Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/921014g1.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:41:40+00:00

Document:
On 14 November 1991 Defendant [Buyer] ordered from Plaintiff [Seller] 58 pairs of shoes at a total purchase price of (...).
[Seller] handed over the shoes to the first carrier on 13 December 1991. The consignment arrived at the [Buyer] on 4 January 1992. A check for the sum of (...) which had been issued by [Buyer] on 30 December 1991 could not be properly redeemed. On 12 February 1992, [Seller] was burdened with costs of (...) for its unsuccessful attempt to redeem the check. By letter dated 5 January 1992, [Buyer] demanded [Seller] either to grant a discount of 50% or to take back the goods because of an alleged late delivery of the shoes. [Seller] did not act upon that request.
On 14 April 1992, [Buyer] paid [Seller] the sum of (...). It sold 8 pairs of the respective shoes.
[Seller] argues that the goods were delivered to [Buyer] without any lack of conformity and within the required time. The parties had not agreed on any precise date of delivery.
[Seller] requests the Court to order [Buyer] to pay (...) plus interest of 10% on (...) from 5 January 1992 until 12 February 1992, on (...) from 13 February 1992 until 10 April 1992 and on (...) since 11 April 1992 as well as dunning costs of (...).
[Buyer] acknowledges [Seller]'s partial withdrawal of its legal action with respect to the interest claim. Additionally, [Buyer] requests the Court to dismiss [Seller]'s action.
[Buyer] argues that [Seller] had guaranteed to deliver the goods by 10 December 1991 at the latest. [Seller] could have also been aware of the fact that [Buyer] attached great importance to this issue, given that the shoes were seasonal goods. At the actual date of delivery, the goods intended for sale in winter were already offered at a 50% discount.
[Seller]'s action is admissible and found well grounded safe for the part which had already been withdrawn by [Seller].
Originally, [Seller] demanded from [Buyer] payment of (...), which were then reduced by (...) after an indication by the court. [Seller] has also reduced its claim for interest to 10% in accordance with an approval given by [Buyer] which is necessary pursuant to � 269 ZPO [*]. This constitutes an admissible partial withdrawal of the action.
The CISG governs the contract of sale concluded between the parties, Arts. 1(1)(a) and 4 CISG. In particular, the contract in question has been concluded after the Convention entered into force.
Art. 53 CISG provides that the buyer must pay the price for the goods, similar to the German domestic provision of � 433(2) BGB [*]. It is undisputed that the purchase price amounted to (...) in total. On 14 April 1992, [Buyer] paid (...) on this price, meaning that a sum of (...) remains unsettled.
The contract has not been avoided according to Arts. 49, 25 CISG. It may remain undecided whether or not the parties had determined a fixed date of delivery as well as whether or not [Seller] has performed its obligation to deliver within the required time. Even if [Buyer]'s submissions -- that 10 December 1991 had been fixed as the date of delivery of the shoes -- was assumed as correct, [Buyer] would not have declared avoidance of the contract in accordance with Art. 26 CISG with respect to the delivery which undisputedly arrived only on 4 January 1992. It is evident from the submitted correspondence that [Buyer] merely requested [Seller] either to take back the goods or to grant a price discount of 50%.
This is insufficient to constitute a declaration of avoidance. Rather, the buyer must unequivocally declare that it seeks to avoid the contract. Avoidance is effected by a unilateral declaration. Prior to the present proceedings, [Buyer] had proposed to [Seller] two alternative routes to process the transaction. Since one of these proposals was aimed at a mere reduction of the purchase price, the declaration as a whole does not constitute an unequivocal declaration to avoid the contract.
[Buyer]'s declaration during the present legal proceedings, according to which it would now rely on avoidance of the contract, has not been raised within the required time under Art. 49(2)(a) CISG. Avoidance has not been declared within a reasonable time after delivery of the goods.
It is irrelevant that [Seller]'s submissions and the previous correspondence between the parties possibly indicate that [Buyer] had discovered lacks of conformity of the shoes. First, the nature of the defects has not even be sufficiently ascertained. Second, [Buyer] has not relied on any lack of conformity in the present proceedings.
[Buyer] is also obliged to compensate [Seller] for the costs of (...) which [Seller] incurred as a result of the attempt to redeem the checks. [Buyer] is also obliged to compensate dunning costs of (...).
The interest claim is founded on Art. 78 CISG in conjunction with Art. 28 EGBGB [*] and Art. 2184 Codice civile of Italy. It is not necessary that [Buyer] is in arrears with payment. It is merely required that the underlying claim has become mature.
The applicable interest rate is not governed by the CISG. It must be geared to the interest rate applicable under the respective domestic law. Art. 28 EGBGB [*] refers to Italian law in this case. Pursuant to Art. 2184 Codice civile, the statutory interest rate amounts to 10% since 16 December 1990.
Translator's note on other abbreviations: EGBGB = Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche [German Code on the Conflict of Laws]; ZPO = Zivilprozessordnung [German Code of Civil Procedure].

References: Art. 53
 Art. 26
 Art. 49
 Art. 78
 Art. 28
 Art. 2184
 Art. 28
 Art. 2184