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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

New Zealand 20 December 1993 High Court Auckland (Crump v. Wala)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/931220n6.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Michael R. Will

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISIONS: 19931220 (20 December 1993)

JURISDICTION: New Zealand

TRIBUNAL: High Court Auckland

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Unavailable

CASE NAME: Crump v. Wala

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance District Court 13 March 1993 [reversed]

SELLER'S COUNTRY: New Zealand (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: New Zealand (plaintiff)

GOODS INVOLVED: Jeans


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: No [obiter reference to CISG]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 49(1)(a)

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

EDITOR: Albert H. Kritzer

The sole reference to the CISG reads:

"Unfortunately, recasting the buyer's rights of rejection in New Zealand law has not enjoyed the law reform priority it deserves. There are now a number of possibilities to which reference could be had. First, . . . generally speaking, in Anglo-New Zealand law the right of rejection has only existed for breach of a condition. A great many things flow from that. The law has been so complex that the better advised sellers easily conclude that they would be better served by having the agreement spell out the consequences of non-conforming goods instead of entrusting themselves to the uncertainties of the Sale of Goods Act and the vagaries of litigation. The matter was tackled in art 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States, which allows revocation of acceptance in certain circumstances and generally adopts a substantial breach test as the basis for cancellation of a contract. The Hague Uniform Law for International Sale of Goods and its successor, the Vienna Sales Convention, both provide that a buyer can only avoid a contract where the seller has committed a fundamental breach of his obligations: see ULIS arts 20-32, 33, 49 CISG, art 49(1)(a)." [citations omitted]

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 (English): [1994] 2 NZLR 331

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated July 26, 2000
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography