CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19900223 (23 February 1990 )

JURISDICTION: Germany

TRIBUNAL: OLG Koblenz [OLG = Oberlandesgericht = Provincial Court of Appeal]

JUDGE(S): Schunk, Krauss and Kunzel

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 2 U 1795/89

CASE NAME: German case citations do not identify parties to proceedings

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance LG Koblenz

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Italy (defendant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany (plaintiff)

GOODS INVOLVED: Wine

GERMANY: OLG Koblenz 23 February 1990

Abstract from 14 Journal of Law & Commerce (1995) 226-227

Reproduced with permission from the Journal

Application of CISG based on rules of conflict of laws, CISG, Article 1(1)(b). Since there is no choice of law [by the parties] according to the rules of conflict of laws, reference [to the applicable law] has to be made based on Article 28 EGBGB, which in Section (1) refers to [the law of] the country with which the contract has the closest connections. According to the presumption of Article 28(2) EGBGB -- that the contract has the closest connections with the country in which the debtor is to execute the performance which characterizes the contract, or [in which the debtor] has his domicile or place of business at the time of conclusion of the contract -- Italian Law has to be applied [in this instance]. . . . The reference to Italian substantive law (Article 35(1) EBGBG) leads to the application of the UN Uniform Sales Law pursuant to CISG, Article 1(1)(b), as part of Italian Law.

[EGBGB = Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch = the introductory law to the German Civil Code]

Editorial remarks

EDITOR: Albert H. Kritzer

Governing law/Applicability of the CISG. There was no choice of law clause in the contract. Drawing on applicable rules of private international law, the court concluded that the domicile of the seller, the party which had to perform the contract (supply of wine "from Italian cellarage"), is in Italy and held that Italian law is the proper law of the contract. Pursuant to Article 1(1)(b), this led to the application of the CISG as part of Italian law.

Delivery, place for/Jurisdiction. At issue was the place of performance of the obligation to deliver. Citing Article 31, the court held this to be the place of business of the seller. Since that is Italy, the OLG Koblenz concluded that German courts cannot have jurisdiction to hear the case by virtue of Article 5(1) of the EEC Judgments Convention.

Citations to other abstracts, case texts and commentaries