United States 20 August 1996 Federal Appellate Court [9th Circuit] (Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products) Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

United States 20 August 1996 Federal Appellate Court [9th Circuit] (Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960820u1.html]

Primary source(s) for case presentation: Case text


Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19960820 (20 August 1996)

JURISDICTION: United States [federal court]

TRIBUNAL: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) [federal appellate court]

JUDGE(S): Fernandez, Tashima, Merhige

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 95-55410

CASE NAME: Attorneys Trust and CM Magnetics Corporation v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc. and Videotape Products, Inc.

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance District Court (Central District of California) [CV-92-03442-KN (Ex)]

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Republic of China [Taiwan] (claimant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: United States (respondent)

GOODS INVOLVED: Videotape housings


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: The court mentioned but did not apply the CISG

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles [-]

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers: [-]

Descriptors: Applicability ; Exclusion of Convention ; Procedural matters vs. substantive law ; Waiver

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

EDITOR: Albert H. Kritzer

The only reference to the CISG in this opinion is in a paragraph which reads in its entirety:

"[Seller's] final attempt to avoid the district court's judgment consists of its assertion that the district court erred because it should have applied the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. That would have led to the application of the law of Taiwan to this case, says [seller]. However, this claim is too little too late. Assuming that Taiwan is a party to the Convention, `[a] party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of a foreign country shall give notice by pleadings or other reasonable written notice.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. The failure to raise the issue results in application of the law of the forum, here California. ["Under California's choice of law rules, a California court `will apply its own rule of decision unless a party litigant timely invokes the law of a foreign state.' Hurtado v. Superior Court, 11 Cal. 3d 574, 581, 522 P.2d 666, 670, 114 Cal. Rptr. 106, 110 (1974)."] See Interpool Ltd. v. Char Yigh Marine (Panama) S.A., 890 F.2d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir. 1989); Seattle Totems Hockey Club, Inc. v. National Hockey League, 783 F.2d 1347, 1355 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 932, 107 S. Ct. 405, 93 L. Ed. 2d 357 (1986); Montana Power Co. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 2, 587 F.2d 1019, 1022, n.1 (9th Cir. 1978); Commercial Ins. Co. v. Pacific-Peru Constr. Corp., 558 F.2d 948, 952 (9th Cir. 1977). The parties cited only California law to the district court. Indeed, they cite only California law to us. The district court did not err."

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): Spanogle/Winship, International Sales Law: A Problem Oriented Coursebook (West 2000) 67-68

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (English): There are two parts to this decision: Citations to Part (i) of the decision are: 93 F.3d 593; 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 20800; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6178; 96 Daily Journal DAR 10118. The citation to Part (ii) of the decision is: 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 21792; 1996 WL 473755 (9th Cir. (Cal.)). The editorial remarks presented above contain an excerpt from Part (ii) of the decision. The text of part (i) of the decision is available on the Internet courtesy of Villanova Law School (website address: "http://www.vcilp.org/Fed-Ct/Circuit/9th/opinions/9555410.htm".

The sole published source of Part (ii) of the decision is Lexis, cited above.

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Bailey, 32 Cornell International Law Journal (1999) 283, nn.55-60; Spanogle/Winship, International Sales Law: A Problem Oriented Coursebook (West 2000) [when parties fail to designate the applicable law 52-68 (this case at 67-68)]; Keith A. Rowley, "The Convention on the International Sale of Goods", in: Hunter ed., Modern Law of Contracts, Thomson/West (03/2007) § 23:9

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated January 9, 2008
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography