Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900424g1.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 03:58:04
Document Index: 241629116

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6', '§ 6', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 47', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 28', 'Art.\n28', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 54', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 47', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 47', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 47', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 49', 'Art.\n47', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 59', 'Art. 78', 'Art. 1284', 'Art. 1284', 'Art. 78']

Germany 24 April 1990 Lower Court Oldenburg in Holstein (Fashion textiles case) [translation available] Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography CISG CASE PRESENTATION
Germany 24 April 1990 Lower Court Oldenburg in Holstein (Fashion textiles case) [translation available] [Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900424g1.html] Primary source(s) for case presentation: Case text Case Table of Contents Case identification UNCITRAL and Journal of Law & Commerce abstracts Classification of issues present Editorial remarks Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries
Guide to links contained in case presentations Case identification
DATE OF DECISION: 19900424 (24 April 1990 ) JURISDICTION: Germany TRIBUNAL:	AG Oldenburg in Holstein [AG = Amtsgericht = Petty District Court] JUDGE(S): Unavailable CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 5 C 73/89 CASE NAME: German case citations do not identify parties to proceedings CASE HISTORY: Unavailable SELLER'S COUNTRY: Italy (plaintiff) BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant) GOODS INVOLVED: Fashion textiles Case abstracts GERMANY: AG Oldenburg in Holstein 24 April 1990 Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 7 Reproduced with permission from UNCITRAL A German fashion retailer and an Italian clothing manufacturer concluded a contract for the sale of fashion goods, with the specification "autumn goods, to be delivered July, August, September + -". When a first delivery was attempted on 26 September, the buyer refused to accept the goods and returned the invoice on 2 October claiming expiry of the delivery period. The parties argued about the meaning of the above specification, relying on different additional factors allegedly known to both parties. The court applied CISG as the law of the seller's country but took also into account German domestic law for filling gaps on questions of performance. The court awarded the seller the full sales price, including interest at the statutory rate in Italy plus additional interest as damages. The seller's claim was held to be justified since delivery was tendered during the agreed delivery period. Even if, as alleged by the buyer, during each of the three months one third of the goods had to be delivered, the buyer did not effectively avoid the contract by refusing acceptance of the goods without having fixed an additional period in the previous cases of non-delivery. Abstract from 14 Journal of Law & Commerce (1995) 227 Reproduced with permission from the Journal Amount of interest, CISG, Articles 78, 74. The interest claim [in this case] is well-founded under CISG, Articles 59, 78, 74 . . . . Because of its rights under CISG, Article 78, [the seller] is entitled to interest at the legal rate of 5% pursuant to Article 1274(1) Codice Civile. The higher interest claim asserted by the [seller] is also well-founded. This follows from CISG, Article 78 [which preserves the right to damages under Article 74]. According to this provision the seller can assert larger interest claims resulting from the fact that the seller could not invest the purchase price or had to borrow funds. Go to Case Table of Contents Classification of issues present APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(b)] APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 26 ; 33 ; 47 ; 49 ; 53 ; 59 ; 60 ; 78 [Also cited: Articles 3(1) ; 54 ; 74 ] Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers: 26A1 [Effective declaration of avoidance: notice to the other party required (buyer's refusal to accept delivery as effective notice)]; 33A [Time for delivery: on date fixed by or determinable from contract]; 47A3 [Buyer's right to fix additional period for performance: content of notice as basis for avoidance]; 49A21 [Buyer's right to avoid contract (grounds for avoidance) : seller does not deliver or refuses to deliver within additional period set under Article 47]; 53A [Buyer's obligation to pay price for goods]; 59A [Payment due at time fixed or determinable by contract or Convention]; 60B [Buyer's obligation to take delivery]; 78B [Interest on delay in receiving price or any other sum in arrears: rate of interest] Descriptors: Delivery ; Nachfrist ; Avoidance ; Price ; Interest 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 English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=5&step=Abstract> German: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Internationales und Europäisches Recht (SZIER)/ Revue suisse de droit international et de droit européen 1993, 661 Italian: Diritto del Commercio Internazionale (1992), 636 No. 7 Polish: Hermanowski/Jastrzebski, Konwencja Narodow Zjednoczonych o umowach miedzynarodowej sprzedazy towarow (Konwencja wiedenska) - Komentarz (1997) 237-238
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION Original language (German): cisg-online.ch <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/20.htm>; Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 1991, 336-338; Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des internationalen Privatrechts im Jahre (IPRspr) 1990 No. 32 [63-65]; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=5&step=FullText> Translation (English): Text presented below CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION English: Behr, 17 Journal of Law and Commerce (1998) 266-288 [abstracts and comments on 29 interest rulings from 10 countries (this case presented at 270)]; Bonell/Liguori, Uniform Law Review (1996-2) 359 [366 n.25]; DiMatteo, 22 Yale J. Int'l L. (1997) 162-163; Ferrari, International Legal Forum (4/1998) 138-255 [248 n.1032, 253 n.1079 (interest issues)]; Ferrari, 15 Journal of Law and Commerce (1995) 116-125 [comments on interest issue, citing this and other cases]; Thiele, 2 Vindobono Journal (1998) 3-35, citing this case [n.59] and 42 other interest rulings; Karollus, Cornell Rev. of the CISG (1995) 51 [65, 67, 71-72, 73] [comments on issues under Articles 26, 33, 49 and 60 in the context of German case law on the CISG]; Mullis, Avoidance for Breach under the Vienna Convention: Critical Analysis of Some of the Early Cases (1998) n.116; Lookofsky, Understanding the CISG in the USA [CISG/USA] (1995)71 n.45, 96 n.238; Lookofsky, CISG/Scandinavia (1996) 87 n.56, 115 n.268; Bernstein/Lookofsky, CISG/Europe (1997) 89, 123 n.273; for analysis of the remedy of avoidance citing this and other cases, go to Kazimierska, Pace Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1999-2000) n.n.145, 163; Kimbel, 18 Journal of Law and Commerce (1999) 301-331 (analysis of the remedy of Nachfrist citing this and other cases: 306 n.24, 321 n.83); Spanogle/Winship, International Sales Law: A Problem Oriented Coursebook (West 2000) [avoidance 247-264 (this case at 249)]; DiMatteo, The Law of International Contracting, Kluwer (2000) 239-240; Bernstein & Lookofsky, Understanding the CISG in Europe, 2d ed., Kluwer (2003) § 6-8 n.69; § 6-31 n.362; Liu Chengwei, Recovery of interest (November 2003) nn.55, 194; Article 78 and rate of interest: Mazzotta, Endless disagreement among commentators, much less among courts (2004) [citing this case and 275 other court and arbitral rulings]; [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Art. 49 paras. 5, 24 Art. 74 para. 16; Pilar Perales, Case cited at n. 12 in Presentation on Nachfrist at September 2005 seminar in Singapore
French: Neumayer/Ming, Commentaire, Lausanne (1993) Art. 49 n.7; Witz, Les premières applications jurisprudentielles du droit uniforme de la vente internationale (L.G.D.J., Paris: 1995) 95 n.71, 106 n.115 n.117 German: Enderlein, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 1991, 313-316; Huber in von Caemmerer/Schlechtriem, Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht (2d ed. 1995) 475 n.11, n.14 [Art. 49]; Jametti-Greiner, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und Schweizerisches Recht (SZIER) 1993, 653; Karollus, [österreichisches] Recht der Wirtschaft (öRdW) 1992, 168; Schlechtriem, Internationales UN-Kaufrecht (1996) 78 n.41; Staudinger-Magnus, (1994) Art. 47 No. 13; Piltz, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (München) 1994, 1101 Hungarian: Vida, Jogtudományi Közlöny (J.K.) (Budapest) 1993, 169 [173-174] Italian: Liguori, Foro italiano (1996-IV) 145 [171 n.120] Spanish: Perales, Cuadernos Jurídicos 3 (1996) No. 43, 5 [7 n.29] [commentary on Article 78: determination of rate of interest under the CISG (review of case law)] Go to Case Table of Contents Case text (English translation) [second draft]
Lower Court (Amtsgericht) Oldenburg in Holstein 24 April 1990 [5 C 73/89]
Translation [*] by Jakob Heidbrink [**]
The Claimant [Seller] demands that the Defendant [Buyer] pay the purchase price of Deutsche Mark
[DM] 4,583 plus interest.
The [Seller], having its seat in Italy, is engaged in the business of producing clothes. The [Buyer] runs
a textiles shop in Neustadt in Holstein; her husband runs a shop in Dahme. The [Buyer], on 11
February 1989, through the agent of the [Seller] - a Mr H. - ordered the delivery of various textiles
during the year of 1989. This was for a delivery of autumn wares. In the order, the period of delivery
is noted as: "July, August, September + -".
On 12 September 1989, the [Seller] issued an invoice to the [Buyer] of DM 3,727 relating to a
partial delivery; and, in an invoice dated 22 September 1989, the [Seller] requested an additional
partial payment of DM 846. The [Seller] allowed the [Buyer] a payment period of, at the longest, 60
days after the date of the invoice. According to the rail waybill, the goods referred to in the invoice of
12 September 1989 were dispatched from the railway station München-Ost on 19 September 1989.
There was an attempt to deliver the goods to the [Buyer] on 26 September 1989. The [Buyer]
refused to accept delivery. It is disputed whether the goods referred to in the invoice of 22
September 1989, were also offered to the [Buyer] for acceptance in September 1989. It is
undisputed that, according the post delivery list dated 4 October 1989 of firm M. - the firm charged with
the carriage - that the goods referred to in the invoice of 22 September were handed over by firm
M. to the postal services only on that day.
It is also undisputed that the [Buyer] refused to take delivery of the goods referred to in the invoice of
22 September 1989. The [Buyer] returned the goods to the [Seller] accompanied by a letter dated 2
October 1989, contending that the period for delivery had expired. The [Seller], in a letter dated 13
October 1989, stated that it did not accept the return of the goods by the [Buyer], alleging that the
order note clearly envisages deliveries up to, until, and including September 1989. It is impossible to
ascertain the present whereabouts of the goods referred to in the invoices of 12 September 1989 and
22 September 1989.
The [Seller] is of the opinion that the phrasing of the order note - the use of a "+ -" sign - indicates
that the end of the delivery period was to be open. This was to be so also because the [Buyer] knew
that the [Seller] usually closes its production site during the summer and resumes work only on 1
Furthermore, the goods referred to in the invoice of 22 September 1989 were also delivered to the
The [Seller] requests the Court to order that the [Buyer] pay to the [Seller] DM 4,583 plus interest
at the annual rate of twelve percent accruing on a principal capital of DM 3,737 as of 13 November
1989, and on DM 846 as of 23 November 1989. The [Buyer] requests the Court to dismiss the
[Buyer's defense]
The [Buyer] alleges that, as the order was for autumn wares, the goods ought to have been delivered
after the summer sales at the end of July, and after the beginning of August 1989, respectively. As
concerns the annotation in the order note "July, August, and September", the parties had assumed
that 113 items of the goods were to be delivered in July, 113 items in August, and 113 items in
September 1989; the [Buyer] had not attached any significance to the "+ -" sign.
This understanding of the order note is said to be in accordance with the usages of the trade, as
concerns the date of delivery.
The date of delivery was also important, as the [Seller] produces highly fashionable goods which can
be sold a year later only at discount prices. Moreover, sales in Neustadt in Holstein slumped after the
end of the season; the shops of the [Buyer]'s husband usually close in October of each year. The
Agent of the [Seller], Mr H., therefore assured the [Buyer] that the goods would be delivered earlier
than July/August/September 1989. The goods referred to in the invoice of 22 September 1989 were
delivered to the [Buyer], at the earliest, on 7 October 1989; refusal to take delayed delivery is
customary in the trade.
The [Seller]'s suit is admissible and is substantiated in its entirety. According to Arts. 54, 74, 78, 59
of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods - CISG -, the [Seller] is
entitled to demand of the [Buyer] payment of DM 4,583 plus interest at the rate of twelve percent on
a principal capital of DM 3,737 as of 13 November 1989, and on DM 846 as of 23 November
In the present case, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods
of 11 April 1980 (Bundesgesetzblatt 1989, Part II, p. 588 et seq.) is applicable. Neither the Uniform
Law on the International Sale of Goods of 17 July 1973 (Bundesgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 856 et seq.),
nor the Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 17 July
1973 (Bundesgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 868 et seq.) are applicable to the present sale and purchase. This
is due to Italy having renounced those Conventions on 31 December 1987 (cf. Bundesgesetzblatt,
Del II, 1987, p. 232, and also Palandt-Putzo, 49th Edition, Preliminary Remarks Prior to sec. 433
of the German Civil Code, Note 5 b, with additional references). In this case, the CISG is applicable
by way of Arts. 27, 28 of the German Code of Private International Law [the Private International
Law Code]. The parties have not explicitly agreed on the applicable law in accordance with Art. 27(1), first
sentence of the Private International Law Code. Nor does it emerge from the provisions of the
contract, or from the circumstances, that German law is to be applied (Art. 27(2), second sentence,
second alternative, as well as Art. 27(1), second sentence, third alternative of the Private
International Law Code). Nor have the parties subsequently freely agreed on the applicable law - the
application of German law - in accordance with Art. 27(2) of the Private International Law Code. The [Seller] maintains that Italian law is to be applied, and hence the CISG; the [Buyer], on the other
hand, alleges that German law is applicable.
The Court concludes that, as the requirements of Art. 27 of the Private International Law Code are
not fulfilled, the applicable law must be ascertained by way of Art. 28 of the Private International
Law Code. Art. 28(1) of the Private International Law Code provides that the contract be governed
of the law of the State with which it has the closest connection. According to Art. 28(2) of the
Private International Law Code, it is, in this context, assumed that the contract is most closely
connected to the State in which the party performing the characteristic obligation, at the time of the
conclusion of the contract, has its habitual residence, or, if it is a corporation, an association or a legal
person, its main center of administration. In a contract of sale, the characteristic performance is the
delivery of the goods (Palandt-Heinrich, 49th Edition, Note 2 b to Art. 28 of the Private
International Law Code).
The [Seller] was the debtor of this obligation. As the debtor has its seat in Italy, according to Art.
28(2), first sentence, of the Private International Law Code, Italian law is, without anything more,
applicable. In this context, Art. 32 of the Private International Law Code provides that the law of the
contract is determinative, in particular, of the interpretation of the contract; of the fulfilment of the
obligations laid down by the contract; of the consequences of complete or partial non-performance
of these obligations, including the measure of damages; of the various ways in which the obligation
may cease to exist; of the statute of limitation and the loss of rights resulting from the expiry of a time
limit; as well as of the consequences of the invalidity of the contract (cf. Art. 32(1)(1)-(5) of the
Private International Law Code). As regards the manner in which performance is to be rendered, and
the measures to be taken by the creditor when performance is defective, however, the law of the
State in which performance is rendered - in the present case, the law of the Federal Republic of
Germany - is to be had regard to (cf. Art. 32(2) of the Private International Law Code). In the
present case, the law of the contract in accordance with Art. 28(2) and (2), as well as Art. 32(1) of
the Private International Law Code is the CISG, as Italy, as of 1 January 1989, has implemented as
its private international law the United Nations Convention on the Contract for the International Sale
of Goods, resulting in that Convention being applicable by virtue of Art. 1(1)(b) of the CISG (cf.
Asam, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 1989, p. 942 et seq.); this is true in particular as, in the
present case, there is a contract of sale in accordance with Art. 1(1) as compared to Art. 3(1) of the
A seller's claim pursuant to Art. 54 of the CISG for the payment of the purchase price requires the
seller to have fulfilled his obligations stipulated in Art. 33 of the CISG. According to this provision,
the seller must deliver the goods, if a date is fixed by or determinable from the contract, on that date,
or, if a period of time is fixed by or determinable from the contract, at any time within that period
unless circumstances indicate that the buyer is to choose a date, or, in any other case, within a
reasonable time after the conclusion of the contract. Even if one were to assume, for the benefit of the
[Buyer], that the parties had agreed that one third of the goods were to be delivered in July, one third
in August, and an additional third in September 1989, the [Buyer] could not, by refusing to accept
delivery, impliedly declare that it wanted to terminate, or - as it is expressed in Art. 49 of the CISG -
avoid the contract. According to the statement of the [Buyer], by the expiry of the months of July,
August, and September, respectively, there had been non-delivery of one third, respectively, of the
To assess the question, therefore, Arts. 47 and 49 of the CISG are pertinent. Art. 47 of the CISG
provides in its first paragraph that the buyer may stipulate a reasonable additional period of time for
the seller to fulfil his obligations. The second paragraph of this provision provides that the buyer may
not, during this period, resort to any remedy for breach of contract, unless he has received notice
from the seller that he will not perform within the period so stipulated. The buyer, however, retains
the right to claim damages for the delayed delivery.
