Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050701f1.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:34:46+00:00

Document:
According to three invoices dated 7, 13 and 21 September 2001, representing a total sum of EUR 67,137.86, [Seller], a Spanish company, had sold 2,568 pairs of shoes to [Buyer] of France, which failed to pay.
On 15 May 2003, [Seller] sued [Buyer] for the payment. [Buyer] refused to pay stating that the goods were non-conforming, "the leather was completely defective" and "60% of the shoes" were "non-merchantable".
In its judgment of 7 January 2003, the Commercial Court of Aix-en-Provence had ordered [Buyer] to pay [Seller] the sum of EUR 26,977.94 representing "the goods actually delivered and sold by [Buyer], with interest at the statutory rate applicable on 15 May 2002, as well as EUR 1,000 pursuant to Art. 700 of the New Code of Civil Procedure.
[Seller] appealed against this decision on 10 February 2003.
- [Buyer] sold some of the shoes without having paid for them.
- Order [Buyer] to pay the sum of EUR 67,137.86 with interest at the statutory rate applicable on the date of filing the lawsuit, as well as EUR 5,000 pursuant to Art. 700 of the New Code of Civil Procedure.
- [Seller] must take back the non-conforming goods at its own expense.
The final judgment was handed down on 26 April 2005.
The form of the appeal is appropriate and filing of the appeal was timely, therefore, it is accepted by the Court.
As the case involves an international sale of goods between parties having their places of business in Spain and in France, the contract is governed by the Vienna Convention of 11 April 1980. Under Art. 38(1), the buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances; and under Art. 39(1), the buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.
As the goods were delivered late September / early October 2001, and because [Buyer] claims to have immediately discovered that the "leather" was "completely defective" with the result that "60% of the shoes were non-merchantable" (cf. pleadings at the first instance and witness statement by Mr. T.), [Buyer] has nevertheless started to sell the goods. Therefore, [Buyer] lost the right to rely on lack of conformity, which it failed to prove, failed to mention it in its letter of 17 December 2001, and which is not raised as an argument before this Court any longer.
As the customers started to complain on 24 October 2001 that the heels of the shoes fell apart, [Buyer] requested an "extraordinary discount" from the invoices on 12 December 2001, and on 17 December 2001, a month and a half later, complained about late delivery of the goods that were "partly defective (heel, footwear etc.)." There again, [Buyer] lost its right to rely on lack of conformity, which Mr. T. did not mention in his witness statement, and about which [Seller] was informed late.
In addition, when [Buyer] requests rejection of the [Seller]'s claim in its entirety relating to the payment request, [Buyer] fails to state how many pairs of shoes were affected by the lack of conformity and are still in its possession.
[Seller] incurred expenses and it would be unfair to order [Seller] to pay them in full. [Seller] is awarded a sum of EUR 2,000 pursuant to Art. 700 of the New Code of Civil Procedure.
Being the losing party, [Buyer] must bear the costs of the appeal.
- Orders [Buyer] to pay the costs of the procedure, and rules that the costs of appeal can be directly recovered by SCP B.R. in accordance with Art. 699 of the New Code of Civil Procedure.
* All translations should be cross-checked against the original text. For purposes of this translation, Plaintiff-Appellant of Spain is referred to as [Seller] and Defendant-Appellee of France is referred to as [Buyer].

References: Art. 700
 Art. 700
 Art. 38
 Art. 39
 Art. 700
 Art. 699