Go to Database Directory|| See also UNCITRAL Digest Cases + Added Cases
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

2012 UNCITRAL Digest of case law on the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods

Digest of Article 53 case law [reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL] [*]

[Text of article
Introduction
Other obligations of the buyer
Illustrations from case law
Burden of Proof]

Article 53

The buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract and this Convention.

INTRODUCTION

1. Article 53 states the principal obligations of the buyer and serves as an introduction to the provisions of Chapter III. As the Convention does not define what constitutes a "sale of goods", article 53, in combination with article 30, also sheds light on the matter.[1] The principal obligations of the buyer are to pay the price and take delivery of the goods "as required by the contract and this Convention". From this phrase, as well as from article 6 of the Convention, it follows that, where the contract provides for performance of the contract that departs from the rules of the Convention, the parties' agreement prevails.

Other Obligations of the Buyer

2. According to the Convention, the contract may impose on the buyer obligations other than paying the price and taking delivery,[2] such as an obligation to provide security for payment of the price, an obligation to supply materials needed for the manufacture or production of the goods (see article 3(1)), an obligation to submit specifications regarding the form, measurement or other features of the goods (article 65) or obligations relating to the marketing of the goods, such as a re-export prohibition.[3]

Illustrations from Case Law

3. Because it merely sets out the obligations of the buyer — which are treated more fully in subsequent provisions — article 53 has raised no particular difficulties for tribunals. There have been numerous decisions citing article 53 in cases involving judgments requiring the buyer to pay the price.[4] On the other hand, few decisions have referred to article 53 in connection with judgments requiring the buyer to take delivery of the goods[5] or, more generally, in relation to the buyer's breach of the obligation to take delivery of the goods.[6]

Burden of Proof

4. The Vienna Convention does not deal expressly with the burden of proof. According to most court decisions, this is a matter which is governed by the Convention and has to be settled by application of a general principle on which the Convention is based (article 7(2)).[7] According to one of the principles developed in case law, the party relying on the legal consequences attaching to a provision of the Convention has to prove that the legal requirements of the provision have been met.[8] It follows from this principle that the seller has to prove that the buyer must pay the price and also what that amount is.[9] However, in cases where the buyer claims a reduction or discount, the buyer bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to reduce the initial contract price.[10] If a buyer who is sued by the seller for payment of the price claims in defence that it has settled the price, the burden is on the buyer to prove settlement, as several decisions have noted.[11]


NOTES

* This presentation of the UNCITRAL Digest is a slightly modified version of the original UNCITRAL text at <http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/clout/CISG-digest-2012-e.pdf>. The following modifications were made by the Institute of International Commercial Law of the Pace University School of Law:

   -    To enhance access to contents by computer search engines, we present in html rather than pdf;
 
   -    To facilitate direct focus on aspects of the Digests of most immediate interest, we inserted linked tables of contents at the outset of most presentations;
 
   -    To support UNCITRAL's recommendation to read more on the cases reported in the Digests, we provide mouse-click access to (i) CLOUT abstracts published by UNCITRAL (and to UNILEX case abstracts and other case abstracts); and also (ii) to full-text English translations of cases with links to original texts of cases, where available, in [bracketed citations] that we have added to UNCITRAL's footnotes; and
 
   -    To enable researchers to themselves keep the case citations provided in the Digests constantly current, we have created a series of tandem documents, UNCITRAL Digest Cases + Added Cases. The new cases and other cases that are cited in these updates are coded in accordance with UNCITRAL's Thesaurus.

1. CLOUT case No. 652 [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 10 January 2006]; CLOUT case No. 904 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Jura 3 November 2004]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 25 February 2004]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale Rimini 26 November 2002 (Al Palazzo S.r.l v. Bernardaud di Limoges S.A.)]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen 25 February 2002]; CLOUT case No. 480 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Colmar 12 June 2001]; [FRANCE Tribunal de grande instance de Colmar 18 December 1997]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal de Vaud 11 March 1996].

2. See articles 61(1) and 62.

3. CLOUT case No. 154 [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 22 February 1995] (on this decision see the Digest for article 64, paragraph 6, note 17 infra).

4. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 12 May 2010]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 29 October 2009]; [FRANCE Tribunal de commerce de Versailles 12 March 2010]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Rotterdam 3 February 2010]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 11 November 2009]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Rotterdam 1 July 2009]; [BELGIUM Cour de cassation 19 June 2009]; [UNITED STATES United States District Court, Southern District of New York 29 May 2009 (Doolim Corp. v. R Doll, LLC et al.)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Potsdam 7 April 2009]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 17 February 2009]; [ITALY Tribunale di Forlí 16 February 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 28 January 2009]; [ITALY Tribunale di Forlí 16 February 2009]; CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlí 11 December 2008 (Mitias v. Solidea S.r.l.)]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 27 November 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Dolny Kubin 24 November 2008]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg 18 November 2008 (Beer case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 24 October 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Trnava 17 September 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Nitra 29 May 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Bratislava III, 22 May 2008]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 19 May 2008] ; [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Valencia 12 May 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Banská Bystrica 29 April 2008]; CLOUT case No. 1038 [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Valencia 8 April 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky 3 April 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Krajský súd ilina 10 March 2008] (the decision cites article 30 in conjunction with article 53 to establish the buyer's obligation to pay the price); [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Banská Bystrica 7 March 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Banská Bystrica 22 February 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Dolny Kubin 21 January 2008]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 14 January 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Dolny Kubin 6 December 2007]; [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 27 November 2007]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 21 November 2007]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Brezno 18 October 2007]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau 19 June 2007]; [SLOVAKIA Krajský súd ilina 18 June 2007]; [SLOVAKIA Krajský súd Košice 22 May 2007]; CLOUT case No. 800, [SPAIN Tribunal Supremo 16 May 2007]; CLOUT case No. 934, [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Valais 27 April 2007]; [UKRAINE Commercial Court of Donetsk Region 13 April 2007]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Bardejov 9 March 2007]; CLOUT case No. 915, [CROATIA Visoki trgova ki sud Republike Hrvatske 20 February 2007]; [SLOVAKIA Krajský súd Bratislava 1 February 2007]; [SLOVAKIA Krajský súd ilina 8 January 2007; CLOUT case No. 828, [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch 2 January 2007]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, January 2007 [CISG/2007/05]]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 29 December 2006]; CLOUT case No. 933 [SWITZERLAND Cour fédérale de justice 20 December 2006]; CLOUT case No. 916, [CROATIA Visoki trgovaki sud Republike Hrvatske 19 December 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Coburg 12 December 2006]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 15 November 2006 (award no. 30/2006)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Dresden 10 November 2006]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, November 2006]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, November 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bamberg 23 October 2006]; CLOUT case No. 723, [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 19 October 2006 (Tee shirts case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hof 29 September 2006]; CLOUT case No. 825, [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 14 August 2006]; [CHINA Shanghai Intermediate People's Court No. 2, People's Republic of China, 10 July 2006]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, July 2006]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Nitra 29 June 2006]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, June 2006]; CLOUT case No. 930, [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 23 May 2006]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Nitra 17 May 2006]; CLOUT case No. 911 [SWITZERLAND Cour de justice de Genève 12 May 2006]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Banská Bystrica 10 May 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Dresden 28 April 2006]; [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Antwerpen 24 April 2006 (GmbH Lothringer Gunther Grosshandelsgesellschaft für Bauelemente und Holzwerkstoffe v. NV Fepco International)]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 7 April 2006]; [SLOVAKIA Krajský súd ilina 6 March 2006]; [UKRAINE Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Ukraine Chamber of Commerce and Trade 15 February 2006]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 13 February 2006]; CLOUT case No. 721 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 8 February 2006]; [SERBIA Privredni sud u Beogradu 7 February 2006]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 13 January 2006]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 27 December 2005]; [SLOVAKIA Krajský súd Bratislava 15 December 2005]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 14 December 2005]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 29 November 2005]; [CHINA Shanghai Intermediate People's Court No. 1, People's Republic of China, 28 November 2005]; [POLAND Sd Najwyszy 10 November 2005]; [GERMANY Landgericht Heidelberg 2 November 2005]; [CHINA Zuìgo rénmín fyuàn (Supreme People's Court), People's Republic of China, 21 September 2005]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 2 September 2005]; [CHINA Shanghai High People's Court, People's Republic of China, 30 August 2005]; CLOUT case No. 919 [CROATIA Visoki trgovaki sud Republike Hrvatske 26 July 2005]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 18 July 2005]; [CHINA Shanghai Intermediate People's Court No. 1, People's Republic of China, 29 June 2005]; [CHINA Shanghai Intermediate People's Court No. 2, 24 June 2005]; CLOUT case No. 749 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 21 June 2005]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 2 June 2005]; CLOUT case No. 906 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Nidwalden 23 May 2005]; CLOUT case No. 983 [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 10 May 2005]; [UNITED STATES U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 10 May 2005 (Guang Dong Light Headgear Factory Co. Ltd. v. ACI International Inc.)]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 27 April 2005]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bamberg 13 April 2005]; CLOUT case No. 1041 [SPAIN Juzgado de primera instancia e instrucción de Tudela No. 3, 29 March 2005]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 23 March 2005 (Arbitral award No. 126/2004)]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 21 February 2005]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 21 February 2005]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 10 February 2005]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 9 February 2005]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau 25 January 2005]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 24 January 2005]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Bern 22 December 2004]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 20 December 2004]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bayreuth 10 December 2004]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris 4 November 2004]; CLOUT case No. 1082 [UKRAINE International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 27 October 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 28 September 2004]; CLOUT case No. 1023 [UKRAINE International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 23 September 2004]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 6 September 2004]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kiel 27 July 2004]; CLOUT case No. 821 [GERMANY berlandesgericht Karlsruhe 20 July 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 28 June 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 17 June 2004]; CLOUT case No. 590, [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 1 June 2004]; CLOUT case No. 591 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsselodorf 28 May 2004]; [CHINA Intermediate People's Court of Hubei Province, People's Republic of China, 11 May 2004]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht St. Gallen 29 April 2004]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 21 April 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 20 April 2004]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 9 April 2004]; [SLOVAKIA Krajský súd ilina 29 March 2004]; [CHINA Shanghai Intermediate People's Court No. 1, People's Republic of China, 23 March 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 19 March 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 12 March 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 24 February 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 19 February 2004]; [SWITZERLAND Cour fédérale de justice 19 February 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 3 February 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 2 February 2004]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 23 January 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 30 December 2003]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 18 December 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bielefeld 12 December 2003]; CLOUT case No. 635 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 10 December 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bielefeld 31 October 2003; CLOUT case No. 890 [SWITZERLAND Tribunale d'appello di Lugano 29 October 2003]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Rostock 27 October 2003]; CLOUT case No. 888 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen 20 October 2003]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 17 September 2003]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Rostock 15 September 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 28 August 2003]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 19 August 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bielefeld 15 August 2003]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 12 August 2003]; [UKRAINE International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 28 July 2003]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 25 July 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Mönchengladbach 15 July 2003]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 7 July 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Tübingen 18 June 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 11 June 2003; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 5 June 2003]; CLOUT case No. 498 [BELARUS Vysšij choziajstviennyj sud Riespubliki Bielaru 4 June 2003]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 4 June 2003]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 30 May 2003]; CLOUT case No. 497 [BELARUS Vitiebskij oblastnoj choziajstviennyj sud 17 April 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Köln 25 March 2003]; CLOUT case No. 634, [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 21 March 2003]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Veurne 19 March 2003 (CVBA L. v. E.G. BV)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Gießen 18 March 2003]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 17 February 2003]; CLOUT case No. 978 [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 30 December 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 24 December 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 10 December 2002]; [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Gent 2 December 2002]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale Rimini 26 November 2002 (Al Palazzo S.r.l v. Bernardaud di Limoges S.A.)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 25 November 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 11 November 2002]; CLOUT case No. 882 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau 5 November 2002]; [UKRAINE International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 31 October 2002]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 4 October 2002]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Rostock 25 September 2002]; [GERMANY Landgericht Göttingen 20 September 2002]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 30 August 2002]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 22 August 2002]; CLOUT case No. 636, [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires 21 July 2002]; [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 2 July 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 7 June 2002]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 4 June 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 16 April 2002]; CLOUT case No. 880, [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Vaud 11 April 2002]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Viechtach 11 April 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 22 March 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 28 February 2002]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 27 February 2002]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen 25 February 2002]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 20 February 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 11 February 2002]; CLOUT case No. 986 [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 4 February 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 1 February 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 24 January 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 22 January 2002]; [CHINA Húbi shng whàn shì zhngjí rénmín fyuàn, People's Republic of China, 9 September 2002]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 21 December 2001]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 20 November 2001]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Rostock 10 October 2001]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 17 September 2001]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 17 July 2001]; [GERMANY Landgericht Trier 28 June 2001]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 30 May 2001]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 28 May 2001]; [CHINA Zhnghuá rénmín gònghéguó húbi shng whàn shì zhngjí rénmín fyuàn 4 April 2001]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 9 February 2001]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 31 January 2001]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 25 January 2001]; [GERMANY Landgericht Flensburg 19 January 2001]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 19 January 2001]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 16 November 2000]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris 12 October 2000]; CLOUT case No. 432 [GERMANY Landgericht Stendal 12 October 2000]; [GERMANY Landgericht Memmingen 13 September 2000]; [UKRAINE International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Ukraine, 8 September 2000]; [RUSSIA Moscow District Federal Arbitration Court 24 August 2000]; [CHINA Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China, 8 August 2000]; [MEXICO Juzgado de primera instancia de Tijuana 14 July 2000]; [AUSTRIA Oberlandesgericht Graz 15 June 2000]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 13 June 2000]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 30 May 2000]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Zürich 17 February 2000]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 26 January 2000]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 11 January 2000]; [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 2000]; [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 2000, (Arbitral award No. 8790)]; CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale di Pavia 29 December 1999]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Dresden 27 December 1999]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Stendal 12 October 1999]; [CHINA Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China 20 July 1999]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Hasselt 9 July 1999]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 17 May 1999 (Arbitral award No. 342/1998)]; CLOUT case No. 810 [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 8 April 1999]; [GERMANY Landgericht Flensburg 24 March 1999]; CLOUT case No. 327 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 25 February 1999]; CLOUT case No. 718 [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 13 January 1999]; CLOUT case No. 717 [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 6 January 1999]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Hasselt 2 December 1998]; CLOUT case No. 251 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 30 November 1998]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 26 November 1998]; CLOUT case No. 470 [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 22 October 1998]; CLOUT case No. 469 [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 6 October 1998]; CLOUT case No. 279 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 5 October 1998]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 2 October 1998]; CLOUT case No. 340 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg 22 September 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 318 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Celle 2 September 1998]; CLOUT case No. 344 [GERMANY Landgericht Erfurt 29 July 1998]; CLOUT case No. 255 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Wallis 30 June 1998]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 25 June 1998]; CLOUT case No. 388 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 23 June 1998]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 10 June 1998]; CLOUT case No. 290 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 3 June 1998]; CLOUT case No. 280 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Jena 26 May 1998] (ruling that the obligation to pay the price derived from article 53 of the Convention and not domestic law, as had been wrongly held by the lower-court judges); [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 25 May 1998]; [GERMANY Landgericht Aurich 8 May 1998]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 14 April 1998]; [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 24 March 1998]; CLOUT case No. 232 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 11 March 1998]; CLOUT case No. 288, [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 28 January 1998]; [GERMANY München 11 March 1998; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 22 January 1998]; CLOUT case No. 297 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 21 January 1998]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 10 January 1998]; CLOUT case No. 257 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Vaud 24 December 1997]; CLOUT case No. 465 [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 15 December 1997]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 6 November 1997]; CLOUT case No. 295 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 5 November 1997]; CLOUT case No. 218, [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 16 October 1997]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hagen 15 October 1997]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 29 September 1997]; [ICC Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, September 1997 (Arbitral award No. 8962)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Göttingen 31 July 1997]; CLOUT case No. 236 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 23 July 1997]; CLOUT case No. 273 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 9 July 1997]; CLOUT case No. 215 [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht St. Gallen 3 July 1997]; CLOUT case No. 864, [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 25 June 1997]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 16 June 1997]; CLOUT case No. 464 [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 11 June 1997]; [GERMANY Landgericht Paderborn 10 June 1997]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 29 May 1997]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 11 May 1997]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 6 May 1997]; CLOUT case No. 275, [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 24 April 1997]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 11 April 1997]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 4 April 1997]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 2 April 1997]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 25 February 1997]; [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, February 1997 (Arbitral award No. 8716)]; CLOUT case No. 282 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 31 January 1997]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 27 January 1997]; [CHINA Fujian High People's Court, People's Republic of China, 31 December 1996]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 16 December 1996]; CLOUT case No. 163, [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 10 December 1996] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht München 9 December 1996]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 11 November 1996]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 1 November 1996]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 15 October 1996]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 8 October 1996]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 18 September 1996]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 16 September 1996]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 6 August 1996]; CLOUT case No. 169 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 11 July 1996]; [ICC Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, June 1996 (Arbitral award No. 8247)]; CLOUT case No. 853 [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission 31 May 1996]; [SWITZERLAND Zurich Chamber of Commerce 31 May 1996]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 14 May 1996]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 30 April 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Duisburg 17 April 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Oldenburg 27 March 1996]; CLOUT case No. 166 [GERMANY Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Hamburg 21 March 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 5 March 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Oldenburg 28 February 1996]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 February 1996]; CLOUT case No. 409 [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 15 February 1996]; CLOUT case No. 855 [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 14 February 1996]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 10 February 1996]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 31 January 1996]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 22 January 1996]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 13 December 1995]; [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 17 November 1995]; CLOUT case No. 170 [GERMANY Landgericht Trier 12 October 1995]; CLOUT case No. 289 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 21 August 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Ellwangen 21 August 1995]; CLOUT case No. 228 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Rostock 27 July 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Koblenz 7 July 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 22 June 1995]; CLOUT case No. 125, [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 9 June 1995]; CLOUT case No. 410 [GERMANY Amtsgericht Alsfeld 12 May 1995]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Hasselt 2 May 1995]; CLOUT case No. 308 [AUSTRALIA Federal Court of Australia 28 April 1995]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 28 April 1995]; CLOUT case No. 141 [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Commerce and Industry 25 April 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 20 March 1995]; CLOUT case No. 123 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 8 March 1995]; CLOUT case No. 134 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 8 March 1995]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Wangen 8 March 1995]; CLOUT case No. 124 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 15 February 1995]; CLOUT case No. 132, [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 8 February 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Oldenburg 9 November 1994]; [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch 26 October 1994]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Mayen 6 September 1994]; [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 25 August 1994]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 14 July 1994]; [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt 13 July 1994]; [GERMANY Landgericht Augsburg 12 July 1994]; CLOUT case No. 93 [AUSTRIA Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft 15 June 1994]; CLOUT case No. 83 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 2 March 1994]; CLOUT case No. 81 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994]; CLOUT case No. 82 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994]; CLOUT case No. 80 [GERMANY Kammergericht Berlin 24 January 1994]; CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt 18 January 1994]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Vaud 6 December 1993]; [GERMANY Landgericht Memmingen 1 December 1993]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 18 November 1993]; CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 28 July 1993]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Cloppenburg 14 April 1993]; CLOUT case No. 292 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 13 January 1993]; CLOUT case No. 48 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 8 January 1993]; CLOUT case No. 104, [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1993 (Arbitral award No. 7197)] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 317 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 20 November 1992]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Zweibrücken 14 October 1992] (also cites the domestic law provision); [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 9 July 1992]; [GERMANY Landgericht Heidelberg 3 July 1992]; [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 23 March 1992]; [GERMANY Landgericht Baden-Baden 13 January 1992]; [ICC Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1992 (Arbitral award No. 7585)]; CLOUT case No. 26 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1992 (Arbitral award No. 7153)] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 1 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt 13 June 1991]; CLOUT case No. 21 [ARGENTINA Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Comercial No. 7 (Buenos Aires) 20 May 1991]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bielefeld 18 January 1991]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Ludwigsburg 21 December 1990]; CLOUT case No. 5 [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg (Federal Republic) 26 September 1990]; CLOUT case No. 7 [GERMANY Oldenburg in Holstein 24 April 1990]; [GERMANY OLandgericht Hildesheim (Federal Republic), 20 July 1990]; [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt (Federal Republic) 2 May 1990]; CLOUT case No. 46 [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen (Federal Republic) 3 April 1990] (see full text of the decision); see also CLOUT case No. 632 [UNITED STATES U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Ohio, 10 April 2001(Victoria Alloys, Inc. v. Fortis Bank SA/NV)] (holding that the buyer's obligation to pay the price under CISG article 53 was a significant factor in determining whether title to the goods had passed to the buyer); CLOUT case No. 4 [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 31 August 1989].

5. [EGYPT Alexandria Centre for International Arbitration 16 January 2005]; CLOUT case No. 217 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Aargau 26 September 1997]; [NETHERLANDS Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam 15 June 1994].

6. [GERMANY Landgericht Köln 5 December 2006] (reimbursement of costs of preservation following unjustified return of the goods to the seller in violation of article 53); [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 16 February 2004 (Arbitral award No. 107/2002)]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 9 September 2002] (the buyer was ordered to pay damages for, inter alia, failure to take delivery of the goods); CLOUT case No. 133 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 8 February 1995]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 14 December 1994].

7. See the Digest for article 7.

8. See the Digest for article 7, paragraph 13.

9. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 12 May 2010]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 15 February 1996].

10. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 12 May 2010] (the court differentiated between this case and that where the price is determined on the basis of the amount of the orders, the seller thus bearing the burden of proving the amount of the price); [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 15 February 1996] (the buyer alleged that it was authorized to deduct a discount for settlement of the price within a certain period; since the seller had been unable to prove the contrary, the court allowed the reduction).

11. See CLOUT case No. 906 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Nidwalden 23 May 2005]; [MEXICO Juzgado de primera instancia de Tijuana 14 July 2000]; CLOUT case No. 273 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 9 July 1997].


©Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated July 30, 2012
Go to Database Directory || Go to Information on other available case data
Comments/Contributions