Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980922g1.html
Timestamp: 2017-05-29 17:12:10
Document Index: 449606086

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 53', 'Art. 53', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 25', 'Art.\n49', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 69', 'Art. 66']

Germany 22 September 1998 Appellate Court Oldenburg (Raw salmon case) [translation available] Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents
Germany 22 September 1998 Appellate Court Oldenburg (Raw salmon case) [translation available] [Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980922g1.html] Primary source(s) for case presentation: Case text Case Table of Contents
DATE OF DECISION: 19980922 (22 September 1998) JURISDICTION: Germany TRIBUNAL:	OLG Oldenburg [OLG = Oberlandesgericht = Provincial Court of
Appeal] JUDGE(S): Unavailable CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 12 U 54/98 CASE NAME: German case citations do not identify parties to proceedings CASE HISTORY:1st instance LG Aurich 8 May 1998 [affirmed] SELLER'S COUNTRY: Norway (plaintiff) BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant) GOODS INVOLVED: Raw salmon Case abstract GERMANY: Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg 1998
A Norwegian seller, plaintiff, sold raw salmon to a Danish Company
(the "Company"), which after processing it, sold smoked salmon to a
German buyer, defendant. When the Company got into financial
difficulties, the seller sent a confirmation order to the buyer.
Pursuant thereto, the seller had to deliver the raw salmon to a
specified delivery address, which was other than the Company's
place of business, under the Incoterm DDP. Upon receipt of the
confirmation order, the buyer signed and returned such order to the
seller through the Company. Thereafter, the seller delivered the
raw salmon to the Company and sent the invoices to the buyer. The
invoices indicated the Company's place of business as the delivery
address. As a result of the bankruptcy of the Company, the buyer
did not receive the raw salmon and as such, refused to pay the
purchase price. Then, the seller sued the buyer.
The first instance court allowed the claim. The buyer appealed
declaring the avoidance of the contract. The appellate court upheld
the decision of the first instance court. The court determined that the CISG was applicable under articles
1(1) CISG and 4 CISG. The court held that the seller's confirmation order constituted an
offer for the delivery of raw salmon and that the request for
prompt confirmation clearly showed the seller's intention to
conclude a purchase agreement with the buyer. The buyer accepted
the offer by signing the confirmation order and as such, the
parties concluded a purchase agreement. The court found that no
additional interpretation of the confirmation order under article 8
CISG was necessary, and that the receipt of the signed confirmation
order by the seller, through the Company, was of no particular
The court further held that the seller discharged its delivery
obligation, although delivery occurred at a place other than the
place stipulated by the contract and the Incoterm DDP. This was
insignificant, as the buyer was indicated as recipient of the raw
salmon in the delivery note. The court found that the seller was not in fundamental breach of
contract under article 25 CISG. Despite the financial difficulties
of the Company and the delivery of the salmon at the Company's
place of business, the fulfilment of the contract was not
jeopardized. The court further found that, even if there had been a
breach of contract, the buyer had failed to declare the avoidance
of the contract within a reasonable period of time as provided by
article 49(2)(b) CISG. Moreover, the buyer failed to require
delivery at the stipulated place pursuant to articles 46 and 47
CISG and this was interpreted as the buyer's agreement to the
delivery at the Company's address.
The court concluded that the seller complied with its obligations
and that the risk had passed to the buyer (article 69(2) CISG).
Hence, the buyer was obliged to pay the purchase price (article 66
CISG), even if it did not receive the raw salmon.
APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(a)] APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 8 ; 25 ; 46 ; 47 ; 49(2)(b) ; 53 ; 66 ; 69(2) [Also cited: Article 4 ] [Also relevant: Articles 30 ; 31 ]
numbers: 8A [Interpretation of party's statements or other conduct];
47A [Buyer's right to fix additional final period for performance]; 49B [Buyer's loss of right to declare avoidance after delivery:
failure to declare avoidance within reasonable period];
53A ; 53B [Buyer's obligation to pay price of goods; To take
delivery of goods];
66A [Loss or damage after risk has passed to buyer: conformity of
goods determined as of time risk passes];
69B [Passage of risk: buyer to take goods at place other than
Descriptors: Intent ; Fundamental breach ; Specific performance ; Nachfrist ;
Avoidance ; Price ; Passage of risk Go to Case Table of Contents
German: [2000] NdsRpfl 69-70 CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION Original language (German): cisg-online.ch <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/508.htm; [2000] Oberlandesgerichts-Rechtsprechungsreport Oldenburg 26-27; [2000] Transportrecht, Beilage "Internationales Handelsrecht" 23-25; [2000] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift - Rechtsprechungs-Report 1364; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=506&step=FullText> Translation (English): Text presented below
FACTS OF THE CASE [Seller] is a Norwegian joint-stock corporation. [Seller] is bringing an action against
the [buyer] for the payment of a delivery of 25,219 kg [kilograms] of salmon. [Buyer], a German company, had been purchasing smoked salmon from a Danish
company, [a processing company]. This company in turn received the raw salmon from
the [seller]. When the [processing company] got into financial difficulties in the early
summer of 1995, [seller] sent to the [buyer] a fax with the heading "CONFIRMATION
OF ORDER". According to this fax, 40 tons of salmon were to be delivered at a price
of 3.60 DKK [Danish Kroner] per kg. The delivery address was specified as a cold-storage depot in [Denmark]. [Buyer] signed the confirmation and on 14 June 1995
returned it by fax to the [processing company], who forwarded it to the [seller]. On 15 / 16 June 1995, the [seller] delivered 6,508 kg and 18,711 kg of salmon to the
[processing company] for smoking. The [seller] sent the [buyer] invoices dated 13 and 14 June
1995 in the amounts of 199,144.80 DKK and 572,556.60 DKK. Both the invoices and
the delivery notes noted as the delivery address the place of business of the [processing
company]. The smoked salmon was never delivered to the [buyer], as the [processing
company] went bankrupt in July of 1995. [Seller] submits that, due to the [processing company]'s continuous default of payment,
the [processing company] had suggested that the [processing company]'s customers
should order their deliveries directly with the [seller]. Accordingly, the [processing
company] had forwarded the confirmation of order and the [seller] had delivered the
goods. [Seller] is asking the Court to order the [buyer] to pay 771,701.40 DKK [*] with
interest of 5% on 199,144.80 DKK from 5 July 1995 and on 771,701 DKK from 6
July 1995, as well as DM [Deutsche Mark] 150.- of pre-judicial costs. [Buyer] is asking the Court to dismiss the action. [Buyer] submits that at the time the contract was concluded, it had agreed with the
[processing company] that it would pay the invoices when the sum was due, insofar
as [buyer] had payment obligations towards the [processing company]. [Buyer] also explicitly
stated the above in a separate fax accompanying the "CONFIRMATION OF
ORDER". The order itself was made by the [processing company]. In a brief that had not been allowed by the Court of First Instance, the [buyer] further
maintained that the delivery had been made considerably later and had been received by
one of [seller]'s subsidiaries that had taken over the [processing company] on 17 July
1998. In its decision of 8 May 1998, the Court of First Instance allowed the claim. In its
findings, the Court basically argues that a sales contract had been formed between the
parties and that therefore [buyer] was bound to pay the price according to Art. 53
CISG. The Court held that [buyer] did not prove an agreement stipulating otherwise. [Buyer] is appealing the decision. [Buyer] submits that irrespective of the legal implications of the agreement, [seller] did not
deliver the goods to the delivery address, but directly to the [processing company].
