Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/931118g1.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 23:34:23
Document Index: 559820821

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 72', 'art. 49', 'art. 72', 'art. 49', 'art. 49', 'Art. 25', 'Art. 80']

Germany 18 November 1993 Appellate Court Düsseldorf (Key press case)Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography CISG CASE PRESENTATION Germany 18 November 1993 Appellate Court Düsseldorf (Key press case) [Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/931118g1.html] Primary source(s) for case presentation: CISG online case overview; case commentary Case Table of Contents Case identification Case abstract
Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries Guide to links contained in case presentations Case identification DATE OF DECISION: 19931118 (18 November 1993) JURISDICTION: Germany TRIBUNAL:	OLG Düsseldorf [OLG = Oberlandesgericht = Provincial Court of Appeal] JUDGE(S): Unavailable CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 6 U 228/92 CASE NAME: German case citations do not identify parties to proceedings CASE HISTORY: 1st instance LG Düsseldorf 9 July 1992 [reversed by OLG]; 3d instance BGH (Supreme Court) 15 February 1995 [affirmed LG ruling]; see also OLG Düsseldorf 7 March 1996 [settlement] SELLER'S COUNTRY: Germany (plaintiff) BUYER'S COUNTRY: Switzerland (defendant) GOODS INVOLVED: Key press (stamping machine) Case abstract
"The Düsseldorf Court of Appeals, in a German-Swiss dispute, held
that the inability to perform constituted a fundamental breach. A
Swiss buyer declared avoided a contract with a German seller to
deliver a machine designed to press keys after having been informed
by the manufacturer of the ordered machine that the manufacturer
had terminated the distribution agreement with the seller and would
not carry out delivery of the machine in question unless payments
were made directly to him. The buyer then made payments directly
to the manufacturer. When the seller sued the buyer for the
purchase price, the buyer objected that the seller was not able to
deliver the machine and therefore he, the buyer, was entitled to
declare the contract avoided. The Düsseldorf Court of Appeals
rejected the buyer's arguments and held that mere non- or late
delivery does not constitute a fundamental breach under article 25
provided that delivery is objectively possible and the seller was
willing to deliver. The Court continued that where delivery was
objectively possible, but where it was obvious that the seller for
idiosyncratic reasons would not be able to deliver the goods in
question (subjective impossibility), the buyer would be entitled to
avoid the contract. Since none of the requirements were pertinent
the Court denied that any fundamental breach had been committed by
"On appeal, the German Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
Appellate Court insofar as it concerned the buyer's right to avoid
the contract. The Court held that art. 72 applies only where
future performance is still due. Where the non-performance
occurred after the performance had become due, the right to declare
the contract avoided would be governed by art. 49. Since in the
case at issue the buyer declared the contract only avoided after
delivery had been made and payment had become due, the Court thus
held that the buyer could not invoke art. 72. As for the buyer's
right to declare the contract avoided under art. 49 the Court held
that he lost his right according to art. 49(2)(b)." Koch, Pace
Goods (1998) 245-246 and n.232. Go to Case Table of Contents
Classification of issues present APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)] APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 25 ; 49 [Also cited: Articles 3(1) ; 4 ; 6 ; 29 ; 47(1) ; 53 ; 80 ] Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers: 25B [Definition of fundmental breach: substantial deprivation of expectation, etc.];
49A2 [Buyer's right to avoid contract: seller does not deliver or refuses to deliver]
Descriptors: Avoidance ; Fundamental breach Go to Case Table of Contents Editorial remarks Unavailable Go to Case Table of Contents Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION (a)	UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable (b)	Other abstracts See above CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION Original language (German): cisg-online.ch website <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/92.htm> Translation: Unavailable CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION English: Koch, Pace Review of Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods (1998) 245-246 [fundamental breach: ability of performance]; [2005] Schlechtriem & Schwenzer ed., Commentary on UN Convention on International Sale of Goods, 2d (English) ed., Oxford University Press, Art. 25 para. 18 Art. 80 para. 3; Spaic, Analysis of Fundamental Breach under the CISG (December 2006) n.316
Go to Case Table of Contents Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated March 20, 2007