CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Russia 21 February 1997 Arbitration proceeding 373/1995
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970221r1.html]

Case Table of Contents

• Case identification
• Case abstract
• Classification of issues present
• Editorial remarks
• Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries
• Guide to links contained in case presentations

Case identification

DATE OF DECISIONS: 19970221 (21 February 1997)

JURISDICTION: Russian Federation

TRIBUNAL: Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 373/1995

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Russia (complainant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Gibralter (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Crude oil

Case abstract

"[T]he Tribunal based its decision on the provisions of Article 8(1) and took into consideration relevant circumstances surrounding the case. In this case, the parties disagreed as to the quantity of oil which was to be delivered under the contract. The contract provided that the seller had an obligation to deliver 'up to 2,000,000' metric tonnes of oil. The seller actually delivered 835,000 metric tonnes oil. The buyer argued that it was entitled to compensation for losses caused by the seller's failure to deliver 2,000,000 metric tonnes.

"The Tribunal took into account previous communications between the parties. It was established that the said provision as to the quantity was proposed by the seller. In making this proposal, the seller explained that the 'quantity of oil that he had to deliver to the buyer would be most likely less than 2,000,000' tonnes. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the buyer knew of the seller's intent to deliver the quantity less than 2,000,000 tonnes. In addition to that, the practices established between the parties were examined. It was found that the practice between the parties had been to fix a quantity at option 'plus-minus 10%'. In the opinion of the ICAC, the fact that the parties had not followed this practice in the transaction in question served as another evidence of the seller's intent to deliver oil in the quantity less than 2,000,000 tonnes. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the buyer's counterclaim." Djakhongir Saidov, 7 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration (1/2003) 1-62 at 19-20.

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 8 ; 9(1)

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

8A1 [Intent of party making statement or engaging in conduct: relevant if other party "knows" or "could not have been unaware"];

9C [Practices established by the parties]

Descriptors: Intent ; Usages and practices

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

• Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Citations to other abstracts, case texts and commentaries

CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=375&step=Abstract>

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Russian): Unavailable

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

English: [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Art. 8 para. 44