Go to Database Directory || Go to Information on other available case data
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

2,000 cases 7,500 case annotations

Article 60. Buyer's Obligation to Take Delivery

TEXT OF ARTICLE 60

The buyer's obligation to take delivery consists:

(a) in doing all the acts which could reasonably be expected of him in order to enable the seller to make delivery; and

(b) in taking over the goods.


OUTLINE OF ISSUES

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

60A Includes acts reasonably expected to aid seller (art. 60(a))

60A1 Cooperation with seller (see art. 7: good faith)

60B Buyer's obligation to take art. 60(b)

60B1 Failure to take delivery: see seller's rights arts. 61-64


DESCRIPTORS

Delivery


CASE ANNOTATIONS: UNCITRAL DIGEST CASES PLUS ADDED CASES

UNCITRAL has identified relevant cases in Digests containing case annotations for each article of the CISG. For Art. 60, the UNCITRAL Digest cites three cases: two from Germany, one from United States.

Presented below is a composite list of Art. 60 cases reporting these UNCITRAL Digest cases and other Art. 60 cases. All cases are listed in chronological sequence, commencing with the most recent. Asterisks identify the UNCITRAL Digest cases, commencing with the 10 May 2002 citation reported below. Cases are coded to the UNCITRAL Thesaurus.

English texts and full-text English translations of cases are provided as indicated. In most instances researchers can also access UNCITRAL abstracts and link to Unilex abstracts and full-text original-language case texts sourced from Internet websites and other data, including commentaries by scholars to the extent available.
 

Netherlands 2 January 2007 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's-Hertogenbosch (G.W.A. Bernards v. Carstenfelder Baumschulen Pflanzenhandel GmbH)
 

Germany 8 February 2006 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Karlsruhe (Hungarian wheat case) [translation available]
 

Spain 26 September 2005 Audiencia Provincial [Appellate Court] Palencia (Printing machine case) [translation available]
 

Germany 28 May 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [translation available]

Belgium 26 May 2004 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Kortrijk

Russia 16 February 2004 Arbitration Award 107/2002 [translation available]

Switzerland 27 January 2004 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Schaffhausen [translation available]
 

Switzerland 13 November 2003 Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] [translation available]
 

China 27 December 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2002/29] (Medicine manufacturing equipment case) [translation available]

Denmark 30 October 2002 Vestre Landsret [Western High Court] (Potatoes case)

Germany 2 July 2002 Landgericht [District Court] Saarbrücken [translation available]

* United States 10 May 2002 U.S. District Court [Southern Dist. NY] (Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc.) 60A

Russia 18 February 2002 Arbitration Award No. 165/2001 [translation available]

Russia 24 January 2002 Arbitration Award No. 27/2001 [translation available]
 

China 22 March 2001 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2001/02] (Mung bean case) 60A1 ; 60B [translation available]
 

China 29 September 2000 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2000/15] (Cushion case) 60A [translation available]

Germany 13 September 2000 Landgericht [District Court] Memmingen

Ukraine 8 September 2000 Arbitration Award (Forming press case) [translation available]

China 17 July 2000 Higher People's Court [Appellate Court] of He'nan Province (Minterrnet S.A. v. He'nan Local Product Import and Export Company) [translation available]

Russia 10 February 2000 Arbitration proceeding 340/1999 [translation available]
 

China 31 May 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/27] (Indium ingot case) 60A [translation available]

China 30 March 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/16] (Flanges case) [translation available]

China 1 March 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/12] (Canned mandarin oranges case) [translation available]

China 6 January 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/04] (Australian raw wool) [translation available]
 

Germany 29 December 1998 Hamburg Arbitration award [translation available]

Switzerland 30 November 1998 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich [translation available]

Bulgaria 12 February 1998 Bulgaria Chamber of Commerce Arbitration award, Case 11/1996 [translation available]
 

Austria 10 December 1997 Vienna Arbitration award S 2/97 [translation available]

China 25 June 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/16] (Art paper case) 60A [translation available]

Russia 11 June 1997 Arbitration award 255/1994 60A [translation available]

China 7 May 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/12] (Horsebean case) [translation available]

China 30 April 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/10] (Molybdenum alloy) 60A [translation available]

ICC January 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8786 [English text]
 

Hungary 10 December 1996 Budapest Arbitration award Vb 96074 [English text]

ICC September 1996 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8574 [English text]

China 8 March 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/13] (Horsebean case) 60A [translation available]
 

Germany 8 March 1995 Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] [translation available]

Germany 8 February 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München [7 U 1720/94] [translation available]
 

* Germany 18 January 1994 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt [translation available]
 

* Germany 14 May 1993 Landgericht [District Court] Aachen [translation available]
 

Argentina 20 May 1991 Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Comercial [National Commercial Court of First Instance] [translation available]
 

Germany 24 April 1990 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Oldenburg (Fashion textiles case) 60B [translation available]
 

China post-1989 [date claim filed] CIETAC Arbitration award (Contract #QFD890011) 60A [translation available]


UNCITRAL CASE DIGEST

The UNCITRAL Digest of case law on the United
Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods
[*]

A/CN.9/SER.C/DIGEST/CISG/60 [8 June 2004]
Reproduced with the permission of UNCITRAL

[Text of Article 60
Digest of Article 60 case law
-    Introduction
-    Duty to cooperate
-    Buyer's duty to take over the goods
-    Right to reject the goods]
ARTICLE 60

The buyer's obligation to take delivery consists:

     (a) in doing all the acts which could reasonably be expected of him in order to enable the seller to make delivery; and  

     (b) in taking over the goods.

DIGEST OF ARTICLE 60 CASE LAW

Introduction

1. This provision defines the buyer's obligation to take delivery of the goods, one of the two basic obligations of the buyer set forth in article 53. The obligation to take delivery involves the two elements described in the provision.

Duty to cooperate

2. Article 60(a) imposes upon the buyer a duty to cooperate. The buyer must "do all the acts which could reasonably be expected of him in order to enable the seller to make delivery."[1] The specific content of this duty to cooperate will vary with the variation of the contractual terms. By way of illustration of article 60(a), it may be noted that if the place of delivery is the place of business of the buyer, he must ensure that the seller has access to those premises and, in the event that the seller is called upon to install equipment, the site must be appropriately prepared for that purpose.

Buyer's duty to take over the goods

3. Article 60(b) sets out the second element of the buyer's obligation to take delivery, namely the buyer's duty to take over the goods at the place where the seller is to deliver them.[2] The arrangements for taking over the goods depend on the form of delivery agreed upon by the parties. For example, when the obligation to deliver consists in putting the goods at the disposal of the buyer in the seller's place of business (art. 31(c)), the buyer must either remove the goods or have them removed by a third party of its own choice.

Right to reject the goods

4. Article 60 says nothing about cases in which the buyer is entitled to reject the goods. The Convention foresees two specific cases, that of delivery before the date fixed (art. 52(1)) and that of delivery of a quantity of goods greater than that provided for in the contract (art. 52(2)). It must also be noted that the buyer has the right to reject the goods if a breach of contract committed by the seller is fundamental (art. 25), which gives the buyer the right to declare the contract avoided (art. 49(1)(a)) or to demand delivery of substitute goods (art. 46(2)). As was found in one court decision, the buyer is required to take delivery of the goods when a fault in conformity does not constitute a fundamental breach.[3] When the buyer is entitled to reject the goods, he may nevertheless be required to take possession of them with a view to preserving them (art. 86).


FOOTNOTES

* The present text was prepared using the full text of the decisions cited in the Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts (CLOUT) abstracts and other citations listed in the footnotes. The abstracts are intended to serve only as summaries of the underlying decisions and may not reflect all the points made in the digest. Readers are advised to consult the full texts of the listed court and arbitral decisions rather than relying solely on the CLOUT abstracts.

[Citations to cisgw3 case presentations have been substituted [in brackets] for the case citations provided in the UNCITRAL Digest. This substitution has been made to facilitate online access to CLOUT abstracts, original texts of court and arbitral decisions, and full text English translations of these texts (available in most but not all cases). For citations UNCITRAL had used, go to <http://www.uncitral.org/english/clout/digest_cisg_e.htm>.]

1. [UNITED STATES Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc. Federal District Court [New York] 10 May 2002 available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html>].

2. CLOUT case No. 47 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 14 May 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930514g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

3. CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 18 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).


Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated September 3, 2008
Go to Database Directory || Go to Information on other available case data
Comments/Contributions