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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Belgium 2 June 1999 District Court Hasselt (Isocab France v. E.C.B.S.)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990602b1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: CISG-Belgium database of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19990602 (2 June 1999)

JURISDICTION: Belgium

TRIBUNAL: Rechtbank [District Court] van Koophandel Hasselt

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: A.R. 1079/99

CASE NAME: S.A. Isocab France v. E.C.B.S.

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: France (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: U.S.A. [seat in Belgium] (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Sandwich panels


Case abstract

CISG-Belgium database of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

A U.S. buyer with establishment in Belgium, bought sandwich panels from a French seller. The seller sued the buyer for payment of the price and damages and interest, based on the French General Conditions. The buyer did not contest liability for the price but contested the damages and interest and asked permission to pay a certain amount per month. The CISG was applicable since both France and Belgium were Contracting States. According the article 10, the Belgian establishment of the buyer had to be taken into account since the invoice was addressed to it, in Dutch, so that it could be said that it had the closest relationship to the contract. In any event, the USA was also party to the CISG. The General Conditions on the invoice were not valid [as they were sent for the first time with the invoice and were written in French, not the language of the contract (Dutch)]. [Interest was determined at 20% in these General Conditions; the court, however, held that interest cannot be based on these General Conditions.] The seller was [nevertheless] entitled to damages and interest according to articles 74 and 78 CISG and the debates were re-opened on that point. The court granted permission to the buyer to pay over six months. Article 61 CISG, stating that the court might not grant a period of grace, was not applicable since the seller agreed to an extension period for payment.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 8 ; 10 ; 61 ; 74 ; 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 other abstracts, case texts and commentaries

CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=791&step=Abstract>

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Dutch): CISG-Belgium database of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/ipr/eng/cases/1999-06-02.html>; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=791&step=FullText>

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: Article 78 and rate of interest: Mazzotta, Endless disagreement among commentators, much less among courts (2004) [citing this case and 275 other court and arbitral rulings]; [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Art. 10 para. 5

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated August 5, 2005
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography