Germany 8 March 1995 Appellate Court München (Copper-nickel electrolyte cathodes case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950308g1.html]
Primary source(s) for case presentation: CISG online case overview; UNCITRAL abstract; Unilex abstract
DATE OF DECISION:
JURISDICTION:
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGES (S):
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 7 U 5460/94
CASE NAME:
CASE HISTORY: 1st instance LG München 2 August 1994 [affirmed]; review denied BGH (VIII ZR 179/95) 17 April 1996
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Finland (plaintiff, also from Finland, is assignee of buyer)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant)
GOODS INVOLVED: Copper and nickel electrolyte cathodes
Reproduced with permission from UNCITRAL
A Finnish company sold 3,000 tons of electrolyte nickel/copper cathodes to the [buyer] for about 17 million US dollars. Only the [buyer] signed the written contract form. The metal was delivered but not paid for. The [seller] then assigned the payment claim to the plaintiff who demanded payment. The [buyer] denied the jurisdiction of the German court because of an arbitration clause and the valid conclusion of a sales contract.
Concerning the arbitration clause, the court found that the form requirements of the applicable article 2 (2) of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 had not been satisfied, since the parties had not signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause and the Finnish company had not received the standard form which contained the clause.
Concerning the payment claim, the court applied the CISG since both parties to the sales contract had their places of business in different CISG Contracting States, namely in Finland and in Germany. It was held that a contract had been effectively concluded between the [buyer] and the [seller] and that the plaintiff's claim for payment was justified under articles 53 and 62 CISG.
Even though Finland had declared that it would not be bound by Part II of the CISG concerning the "Formation of the Contract", an effective contract could still have been concluded. According to the CISG other forms of consent are possible as long as they can be regarded as a mutual binding arrangement and the subject-matter of the contract is comparable to articles 14-24 CISG. In an obiter dictum, the court explicitly excluded recourse to the governing contract law. The [buyer] signed a contractual document thus showing its approval of the contract and also accepted the goods upon arrival. The [seller] indicated assent to the contract by its conduct, namely through the delivery of the goods. A written contractual agreement is not necessary to evidence the parties' consent (article 11 CISG).
APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(a)]
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES
Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles
Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:
92A [Declaration not to be bound by Part II (Formation of
Contracts)]
Descriptors:
CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION
English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=119&step=Abstract>; [1996] 1 Forum des Internationalen Rechts/The International Legal Forum (English language edition) 216
Italian: Diritto del Commercio Internazionale (1996) 645-646 No. 117
Polish: Hermanowski/Jastrzebski, Konwencja Narodow Zjednoczonych o umowach miedzynarodowej sprzedazy towarow (Konwencja wiedenska) - Komentarz (1997) 275-276
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION
Original language (German): cisg-online.ch <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/145.htm>; Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des internationalen Privatrechts im Jahre (IPRspr) 1995 No. 187; Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 1996, 854-856; Neue Juristische Wochenschrift-Rechtsprechungs-Report Zivilrecht (NJW-RR) 1996, 1532-1533; Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 1996, 216-218; ; [1996] Wirtschaftsrechtliche Beratung (WiB) 1180-1181; Forum des Internationalen Rechts/ The International Legal Forum (1996) 216-218; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=119&step=FullText>
Translation: Unavailable
CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION
English: Ferrari, International Legal Forum (4/1998) 138-255 [169 n.266 (effect of Art. 92 declaration)]; Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales (1999) 137 [Art. 92 (rejection of part II, formation of contract)]; T.S. [Simons], Forum des Internationalen Rechts/ The International Legal Forum (1996-1) 217-219; Flechtner, 17 Journal of Law & Commerce (1998) 194 n.23 [Art. 92]; Spanogle/Winship, International Sales Law: A Problem Oriented Coursebook (West 2000) [contract formation, use of forms: parol evidence and confirmation letters 123-130 (this case at 123-124)]; Larry A. DiMatteo et al., 34 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business (Winter 2004) 299-440 at n.123; CISG-AC advisory opinion on Examination of the Goods and Notice of Non-Conformity [7 June 2004] (this case and related cases cited in addendum to opinion); [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Art. 11 paras. 7, 12 Intro. 14-24 para. 10 Art. 79 para. 53; Henschel, The Conformity of Goods in International Sales, Forlaget Thomson (2005) 88
Finnish: Huber/Sundström, Defensor Legis (1997) 747 [749 n.9]
French: Witz, Dalloz Sirey (1997) Som. 217-218
German: Piltz, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1996, 2768 [2769 n.18]; T.S. [Simons], Forum des Internationalen Rechts/ The International Legal Forum (1996-1) 218-219; Schnelle, [1996] Wirtschaftrechtliche Beratung (WiB) 1181-1182
Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School
Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated December 5, 2005