Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900607a3.html
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 17:11:45
Document Index: 387035425

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 99', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 19']

Austria 7 June 1990 Supreme Court (Furniture case) Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents
Austria 7 June 1990 Supreme Court (Furniture case) [Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900607a3.html]
Primary source(s) for case presentation: Editorial remarks
DATE OF DECISION: 19900607 (7 June 1990) JURISDICTION: Austria TRIBUNAL:	Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] JUDGE(S): Unavailable CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 7 Ob 590/90 CASE NAME: Austrian case citations do not generally identify parties to proceedings CASE HISTORY: 1st instance KG Wels 18 September 1989; 2d instance
OLG Linz 1 March 1990 SELLER'S COUNTRY: Germany (plaintiff) BUYER'S COUNTRY: Austria (defendant) GOODS INVOLVED: Furniture Classification of issues present
APPLICATION OF CISG: No. Dicta reference to CISG. APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 9 ; 19 Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code
Unavailable Descriptors: Usages and practices ; Battle of the forms Go to Case Table of Contents
7 June 1990 [7 Ob 590/90]
EDITOR: Daniel Nagel SUMMARY
The [Buyer] (defendant), an Austrian company, bought furniture for resale on a regular basis
from the [Seller] (plaintiff), a German company. Even though the parties had a long term
business relationship, each sale was effected separately. The following clause was printed on the front page of the standard order form of the [Buyer]: "Any confirmation differing from this order is invalid. The delivery has to be effected according to these standard terms of purchase. The parties agree on the District Court of Wels as the competent court for the settlement of any dispute and on the exclusive applicability of Austrian law."
The [Seller] confirmed every order in writing and attached its standard terms of sale to these confirmations. These stipulated in para. 11 that contrary clauses in standard terms of a buyer would be invalid and in para. 12 that, for international sales, German law was to be applied.
Thirteen invoices, which had been issued in 1983 and 1984, remained unsettled, hence the insolvency administrator of the [Seller] - the [Seller] had entered into insolvency proceedings on 4 November 1986 - sued for payment on 30 December 1987.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the claim. It held that the [Seller] had accepted the standard terms of purchase of the [Buyer] as the [Seller] had failed to contest these terms. Hence Austrian law was to be applied and according to � 1486 ABGB (Austrian Civil Code) the claim was time-barred. The Court of Appeal held that neither set of standard terms had become part of the contract.
No party had sufficiently demonstrated that it was only willing to conclude a contract on the
basis of its standard terms. The use of contrary standard terms, which had not been contested
by either party at the time the contract was concluded, would thus lead to the assumption that
the parties intended to conclude the contract, irrespective of the inclusion of any standard
According to � 36 IPRG [Austrian Conflict of Laws], German law was hence to be applied
and, according to German law, the claim was not time-barred. The [Buyer] filed an appeal (Revision) stating that the Court of Appeal had been incorrect in
its legal assessment and requested that the judgment of the Court of Appeal be revoked.
RATIO The use of contrary standard terms does not affect the validity of a contract. Parties dgenerally
assume that a contract comes into existence as soon as an order is confirmed (cf. Rummel in Rummel, ABGB, 2. Auflage, Rz 3 zu � 864a; Willvonseder, Taktikspiel AGB? - Zum
Problem einander widersprechender Geschäftsbedingungen, RdW 1986, 69 ff (72)). The
parties at any rate tacitly express this by effecting and accepting the reciprocal performances. A
different view can only be assumed if one party reinitiates negotiations and expresses the intent
that it was only willing to conclude a contract on the basis of its standard terms.
Those parts of the contractual relationship which have thus not been agreed on have to be
ascertained according to the dispositive law and complementary interpretation (cf. Rummel
loco cit. Rz 6 zu � 869; Apathy in: Schwimann, ABGB IV/1 Anm. 2 zu � 861; Willvonseder
loco cit. 73; cf. further:: Ulmer in: Ulmer-Brandner-Hensen ABGB5 Rz 103 zu � 2; AGB-Gesetz Larenz, Schuldrecht, Allgemeiner Teil 7, 556).
The fact that the proceedings had been started before an Austrian court does not demonstrate
that the [Seller] had tacitly accepted the standard terms of the [Buyer] as the [Seller] had
shown through the use of its standard terms that it was not willing to accept the application of
REFERENCE TO CISG
Austria ratified the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods on 29
December 1987. The Convention thus entered into force in Austria according to Art 99(2)
CISG on 1 January 1989 (cf. Austrian Federal Legal Gazette, (BGBl) 1988 N� 96 of 12
February 1988). As the contracts in dispute were concluded in 1983 and 1984, respectively, an
application of the CISG was hence not possible. Therefore, it was all the more surprising that
the Federal Supreme Court of Austria used an indirect reference to Art. 9(2) CISG (cf.
Posch/Petz, in: Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration (2002) p.
It is true that, at first glance, the judgment seems to be in contrast with the interpretation of
Art. 19(1) CISG according to the last-shot theory. However, it cannot be seen as contrary to the
CISG as Art. 19(1) CISG can be interpreted in the light of Art. 9 CISG and Arts. 6 and 8 CISG
(cf. Magnus in: Staudinger, Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Wiener UN-Kaufrecht
(CISG), 13. Bearbeitung (1999), Art. 19 CISG Rn 25; Kröll/Hennecke, Kollidierende
Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen in internationalen Kaufverträgen, RIW 2001, S 741 f; Piltz,
Internationales Kaufrecht (1993), � 3 Rn 96; Rudolph, Kaufrecht der Export- und
Importverträge (1996), Art. 19 CISG Rn 13; Schlechtriem in: Schlechtriem, Kommentar zum
Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, 3. Aufl (2000), Art. 19 CISG Rn 20). Art. 9 CISG can generally be seen as a further confirmation of the dispositive character of the
CISG as it emphasizes the predominance of usages between the parties (Posch, in:
Schwimmann, ABGB � 9 UN-K, Rn.1) Therefore, an assessment of contrary clauses which
parties intended to include in their contract entails the necessity of a close and careful scrutiny.
A deviation from Art. 19(1) CISG in the light of Art. 9 CISG and Arts. 6 and 8 CISG can e.g.,
be assumed if the parties perform their reciprocal obligations even though the order and
acceptance contain contrary clauses and thus tacitly declare the remaining contract valid. (cf.
Magnus in: Staudinger, Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Wiener UN-Kaufrecht
(CISG), 13. ed. (1999), Art. 19 CISG Rn. 25; Piltz, Internationales Kaufrecht (1993), � 3 Rn
96 ff; Janssen, Kollidierende Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen im internationalen Kaufrecht
(CISG), wbl 2002, p. 453; Schlechtriem in: Schlechtriem, Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, 3. ed. (2000), Art. 19 CISG Rn. 20.). This very argument was used by the Federal
Supreme Court of Austria in the present case.
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION Original language (German): [österreichisches] Jurisdische
Blätter 1991, 120-122; Praxis des internationalen Privat- und
Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 1991, 419-421 Translation: Unavailable
English: [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Art. 19 para. 20
German: Tiedemann, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und
Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 1991, 424-427
Commercial Law - Last updated December 11, 2007