establishing of the plaintiff's domicile in Italy suffices to give the Italian court jurisdiction with respect to the alleged breach asserted against the foreign buyer."

Go to Case Table of Contents


Citations to other abstracts, case text and commentaries

CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

English: Uniform Law Review II (1989) 857-858; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=2&step=Abstract>; see also <http://soi.cnr.it/~crdcs/crdcs/it241088a.htm>

French: Uniform Law Review II (1989) 857

German: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Internationales und Europäisches Recht (SZIER)/Revue suisse de droit international et de droit européen 1993, 664 [cited as 3 March 1988]

Italian: Diritto del Commercio Internazionale (1992) No. 8 636-637 [cited as 3 March 1988]

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Italian): Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=2&step=FullText>; see also <http://soi.cnr.it/~crdcs/crdcs/it241088f.htm>; Foro italiano (1989-I) 2878-2891; Giustizia civile (1989-I) 1888-1892; Uniform Law Review II (1989) 857-862

Translation (English): International Litigation Procedure (London) 1991, 361-370

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Italian: Pisaneschi, Foro italiano (1989-I) 2878 [2888-2889]; Veneziano, Rivista di Diritto Internazionale Privato e Processuale (1990), 155 [157-161]

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated January 2, 2008
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography