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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

ICC Arbitration Case No. 8204 of 1995
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958204i1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Cited in van Houtte, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin (Fall 2000)

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19950000 (1995)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; ICC

TRIBUNAL: Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 8204 of 1995 [?]

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Bulgaria

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany

GOODS INVOLVED: Unavailable


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes. In choosing French law the parties thereby also chose the CISG, which is part of that legal system. In any event, van Houtte reports that tribunal indicated that "French law on international sale of goods in general entail practically equivalent, if not totally similar, solutions on points of substance, so that application of the Vienna Convention would not run against the parties' legitimate expectations.

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 41 ; 75 ; 77 ; 78

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

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Original language: Unpublished

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: van Houtte, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 11/No. 2 (Fall 2000), 24 n.16 [choice of law], 26 nn. 25, 36 [CISG and concurrent national law], 28 n.51 ["Art. 41 CISG requires the seller to deliver the goods unencumbered by any third party rights or claims thereto. [The] arbitral tribunal decided that a seller could not refuse delivery because its wholly-owned subsidiary had obtained a court order putting under arrest the vessel where the cargo had been loaded. The seller 'enjoyed sufficient authority over [its subsidiary] to give it appropriate instructions for avoiding and/or rapidly lifting the effects of the arrest'."], 32 n. 77 [interest], 32 n.82 ["A party claiming damages has an obligation to mitigate the loss (Art. 77 CISG). Whenever it is clear that the buyer cannot obtain the goods from the seller, it may purchase replacement goods and recover the difference between the contract price and the price paid in the substitute transaction (Art. 75 CISG). In [this] case, while granting such compensation, the arbitral tribunal confined it to an amount corresponding to the minimum quantity the initial seller was obliged to supply."]

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated January 23, 2001
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography