Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920326g1.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:24:44+00:00

Document:
Jurisdiction/Payment, place of. At issue was "whether the rule established by the European Court of Justice, under which the place of performance for the purposes of Article 5(1) of the EEC Judgments Convention is determined by the substantive law referred to by the private international law of the forum, also applies to matters governed by the Uniform Law on International Sales [ULIS], with the consequence of a basic jurisdiction at the place of the plaintiff/seller as regards claims for payment of the purchase price."
The Bundesgerichtshof referred this question to the European Court of Justice which ruled on it in its opinion dated 29 June 1994.
In its referral, the Bundesgerichtshof pointed out that if the answer is in the affirmative, for purposes of determining jurisdiction the relevant provision would be ULIS Article 59 [The buyer shall pay the price to the seller at the seller's place of business . . ."] and that the ruling would have consequences beyond ULIS "since Article 57 of the [CISG] has the same content as Article 59 of [ULIS]."
"[T]he Convention is not only applicable to sales contracts. Under Art. 3(1) CISG it can also apply to contracts for work and materials as well as, under Art. 3(2) CISG, contracts with mixed goods and service obligations as long as the goods component is preponderant. In a submission to the European Court of Justice regarding the question of legal venue of the place of performance pursuant to Art. 5 No. 1 EuGVÜ [Europäisches Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen (European Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments)], the Bundesgerichtshof presupposed the application of the CISG for the compensation claim of an English purchaser arising out of a work and materials contract.30 Thus, the Bundesgerichtshof unqualifiedly presumed that the CISG applied for compensation claims from work and materials contracts insofar as the Convention was to be considered for the determination of the place of performance under Art. 5 No. 1 EuGVÜ.31 Notably, contracts requiring the delivery and installment of machinery can also be subject to the Convention under Art. 3 CISG. Already under the ULIS, the Bundesgerichtshof had no reservation in judging according to the uniform sales law the sale of a manufacturing plant consisting of two sections and for which the seller evidently undertook installment obligations.32 Under the CISG, however, differing views exist concerning contracts for the sale of industrial machinery with their combined delivery of parts and installation obligations.33"
30. BGH of 26 March 1992, WM 1992, 1715 ff.
31. Id. The European Court of Justice [ECJ] approved the application of the Convention for the determination of the place of performance, which is decisive for the determination of the legal venue. See ECJ of 29 June 1994, NJW 1995, 183-184.
32. See BGH of 27 June 1990, NJW 1990, 3077 ff.
33. Often a mixed contract is assumed for which the CISG is generally only applicable if the parties agreed to its application or if, according to the basic idea of Art. 3 CISG, the supply of goods is the preponderant part of the undertaken obligations. See Bianca/Bonell/Khoo, Commentary on the International Sales Law, Art. 3 para. 3.1. (1987); Herber/Czerwernka, supra note 12, at Art. 3, para. 3 ; Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales, Art. 3, para. 60.1 (2d. ed. 1991); Loewe, Internationales Kaufrecht, Art. 3 (1989); Neumayer/Ming, Convention de Vienne sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises - Commentaire, Art. 3, para. 4 (1993); Schlechtriem/Herber, Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht - CISG, Art. 3 para. 3 (2d ed. 1995).

References: Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 3