Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050701f1.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-24 08:01:35
Document Index: 406525976

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 700', 'Art. 700', 'Art. 700', 'Art. 38', 'Art.\n39', 'Art. 700', 'Art. 700', 'Art. 699']

France 1 July 2005 Appellate Court Aix-en-Provence (Footware case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050701f1.html] Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text Case Table of Contents
DATE OF DECISION: 20050701 (1 July 2005) JURISDICTION: France TRIBUNAL: CA Aix-en-Provence [CA = Cour d'appel = Appellate Court] JUDGE(S): M. Christian Cadiot (président); M. Jean-Paul Astier, M. Charles Stern (conseillers); Mme. Michèle Gourel de Saint Pern (greffier) CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Arrêt du fond du 01 juillet 2005 no. 2005/377; Rôle no. 03/05302 CASE NAME: Unavailable CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Tribunal de Commerce 7 January 2003 [reversed]
SELLER'S COUNTRY: Spain (plaintiff) BUYER'S COUNTRY: France (defendant) GOODS INVOLVED: Footware Classification of issues present
APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 38(1) ; 39(1) Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION Original language (French): CISG-France website <http://witz.jura.uni-saarland.de/CISG/decisions/010705v.htm> Translation (English): Text presented below CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION Unavailable Go to Case Table of Contents Case text (English translation) [second draft]
Plaintiff-Appellant [Seller] v. Defendant-Appellee [Buyer]
1 July 2005 [2005/377]
FACTS OF THE CASE 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 12 December 2001, the [Buyer] wrote to the [Seller]: "We are kindly requesting an
extraordinary discount (of EUR 4,681.14) calculated based on all invoices," without further
explanation, and on 17 December 2001, [Buyer] wrote the following: "In response to your calls
regarding your payments and especially concerning late delivery of the goods which were partly
defective (heel, footwear, etc.), we must return the goods.". ...
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.
Based on the conclusions made on 26 April 2005, repeated here in their entirety, [Seller] requests
the Court to consider the following:
- The Vienna Convention applies;
- The goods were delivered at the end of September 2001;
- [Buyer] gave notice of the non-conformity only on 17 December 2001;
- The notice is late and imprecise;
- [Buyer] has tacitly waived the benefit of non-compliance by requesting a discount;
- [Buyer] sold some of the shoes without having paid for them.
- Reverse the judgment of the lower court;
- Dismiss the claims of [Buyer];
- 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.
Based on the arguments made on 19 April 2005, repeated here in their entirety, [Buyer]
requests the Court to find that:
- During the weeks following delivery of the goods, [Buyer] received customer complaints;
- A thorough examination revealed significant manufacturing defects;
- [Buyer] immediately reported such defects to the French representative of [Seller], and
thereafter, directly to [Seller];
- The time period within which [Buyer] acted was reasonable under the terms of the Vienna
- [Seller] must take back the non-conforming goods at its own expense.
- Reverse the judgment appealed;
- Reject the arguments of [Seller]
- Order [Seller] to take back the goods at its own expense, with a late fee of EUR 150 per
day [if Seller fails to do so]
- Order [Seller] to pay a sum of EUR 10,000 as damages and interest, and EUR 3,000
pursuant to Art. 700 of the New Code of Civil Procedure
The final judgment was handed down on 26 April 2005.
REASONING OF THE JUDGMENT The form of the appeal is appropriate and filing of the appeal was timely, therefore, it is
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
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.
For the above reasons, the Court publicly announces, in a contradictory proceeding, in a
commercial case, at the last instance that it had received the appeal by [Seller], it amends
the judgment appealed, and makes the following new rulings. The Court:
- Orders [Buyer] to pay [Seller] the sum of EUR 67,137.86 with interest at the statutory
rate as of 15 May 2002, as well as EUR 2,000 pursuant to Art. 700 of the New Code of Civil Procedure; - Rejects all other claims; and - 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.
translation, Plaintiff-Appellant of Spain is referred to as [Seller] and Defendant-Appellee
of France is referred to as [Buyer].
** Andrea Vincze is a Fellow of the Institute of International Commercial Law of the
Pace University School of Law. She received her law degree from the University of
Miskolc, Hungary, and her LL.M. at Pace Law School. She is working on her Ph.D.
on ICSID arbitration, and is researching international commercial law and ADR.