2008 UNCITRAL Digest of case law on the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods
Digest of Article 31 case law [reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL] [*]
[Text of article
Sales involving carriage (article 31(a))
Sales of goods located at a particular place (article 31(b)
Other cases (article 31(c))
Contractual provisions for the place of performance
Consequences of delivery
Burden of proof]
If the seller is not bound to deliver the goods at any other particular place, his
obligation to deliver consists:
(a) if the contract of sale involves carriage of the goods -- in handing the goods over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer;
(b) if, in cases not within the preceding subparagraph, the contract relates to specific goods, or unidentified goods to be drawn from a specific stock or to be manufactured or produced, and at the time of the conclusion of the contract the parties knew that the goods were at, or were to be manufactured or produced at, a particular place -- in placing the goods at the buyer's disposal at that place;
(c) in other cases -- in placing the goods at the buyer's disposal at the place where the seller had his place of business at the time of the conclusion of the contract.
1. The article specifies the place of performance of the seller's duty of delivery. The provision fixes where the seller has to deliver the goods and what the seller has to do for that purpose. Article 31 addresses three different cases for which different rules apply. The general rule, however, appears to be that the seller's place of business is the presumed place of delivery.
2. Under some procedural rules, such as the ones based upon article 5(1) of the 1968 Brussels and 1988 Lugano Conventions, article 31 can be the basis for jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction extends to claims concerning breach of the duty to deliver, as well as claims relating to the delivery of non-conforming goods.
3. The rules formulated in article 31 apply only when the parties have not agreed otherwise, as party autonomy prevails over article 31. Many court decisions applying article 31 deal with the construction of contract terms in order to decide whether those terms fix a place of performance or merely allocate the costs of transportation. If a price-delivery term (such as a term defined in the Incoterms) is included in the contract, it defines the place of performance and excludes the Conventions rule.
4. Article 31 has also been used to determine the place of delivery when the buyer must return goods after the contract has been avoided (article 81(2)). This has led to the result that, if not otherwise provided for in the contract, the buyer must re-deliver the goods at the buyer's place of business.
Sales involving carriage (article 31(a))
5. The first alternative of article 31 applies only if the contract involves carriage of the goods. For sales at a distance it has been held that article 31(a) ordinarily is applicable. Carriage of the goods is presumed to be involved if the parties have envisaged (or if it is clear from the circumstances)  that the goods will be transported by independent carrier(s) from the seller to the buyer. Therefore, shipment contracts (e.g., contracts that include price-delivery terms such as FOB, CIF or other F- or C- terms as defined in the Incoterms) as well as destination contracts (e.g., contracts that include DES or other D- terms as defined in the Incoterms) involve carriage of the goods.
6. Article 31(a) only applies if it is neither the seller's nor the buyer's own obligation under the contract to transport the goods from the seller's place of business (or from where they are located) to the buyer's place of business (or wherever specified by the buyer). When applicable, article 31(a) does not imply that the seller itself must deliver the goods to the destination. On the contrary, the seller has duly performed its duty of delivery under article 31(a) when the goods are handed over to the carrier. If several carriers are involved in delivering the goods, handing over to the first carrier constitutes delivery under article 31(a).
7. "Handing over," as the phrase is used in article 31(a), means that the carrier is given possession of the goods. The handing over of documents relating to the goods does not appear to constitute handing over the goods themselves, and does not constitute delivery of the goods unless otherwise greed by the parties.
Sale of goods located at a particular place (Article 31(b))
8. The second alternative of article 31 applies when three requirements are met: first, delivery as per the contract must not involve carriage of the goods in the sense of article 31(a) so that it is the buyer's task to get possession of the goods; second, the goods sold must be specific goods, goods of a specific stock, or goods to be manufactured or produced; third, both parties must have known when the contract was concluded that the goods were located at (or were to be manufactured or produced at) a particular place. If those conditions are met, article 31(b) requires the seller to place the goods at the buyer's disposal at that particular place.
9. Placing the goods at the buyer's disposal means that the seller has done that which is necessary for the buyer to be able to take possession. The seller must therefore arrange everything necessary for delivery in the circumstances, so that the buyer need do nothing other than take over the goods at the place of delivery.
Other cases (Article 31(c))
10. Article 31(c) is a "residuary rule." The provision covers those cases which do not fall under paragraph (a) or (b) and for which the contract does not provide a particular place of performance. Where article 31(c) applies, the seller must put the goods at the buyer's disposal at the place where the seller had its place of business when the contract was concluded.
Contractual provisions for the place of performance
11. Many decisions involve the construction of contract clauses that may or may not modify the place of performance as provided in article 31. In interpreting such clauses, the courts generally look at all the circumstances of the case. The meaning of certain formulations can therefore vary with the circumstances. With respect to the term EXW ("ex works"), it has been stated that it does not vary the place of performance provided for in article 31(a) or (c). Under the term DDP ("delivered, duty paid"), it has been held that the place of delivery is the buyer's place of business. However, the parties can agree upon a different place of delivery at any time. If the buyer requests that the goods be delivered to another firm that will process them for the buyer, the place of business of that other firm is then the place to which the goods must be delivered. The clause free delivery (buyer's place of business) has been interpreted in different ways. Two courts considered that clause to be a mere allocation of costs that did not address the place of performance. Other courts have stated the contrary.
A contract clause pricing ex work Rimini/Italy has been held not to change the place of performance provided for in article 31 where an Italian seller was to deliver a facility to manufacture windows to a German buyer. An additional contract provision requiring the seller to erect and run the plant for a certain period at the buyer's place of business, however, led to the conclusion that the place of delivery was that place. If the seller is obliged to install the delivered goods at a particular place or to erect at a particular place a facility that it sold, that place has been regarded as the place of delivery.
Consequences of delivery
12. When the seller has delivered the goods it has fulfilled its duty of delivery and is no longer responsible for the goods. Courts regularly conclude that the risk of subsequent damage to or loss of the goods passes to the buyer, unless such damage or loss is intentionally or negligently caused by the seller. Therefore if the seller has handed over the goods to the first carrier, any delay in the transmission of the goods is at the risk of the buyer, who may or may not have a claim against the carrier. Similarly, if goods are loaded on board a vessel in the designated port the seller has performed its duty of delivery.
Burden of proof
13. A party asserting that the contract provides for a place of delivery other than the place provided for in article 31 must prove such agreement.
* 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_second_edition.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.|
In addition, this presentation introduces each section of the UNCITRAL Digest with a Google search button. This is to help you access doctrine (relevant material from the over 1,200 commentaries, monographs and books on the CISG and related subjects that we present on this database) as well as the texts of the cases that UNCITRAL cites in its Digests and that we present in our updates to UNCITRAL's Digests.
1. In Italy the constitutionality of the corresponding domestic rule has been attacked, but has been upheld, based -- among other reasons -- on its correspondence to the rule of CISG article 31(a). [ITALY Corte Constituzionale 19 November 1992].
2. Under that article, jurisdiction exists at the place at which the obligation has actually been performed or should have been performed. The place where the obligation should have been performed must be determined according to the applicable law, whether that law is domestic or uniform international law. See [EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE, C-288/92, 29 June 1994 (Windows and doors case)]
3. E.g., [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 11 December 1996 (Marzipan case)]; [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 26 September 1997 (Fabrics case)]; [FRANCE Cour de cassation 16 July 1998 (Aluminium hydrate case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 September 1998 (Satellite receivers case)].
4. [[GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 11 December 1996 (Marzipan case)] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch 9 October 1995 (Cloth case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel, Paris 4 March 1998 (Industrial machines case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel, Paris 18 March 1998 (Clothes case)].
5. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 3 December 1999 (Window production plant case)],
6. [FRANCE Cour d'appel, Paris 4 March 1998 (Industrial machines case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour d'appel, Paris 18 March 1998 (Clothes case)].
7. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 29 June 1999 (Dividing wall panels case)]. See also [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 19 December 2002 (Machine case)] (principle of article 31(c) applied to determine when buyer fulfilled its obligations under agreement to return nonconforming goods to the seller; because seller was responsible for carriaqge of the goods, damage to goods that occurred during transport back to the seller was seller's responsibility).
9. See [GERMANY Amtsgericht Duisburg 13 April 2000 (Pizza cartons case)].
10. [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 26 September 1997 (Fabrics case)].
11. See the Secretariat Commentary to (then) article 29; Commentary on the draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, A/CONF.97/5, reproduced in United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Official Records, at p. 29, para. 5.
12. See also the Secretariat Commentary to (then) article 29, at p. 29, paras. 5 and 8.
13. [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 10 February 1999 (Art books case)]. This is consistent with the Convention's rules on passing of risk in this situation. See article 67(1).
14. Id. The Convention's rules on passing of risk confirm this point. See article 67(1).
15. [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Córdoba 31 October 1997 (Steel profiles case)] (loading on board).
16. Secretariat Commentary to (then) article 29, at p. 29, para. 9. Specifics of the seller's obligation to hand over documents are provided by Article 34.
17. See, e.g., [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 14 May 1993 (Electronic hearing aid case)] (place of manufacture of ear devices corresponds to the place of delivery under article 31(b)).
18. Secretariat Commentary to (then) article 29, at p. 30, para. 16.
19. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 23 June 1998 (Furniture case)].
20. Secretariat Commentary to (then) article 29, at p. 30, para. 15.
21. [FRANCE Cour d'appel, Paris 4 March 1998 (Industrial machines case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour d'appel, Paris 18 March 1998 (Clothes case)]. For the same result in contracts that included the German clause ex works, see [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 8 January 1997], and [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 29 June 1999 (Dividing wall panels case)].
22. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg 22 September 1998 (Raw salmon case)].
24. [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 11 December 1996 (Marzipan case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 September 1998 (Satellite receivers case)].
25. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 20 November 1992 (Frozen chicken case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 8 January 1997 (Tannery machines case)].
26. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 3 December 1999 (Window production plant case)].
28. [ITALY Corte di Cassazione 10 March 2000 (Industrial machines for filtering and drying of chemicals for antibiotics case)].
29. See the Convention's rules on passing of risk (Part III, Chapter IV, Articles 66-70).
30. [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 10 February 1999 (Art books case)]; similarly [GERMANY Landgericht Flensburg, 24 March 1999 (Vine wax case)].
31. [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Córdoba 31 October 1997 (Steel profiles case)].
32. [GERMANY Amtsgericht Duisburg 13 April 2000 (Pizza cartons case)].