Art. 49(1)(b) of the CISG further provides that the buyer may declare the contract avoided if, in case
of non-performance, the seller has not delivered the goods within the period stipulated by the buyer
in accordance with Art. 47(1), or if he declares that he will not deliver within the stipulated period.
This provision is complemented by Art. 49(2)(a) of the CISG. If the seller has delivered the goods,
the buyer loses his right to declare the contract avoided unless he does so, in respect of late delivery,
within a reasonable time after he has become aware that delivery has been made (this is the wording
of Art. 49(2)(a) of the CISG). The construction of this provision reveals that, if there is a non-delivery within the scope of the Article, the buyer first must stipulate an additional period in
accordance with Art. 47 of the CISG. If the seller does not deliver the goods within the additional
period of time stipulated, the buyer is entitled to avoid the contract in accordance with Art. 49(1). If,
however, the seller either delivers within the period of time stipulated, or delivery is effected after the
stipulated period has expired, the buyer, according to Art. 49(2)(a), in order to preserve his right to
avoid the contract, must claim this right within a reasonable time after delivery has taken place.
In the present case, the [Buyer] was not entitled to avoid the contract, despite non-delivery, the
[Buyer] did not at the respective dates stipulate an additional period of time in accordance with Art.
47(1) of the CISG. From all this, it emerges that the [Buyer] does not have any right to avoid the
contract by reason of the delays in delivery it alleges. Therefore, it is bound to pay the purchase price
of, in all, DM 4 583 stated in the invoices of 12 September 1989 and 22 September 1989. The
[Buyer] cannot claim that payment should be effected only against the delivery of the goods ordered.
To the extent that the question in the present case relates to the manner in which the obligations of the
[Seller] are to be discharged, according to Art. 32(2) of the Private International Law Code, German
law is to be applied as a supplement. According to German law, the [Buyer] was in delay of taking
delivery, as the goods had been offered for delivery in September 1989 (the goods referred to in the
invoice of 12 September 1989), and at the beginning of October 1989 (the goods referred to in the
invoice of 22 September 1989).
When a buyer refuses to take delivery, it is in delay of taking delivery in accordance with sec. 293 et
seq. of the German Civil Code. If the buyer is in delay of taking delivery, the obligation of the seller
to perform first disappears (cf. Palandt-Heinrichs, 49th Edition, Note 4 c at sec. 320 of the
German Civil Code). In accordance with all of this, the [Buyer], in relation to the principal claim,
must be ordered to pay.
The claim as to interest results from Arts. 59, 78, 74 of the CISG. In the present case, a payment
period of 60 days after the date of the invoice applied, so that the claim for payment of the purchase
price became due, as regards the invoice of 12 September 1989, on 13 November 1989; the claim
regarding the invoice of 22 September 1989 became due on 23 November 1989 (Art. 59 of the
By way of Art. 78 of the CISG, the legal interest rate of Art. 1284(1) of the Italian Civil Code
(Codice civile) of five percent per annum is, prima facie, substantiated (cf., about the application of
Art. 1284(1) Codice civile Asam, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 1989, p. 942, p. 945 et seq.).
The interest demanded by the [Seller] in excess of this rate is also substantiated. This emerges from
Art. 78 of the CISG. According to this provision, the seller may claim excess interest by way of
damages, the interest damage arising from the seller's not being able to profitably invest the purchase
price, or from his needing to take up a loan as a consequence of the failed payment (see Asam,
These prerequisites have, in the present case, been relied upon by the [Seller] in his Statement of
The decision as to costs rests on sec. 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The decision as to
preliminary enforceability results from sec. 709(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, the Plaintiff of Italy is referred to as [Seller] and the Defendant of Germany is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the former currency of Germany (Deutsche Mark) are indicated as [DM].
** Jakob Heidbrink, LL.D. M.Jur. (OXON), Lecturer in Law at Jönköping International Business School.
Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated June 8, 2006