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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Netherlands 7 June 1995 District Court 's-Gravenhage (Smits v. Jean Quetard)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950607n1.html]

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


Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19950607 (7 June 1995)

JURISDICTION: Netherlands

TRIBUNAL: Rb 's-Gravenhage [Rb = Arrondissementsrechtbank = District Court]

JUDGE(S): Hensen

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 94/0670

CASE NAME: Smits BV v. Jean Quetard

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Netherlands (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: France (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Apple trees


Classification of issues present

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

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 6 ; 38(1) ; 39(1)

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

6B [Agreements to apply Convention: choice of law of Contracting State];

38A1 [Time for examining goods: buyer's obligation to examine goods as soon as practicable in the circumstances];

39A1 ; 39A2 [Requirement to notify seller of lack of conformity: notice must specify nature of non-conformity; Notice must be provided within reasonable time]

Descriptors: Choice of law ; Examination of the goods ; Lack of conformity notice, timeliness

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.

Issues ruled upon:

Choice of law: The choice of the law of a Contracting State was held to make the CISG the governing law of the contract.

Examination of the goods/Notice of lack of conformity. In a suit for payment of the price for a purchase of apple trees and for interest and damages, the amount of seller's claim was not disputed. However, buyer defended and counterclaimed alleging that "third parties were not satisfied with the quality of the trees and that a number of them had to be destroyed because they were infected." Buyer's claim and counterclaim were disallowed for lack of evidence of timely examination of the goods as required by Article 38, and because buyer failed to indicate when and how he complied with the Article 39 requirement that he provide timely notice of the lack of conformity.

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=154&step=Abstract>

Italian: Diritto del Commercio Internazionale (1997) 740 No. 153

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Dutch): Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 1995 No. 524 [687]; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=154&step=FullText>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Ferrari, International Legal Forum (4/1998) 138-255 [194 n.485 (definition of "goods"), 217 n.714 (choice of law of Contracting State)]; Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales (1999) 81 [Art. 6 (choice of law)]; 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); [2004] S.A. Kruisinga, (Non-)conformity in the 1980 UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: a uniform concept?, Intersentia at 8, 181

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated November 10, 2004
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography