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 85 case law [reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL] [*]

[Text of article
Overview
Seller's obligation to preserve goods
Seller's right to retain goods until reimbursed
           for reasonable expenses of preservation]

Article 85

If the buyer is in delay in taking delivery of the goods or, where payment of the price and delivery of the goods is to be made concurrently, if he fails to pay the price, and the seller is either in possession of the goods or otherwise able to control their disposition, the seller must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to preserve them. He is entitled to retain them until he has been reimbursed his reasonable expenses by the buyer.

OVERVIEW

1. Article 85 creates both an obligation and a right, applicable to sellers that have retained possession or control of goods either because the buyer has delayed taking delivery or because the buyer has failed to make a payment due concurrently with delivery. Under the first sentence of article 85, such a seller must "take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances" to preserve the goods. Under the second sentence of article 85, such a seller has the right to retain the goods until the buyer reimburses the seller's reasonable expenses of preservation. Article 85 has been cited in relatively few decisions, most of which have focused on the seller's right to reimbursement for the expenses of preserving the goods.

Seller's Obligation to Preserve Goods

2. A number of decisions have dealt with the seller's obligation to preserve goods under article 85. That obligation has been invoked to justify a seller's actions after a buyer demanded that a seller stop making deliveries of trucks covered by a contract for sale: an arbitral tribunal stated that, because the buyer unjustifiably refused delivery, the seller had the right to take reasonable steps toward preserving the goods, including depositing them in a warehouse.[1] In another proceeding, a buyer sought interim relief in the form of an order preventing the seller from selling a key component of industrial machinery. The seller had retained the component after the buyer failed to make full payment for the machinery, and the seller planned to transfer the machinery to another warehouse and resell it. Because the proceeding focused on interim relief, the court applied the national law of the forum rather than the CISG, holding that the seller could move the goods to a new warehouse, but (despite article 87 of the Convention) it would have to advance the warehouse expenses itself, and (despite article 88 of the Convention) it would be restrained from exporting or reselling the component.[2]

Seller's Right to Retain Goods until Reimbursed for Reasonable Expenses of Preservation

3. A number of decisions have held breaching buyers liable for expenses incurred by an aggrieved seller to preserve the goods. Thus it has been held that the costs of storing and insuring goods for a reasonable period after the buyer improperly refused delivery were recoverable under article 85.[3] Decisions awarding seller the costs of preserving goods usually (although not always) cite article 85 in support of the award,[4] but they frequently characterize the award as damages recoverable under article 74 CISG.[5] One court has stated that "when applying the CISG, the [buyer's] duty to pay damages is based on article 74, in part also on article 85."[6] The preservation costs for which sellers have successfully claimed reimbursement have generally been incurred after the buyer unjustifiably refused to take delivery,[7] although in one case they were incurred after the buyer failed to open a letter of credit required by the sales contract.[8] In several cases, an award to cover the seller's expenses for preserving the goods was made only after the tribunal expressly determined the costs were reasonable,[9] and in one case reimbursement for part of the seller's preservation expenses was denied because they were not reasonably incurred.[10] Where the seller was in breach and the buyer properly avoided the contract, however, it was found that the prerequisites for the seller to claim reimbursement, under either article 74 or article 85, for expenses of storing and reselling the goods were not met because the buyer did not breach its obligations to pay the price or take delivery; the seller's claim was therefore denied.[11] And even where a buyer was found liable for seller's costs of storing the goods in a warehouse, an arbitral tribunal denied seller's claim for damage to the goods resulting from prolonged storage, because risk of loss had not passed to the buyer under applicable rules.[12] Finally, the principle of the second sentence of article 85 that, in proper circumstances, a seller can retain goods until reimbursed for the reasonable costs of preserving them has also been invoked to support the idea that, unless otherwise agreed, a seller is not obligated to make delivery until the buyer pays the price.[13]


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. 141 [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 25 April 1995 (Arbitral award No. 200/1994)].

2. CLOUT case No. 96 and No. 200 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Vaud 17 May 1994] (both abstracts dealing with the same case).

3. [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Antwerpen 24 April 2006 (GmbH Lothringer Gunther Grosshandelsgesellschaft für Bauelemente und Holzwerkstoffe v. NV Fepco International)].

4. See CLOUT case No. 361 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig 28 October 1999] (citing article 85 and awarding the seller's costs for cold storage of meat) (see full text of the decision); [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, August 1998 (Arbitral award No. 9574)] (citing article 85 and awarding the seller's costs for storing and transporting equipment and spare parts); CLOUT case No. 141 [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 25 April 1995 (Arbitral award No. 200/1994)] (citing article 85 and awarding the seller's costs for storing trucks in warehouse); CLOUT case No. 104 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1993 (Arbitral award No. 7197)] (citing article 85 and awarding the seller's costs for storing goods in a warehouse). But see [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 9 September 1994 (Arbitral award No. 375/1993)] (apparently not citing article 85 when awarding seller's costs for storing goods). See also [UNITED STATES U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 19 May 2008 (The Rice Corporation v. Grain Board of Iraq)] (without citing article 85, court finds that "the Convention require[s] the seller of goods to take all reasonable steps to preserve the cargo where the buyer has delayed taking delivery of the goods, [and] permits the seller to store the goods at the expense of the buyer, ..."); CLOUT case No. 96 and No. 200 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Vaud 17 May 1994] (both abstracts dealing with the same case) (citing article 85, but applying the national law of the forum to deny seller an interim order requiring the buyer to pay the costs of transporting the goods to a new warehouse) (see full text of the decision).

5. See CLOUT case No. 361 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig 28 October 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 104 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1993 (Arbitral award No. 7197)] (see full text of the decision).

6. CLOUT case No. 361 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig 28 October 1999] (see full text of the decision).

7. [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Antwerpen 24 April 2006 (GmbH Lothringer Gunther Grosshandelsgesellschaft für Bauelemente und Holzwerkstoffe v. NV Fepco International)]; CLOUT case No. 141 [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 25 April 1995 (Arbitral award No. 200/1994)]; CLOUT case No. 361 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig 28 October 1999] (see full text of the decision); [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, August 1998 (Arbitral award No. 9574)]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 9 September 1994 (Arbitral award No. 375/1993)].

8. CLOUT case No. 104 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1993 (Arbitral award No. 7197)] (see full text of the decision).

9. [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Antwerpen 24 April 2006 (GmbH Lothringer Gunther Grosshandelsgesellschaft für Bauelemente und Holzwerkstoffe v. NV Fepco International)] (awarding reimbursement for the cost of storing and insuring the goods to the extent such costs were reasonably incurred); CLOUT case No. 141 [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 25 April 1995 (Arbitral award No. 200/1994)]; CLOUT case No. 361 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig 28 October 1999] (see full text of the decision); [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 9 September 1994 (Arbitral award No. 375/1993)].

10. [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Antwerpen 24 April 2006 (GmbH Lothringer Gunther Grosshandelsgesellschaft für Bauelemente und Holzwerkstoffe v. NV Fepco International)].

11. CLOUT case No. 293 [GERMANY Schiedsgericht der Hamburger freundschatlichen Arbitrage 29 December 1998] (see full text of the decision).

12. CLOUT case No. 104 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1993 (Arbitral award No. 7197)] (see full text of the decision).

13. CLOUT case No. 96 and No. 200 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Vaud 17 May 1994] (both abstracts dealing with the same case) (see full text of the decision).


©Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated July 31, 2012
Go to Database Directory || Go to Information on other available case data
Comments/Contributions