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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Netherlands 15 June 1994 District Court Amsterdam (Galerie Moderne v. Waal)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615n1.html]

Primary source(s) for case presentation: F. De Ly; Michael R. Will; Unilex abstract


Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19940615 (15 June 1994)

JURISDICTION: Netherlands

TRIBUNAL: Rb Amsterdam [Rb = Arrondissementsrechtbank = District Court]

JUDGE(S): Peeters

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: H 92.3572

CASE NAME: V.o.f. Galerie Moderne v. J.M.M. Waal

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Denmark (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Netherlands (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Lithographs


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(a)]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 7(2) ; 53 ; 74 ; 78 [Also cited: Article 6 ]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

7C231 [Gap-filling: recourse to domestic law selected by private international law];

53A ; 53B [Buyer's obligation to pay price of goods; Buyer's obligation to take delivery];

74A [Damages (general rules for measuring): loss suffered as consequence of breach];

78A ; 78B [Interest on delay in receiving price or any other sum in arrears; Rate of interest]

Descriptors: Price ; Delivery ; Damages ; Interest

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

EDITORS: Franco Ferrari and Albert H. Kritzer

The CISG was in effect in the countries of the parties at the time the contract was concluded. Stating that there is no evidence that the parties excluded the CISG pursuant to Article 6, the court applied the CISG.

Issues ruled upon:

Price, obligation to pay; Delivery, obligation to take/Damages. Without going further into the facts of the case, the court's opinion simply states the conclusion that buyer did not honor his obligations under Article 53 and is therefore obligated to pay damages pursuant to Article 74. The amount of damages was not in dispute.

Interest (right to, rate of)/ Gap-filling. The court stated: "[Buyer] did not pay the agreed price. According to Article 78 of the Convention [buyer] must pay interest on that price. This article does not determine the rate of interest. Following Article 7(2) of the Convention, the rate of interest must therefore be determined by the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law. . . . In this case, it is Danish law because the seller has his place of business in Denmark and delivery took place in Denmark." The calculation of the rate of interest under Danish law was deferred.

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

English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=126&step=Abstract>

Italian: Diritto del Commercio Internazionale (1996) 629 no. 100

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Dutch): Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 1995 no. 230 [194-195]; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=126&step=FullText>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Ferrari, International Legal Forum (4/1998) 138-255 [194 n.486 (definition of "goods"), 253 n.1079 (interest issues)]; Thiele, 2 Vindobono Journal (1998) 3-35, citing this case [n.59] and 42 other interest rulings

Spanish: [1998] Castellanos, [Free will and uniform law in international sales], Thesis: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid [147]

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated May 9, 2002
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography