Spain 7 June 1999 Appellate Court Barcelona (Clothes case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990607s4.html]
DATE OF DECISIONS:
JURISDICTION:
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE(S):
CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 28/1999
CASE NAME:
CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Juzgado de Primera Instancia No. 3 (Barcelona) 4 September 1998 [affirmed]
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Spain (plantiff)
BUYER'S COUNTRY: United Kingdom (defendant)
GOODS INVOLVED: Clothes
SPAIN: Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona 7 June 1999
Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 320 [(CLOUT) abstract no. 394 also addresses this case]
Reproduced with permission from UNCITRAL
The matter at issue was concerned with the determining of the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts and the declaring of Spanish law as the law applicable to a dispute which arose from a commercial sale of textiles in which a Spanish manufacture, the plaintiff, was the seller and a British importer, the defendant, was the buyer. It had been agreed that payment for the purchased goods would take place at the seller's domicile, which does not appear to have happened. Since Spain is a party to the CISG and the United Kingdom is not, it had to be concluded that, in the event that Spanish law was applicable, the CISG would be the instrument governing the sale.
The Court noted that the essential service provided under the disputed contract was the supply of the purchased textiles by the seller, whose administrative headquarters are located in the city of Barcelona.
The Court accordingly ruled that the law applicable was Spanish law and hence the CISG would apply, even though the United Kingdom is not a party to the CISG. That ruling was in accordance with article 1(1)(b) CISG, which states that the CISG applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State, which is what happened in the present case.
The Court further indicated that the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts was based on article 57(1)(a) CISG, which states that, if no other place is specified, the price has to be paid "at the seller's place of business". Consequently, that is the place of performance of the contract and the place that determines which courts have jurisdiction to hear the seller's claim and settle the dispute.
The seller sought to have the Spanish Tribunal declare that it had jurisdiction to rule on
the merits of the case according to the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, which
determines that the competent tribunal is that where the obligation claimed to have been
breached is purported to have been performed. In this case, the place of performance of
this obligation, the payment of the price, was in dispute. The Tribunal ruled that in the
light of Spanish private international law, the applicable law to determine the place of
payment was Spanish Law (lex fori).
The court further found that since Spain was a Contracting State to the CISG and the
contract involved the international sale of goods, the CISG was applicable. In this case,
despite the fact that the UK is not a Contracting State, according to Art 1(1)(b) the CISG
is nevertheless applicable. Furthermore, the regulation of the place of the payment falls
within Art. 57(1)(a) CISG, which states that in cases such as this the place of payment is
the seller's place of business. The court therefore concluded that the Spanish Tribunal
had jurisdiction.
APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(b)] APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES Key CISG provisions at issue: Article Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code
numbers:
57A [Place for payment: in absence of agreement, payment at seller's place of business]
Descriptors: EDITOR: Patricia Rincón Martín
Referring to Spanish rules of private international law, the court decided that Spanish law
was applicable and applied the CISG. Specifically, the court stated that the CISG is the
Convention that regulated international sales of goods.
In this case, the Tribunal considered the CISG applicable even though the United
Kingdom was not a Contracting State, citing Art 1(1)(b) which states that the Convention
applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose place of business are in
different States when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the
law of a Contracting State.
Referring to the settlement of the place of payment, the Tribunal applied Art. 57 to
determine this law to be the law of the seller's place of business (Barcelona), concluding
that, as such, it was also the place of the competent Tribunal, according to the Brussels
Convention. "En virtud del Art. 57.1.a CISG, al tener que hacerse el pago en el domicilio
del vendedor, éste será el lugar de ejecución y por tanto el que determinará el fuero competente para conocer de la reclamación. Teniendo la actora su domicilio en
Barcelona, serán los órganos judiciales de esta ciudad los competentes . . . "
CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=432&step=Abstract>
Spanish: CISG-Spain and Latin America database "http://www.uc3m.es/cisg/respan5.htm" CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION Original language (Spanish): CISG-Spain and Latin America database "http://www.uc3m.es/cisg/respan5.htm"; Actualidad Civil núm. 5, 31 de enero al 6 de febrero de 2000, pp. 171-173; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=432&step=FullText> Translation: Unavailable CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION French: Rosch, Dalloz, Cahier Droit des Affairs (30 November 2000) No. 42/7007, 440-441
Spanish: Campuzano Díaz, Revista de Derecho patrimonial, Aranzadi (2000), núm. 5, 195-201; Font Segura, La Ley (2000) D-115, 1406-1414; Gardeñes Santiago, Revista española de Derecho internacional (1999), núm. 2, 706-710 Case abstract [Patricia Rincón Martín]
Classification of issues present
Editorial remarks
Citations to other abstracts, case texts and commentaries