Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030715g1.html
Timestamp: 2017-07-22 06:42:13
Document Index: 484986870

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 6', 'art.1252', 'art. 1243', 'art. 1243', 'art. 1243', 'Art. 28', 'Art.1284', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 58', 'Art.\n28']

Germany 15 July 2003 District Court Mönchengladbach (Filters 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 15 July 2003 District Court Mönchengladbach (Filters case) [translation available] [Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030715g1.html] Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text
DATE OF DECISION: 20030715 (15 July 2003) JURISDICTION: Germany TRIBUNAL: LG Mönchengladbach [LG = Landgericht = District Court] JUDGE(S): Unavailable CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 7 O 221/02 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: Filters Classification of issues present
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 4 ; 7 ; 78 [Also cited: Articles 39(1) ; 53 ; 58(1) ; 61(1)(a) ; 62 ; 84(2)
4B [Scope of Convention: issues excluded (set-off, rate of interest)];7C23 [Gap-filling by domestic law];
Descriptors: Scope of Convention ; Set-off ; Gap-filling ; Interest Go to Case Table of Contents Editorial remarks
(b) Other abstracts English: Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=967&step=Abstract>
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION Original language (German): [2003/5] Internationales Handelsrecht 229-231; cisg-online.ch website <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/813.pdf>
Daniel Nagel, editor [***] REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. [Seller]'s claim for payment of the purchase price results from articles 64, 62(1)(a), 53
CISG. It is undisputed that the parties concluded purchase contracts from which follows by
way of calculation an undisputed debit balance amounting to EUR 51,840.82 without the set-off Defendant [Buyer] claims. The latter will be considered under II, below. Whether this
constitutes an acknowledgment of debt in view of the [Buyer]'s writings of 24 June 2002, 18
September 2002, and 10 October 2002 at the same time may remain open since the amount of
the purchase price claim between the parties is not disputed. II. The [Seller]'s claim for payment of the purchase price has not been extinguished as a result
of the [Buyer]'s set-off claim. Even if, in favor of the Defendant [Buyer] -- by broad
interpretation of the judgments of the European Court of Justice (EuGH) [*] of 13 July 1995
(NJW [*] 1996, 42) and the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) of 7 November
2001 (BB [*] 2002, 14 et seq.) -- admissibility of the set-off is assumed even for unlinked
counterclaims and the German court is regarded as having international jurisdiction based on
art. 6 no. 3 EuGVO [*] analogous) and/or � 33 ZPO * (analogous), the [Buyer]'s set-off claim
is unjustified for several reasons. 1. First of all, in the present case the set-off contradicts the principles of good faith
according to �242 Civil Code (BGB) [*]. With [Buyer]'s letter of 24 June 2002, the [Buyer]
submitted a proposal to pay by installments and led the [Seller] to believe in a temporary
financial difficulty due to poor payment behavior on the part of [Buyer]'s customers.
In this letter, [Buyer] did not mention any defects or counterclaims. The [Buyer] further put the
[Seller] off with [Buyer]'s letter of 18 September 2002 admitting to having cash flow problems.
As a sign of [Buyer]'s good will, [Buyer] proposed a payment of EUR 2,500.00 for that same
day. Here, too, the [Seller] could not expect the [Buyer] to suddenly seek to discharge
[Buyer]'s indebtedness by way of counterclaim (cf. BGHZ [*] 120, 394 regarding the
comparable situation of a claim based on a settlement, when the counterclaim was known at the
time of conclusion of settlement and reservation of a set-off was made). 2. Irrespective of the preceding arguments, however, the requirements for set-off have not
been met according to Italian law. Article 7 CISG declares the right invoked by the private
international law of the forum State to be applicable for questions that have not been regulated
by the CISG. According to the leading doctrine (Schlechtriem, Internationales UN-Kaufrecht, 2d edition,
No. 42e; Piltz NJW [*] 2000, 553 556) and case law (Court of Appeal Oberlandesgericht
Koblenz, RIW [*] 1993, 934; Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) Stuttgart, RIW 1995,
943, 944; Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) Düsseldorf of 11 July 1996 in [CISG-online.ch] No. 201), the subject of set-off is not regulated in the CISG.
It is true that the objection is raised that a set-off is regulated by the CISG if mutual claims are
admissible for set-off within the Convention, i.e., if both the principal claim and counterclaim
follow from a contractual relationship subject to the CISG (cf. Staudinger/Magnus, Article 4
CISG No. 47; Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) Hamburg IHR [*] 2001, 19 et seq.;
Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) Munich of 9 July 1997, [CISG-online.ch] number 282),
the court, however, does not agree with this minority opinion. Set-offs are not explicitly
regulated in the CISG, only the offset of benefits on the basis of article 84(2) CISG or
compliance with compulsory consideration regarding the obligation to effect performance
matching with counter-performance. This, however, does not state anything concerning set-offs.
Set-off claims for delivery and compensation for the use and enjoyment or consideration of
counter-performance, on the one hand, and set-off, on the other, are not comparable since in
the set-off only pecuniary claims may be charged against each other, while this may not
necessarily be the case with respect to the counter-performance in an adjudication matching
performance with counter-performance.
Moreover, there are considerable differences between set-off, settlement and consideration of
the obligation to perform in an adjudication matching performance with counter-performance
with regard to the fact that a set-off -- as in German law -- requires a legal act which includes a
voluntary act, namely, the statement of set-off, or -- at least, as is the case in Italian law -- a
procedural assertion (cf. Kindler, Einführung in das italienische Recht, �14 No.15).
3. According to articles 32 No. 2.28(1) and (2) EGBGB [*], the law invoked by the forum
State's private international law is Italian law.
The performance which is characteristic of a contract in a sales agreement is the performance of
the seller. This was pointed out by the court in the hearing of 3 June 2003. The requirements for
a set-off according to Italian law have not been met. Italian law only knows three kinds of set-off: set-off by agreement (art.1252 C.c. [*]), set-off by law (art. 1243(1)), and set-off per
curiam (art. 1243(2) C.c.). None of these requirements is met. Set-off by agreement fails due
to the fact that the [Buyer]'s claims for defects are contested by the [Seller]. Requirements for a
set-off by law ipso jure are not given either, since claims must be of a similar nature, collectible
and ready for judgment according to art. 1243 C.c., and this last condition is not fulfilled.
Claims are only ready for judgment when they have not been contested or have only been
contested by the opposite party in a clearly unjustified way (cf. Kindler, Einführung in das
italienische Recht. �14 No. 15). The [Buyer]'s claims for liability for defects have been
contested by the [Seller]. There are many indications that the [Buyer] may not have met the
Article 39(1) CISG deadline for complaint about defects; therefore, counterclaims arising from
liability for defects might be precluded. Furthermore, prerequisites for a set-off per curiam are
not present since in this case claims would have to be easily and quickly ascertainable. This is
not the case in view of the [Buyer]'s extensive argument. Even if the Article 39(1) deadline for
notice of lack of conformity had been met, it would have to be established for every specific
case by taking of evidence whether the filters delivered to the [Buyer] were leaky. Moreover,
even if this were to be proven, the amount of the damages would have to be established (cost
of complaint, traveling expenses, and lost profit) in detail by extensive taking of evidence. III. As far as the [Buyer] argues to have agreed on payment by installments, [Buyer]'s
argument is inconclusive and irrelevant. The [Buyer] has not produced the document in which
the alleged payment by installments is evidenced. [Buyer] has not stated when this allegedly had
been agreed upon. [Buyer] has not produced evidence in this respect and, moreover, has not
stated to have complied with a possible agreement for payment by installments.
IV. The claim for interest at the rate of 10.25% during the period 29 November 2002 to 5
December 2002 and at the rate of 9.75% as of 6 December 2003 is justified under Arts. 78,
58(1) CISG in conjunction with Art. 28(1) (2) EGBGB [*], Art.1284 C.c. [*], Decreto
Ministeriale del Ministro del Tesoro of 11 December 2000 and Art. 5(1) of Directives on
Delay in Payment 2000/35/EG of 29 June 2000.
The [Seller's] claim for payment of the purchase price is due within the meaning of Art. 58(1)
CISG. The goods have already been handed over to the [Buyer]. At the time of pendency,
according to German law, the claim for payment of purchase price was also due. To the extent
that the [Seller] proceeds from the applicability of German law for the claim for interest, it must
be pointed out that interest at the rate of "8% above the basic interest rate" could only apply
under German law. However, with regard to the claim for interest at issue, German law is
inapplicable. The rate of interest is 7% percentage points above the rate of interest applied by
the European Central Bank to their latest main refinancing operation (cf. Kindler RIW [*] 4/2003, 241, 244). These interest rates are 10.25% from 29 November 2002 to 5 December
2002, and 9.75% as of 6 December 2003. The [Seller] has applied for interest in the amount of
8% above the basic interest rate. On 29 November 2002, this amounted to 10.47%. Pursuant
to Italian law, the [Seller]'s claim for interest in excess of the above mentioned amounts of
10.25% and 9.75% is to be dismissed. Italian law is applicable since the rate of interest is not
regulated by the CISG (cf. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher, Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, 2d edition, Article 78 no. 21)) and therefore, according to leading doctrine, the law
which governs the lex causae applies, since it has the closest linkage to the contractual
relationship. Italian law is applicable as the lex causae in the present case according to Art.
28(1) (2) EGBGB.[*]
this translation, the Plaintiff of Italy is referred to as [Seller]; the Defendant of Germany is
referred to as [Buyer]. Translator's note on abbreviations: BB = Betriebsberater [German legal magazine]; BGB =
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [German Civil Code]; BGHZ = Entscheidungen des
Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen [Official Reporter of Decisions of the German Federal
Supreme Court on Civil Matters]; C.c. = Codice civile [Italian Civil Code]; EGBGB = Einf
rungsgesetzbuch zum B gerlichen Gesetzbuche [German Code on Private International
Law]; EuGH = Europäischer Gerichtshof [European Court of Justice]; EuGVO =
Europäische Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungsverordnung [ Council Regulations (EC)
No 44/2001 of December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in civil and commercial matters]; IHR = Internationales Handesrecht [German
legal magazine]; NJW = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [German legal magazine]; RIW =
Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft [German legal magazine]; ZPO = Zivilprozessordnung
[German Code on Civil Procedure].
** Elisabeth Corcoran, student at Humboldt University, Berlin, since 1999. Guest student at
Oxford Brookes University (England) and Università degli Studi, Florence.
Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated July 16, 2007