The delivery address noted in the "CONFIRMATION OF ORDER" was a public cold-storage depot, where the goods would have been stored for the [buyer] and would
only have been released with [buyer]'s explicit consent. Therefore, [seller] had not
performed its obligation to deliver the goods. [Buyer] is furthermore declaring
avoidance of the contract. [Buyer] is asking the Court to reverse the decision of the Court of First Instance and
dismiss the action. [Seller] is asking the Court to dismiss the appeal. [Seller] defends the decision of the Court of First Instance in its reply to the appeal. For the further submission of the parties, the Court refers to their memoranda, the
minutes of the hearing, and the findings of fact of the Court of First Instance. GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION [Buyer]'s appeal is unsuccessful. Under Art. 53 of the Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods (CISG), the [buyer] is obliged to pay the purchase price. The parties have their place of business in different Contracting States. There is no
indication that the parties agreed to exclude the application of the Convention,
therefore the CISG is the applicable law (Staudinger-Magnus, Art. 6 n. 2). There is,
furthermore no doubt that the contract in question is a contract for the sale of goods
(Art. 1(1), Art. 4 CISG). The "CONFIRMATION OF ORDER" signed by the [seller]
constituted an offer to sell to the [buyer] up to 40 tons of salmon at a price of 30.60
DKK [*] per kg. The fax noted the time allowed for delivery (15 - 25 June), the
delivery address, and the terms for delivery (Incoterms DDP). The [processing
company] is not even mentioned. Since the writing contained a request for a prompt
reply ("we kindly ask for your prompt confirmation"), it was clear that the [seller]
intended to be party to the contract with the [buyer]. Due to this obvious wording, no
further interpretation under Art. 8 CISG is necessary. [Buyer] accepted the offer just
as unambiguously with the signature of its authorized signatory. The fact that [seller]
received [buyer]'s acceptance by way of the [processing company] is without
significance to the validity of the contract. Therefore, a contract was concluded
between the parties at the terms contained in the "CONFIRMATION OF ORDER". [Buyer] has not proved that the parties have made any further arrangements beside the
contract as it has been recorded in writing. Admittedly, [buyer]'s fax sent to the
[processing company] on 14 June 1995 suggests that the payment arrangements were
also a subject of the conversation between the former and the latter. However, the
taking of evidence before of the Court of First Instance did not produce anything that
would support the notion that [buyer]'s independent obligation towards the [seller] was
to have any immediate connection with the [processing company]'s claims. Witness C.
has testified that he could not remember whether the additional fax sent to the
[processing company] on 14 June 1995 had also been forwarded to the [seller]. It is
therefore unclear whether [seller] received [buyer]'s writing reserving unconditional
willingness to pay the price at the same time [seller] received [buyer]'s acceptance of its offer. Even if this matter had been brought up in earlier conversations between the parties,
the Court cannot draw the conclusion that [seller] would have consented to such a
reservation. Due to the [processing company]'s financial difficulties, the [seller] was
obviously interested in a contract with the company's customers, so that [seller] would
possess a direct claim against the customers. This is apparent from the testimony of
witness C., who testified that the [seller] had expressly asked what had happened to
the "CONFIRMATION OF ORDER", and the fact that the deliveries in question
would most likely not have been made had the [buyer] not signed and sent back that
confirmation. A contract between the [buyer] and the [seller] was therefore the
decisive prerequisite without which the [processing company] would not have received
any raw salmon from the [seller] at all. This supports the assumption that the parties
did not make any arrangements that had not been fixed in writing. [Seller] performed its delivery obligations under the contract. It is undisputed that the
salmon was delivered directly to the [processing company] and not to the cold-storage
depot noted as the delivery address. The delivery notes and the invoices both named
the [buyer] as the addressee, so that the goods could be assigned to the proper
recipient. A diverging place of delivery does not bar a correct performance of the
contractual obligations, even though the [seller] was obliged under the contract and
Incoterms "DDP" to deliver the goods at its cost and risk to the delivery address (v.
Caemmerer/Schlechtriem, Kommentar zum einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, Anh. V, DDP,
A3). The diverging delivery directly to the [processing company] was firstly,
insignificant and secondly, later condoned by the [buyer]. The salmon was destined for the [processing company] so that it would process the
salmon for the [buyer]. Since the [buyer] was named as the recipient of the goods, the
salmon was foreign property for the [processing company]. Despite the [processing
company]'s financial difficulties, the [buyer] therefore did not require security. The risk
that the [buyer] would not receive what it was entitled to expect under the contract
with the [seller] was not connected with this delivery, so that the delivery to the
[processing company] cannot be viewed as a fundamental breach of contract under
Art. 25 CISG. In view of the end purpose known to all of the parties involved, the
deviating delivery address was so minimal that the delivery can hardly be considered a
breach of contract, let alone as not having been made at all. Finally, even if a
fundamental breach of contract had occurred, [buyer] would only be entitled to declare
the contract avoided if it had done so within a reasonable period of time (Art.
49(2)(b) CISG). This reasonable period of time expired a long time ago, so that
[buyer]'s declaration of avoidance in its brief supporting the appeal does not have an
affect on the existence of the contract. [Buyer] is moreover barred from drawing any rights of a delivery to a place other than
the one provided for in the contract, because [buyer] itself condoned the delivery as a
performance under the contract. As both the delivery notes and the invoices named the
address of the [processing company] as the place of delivery, it was evident to the
[buyer] that the [processing company] received the goods -- contrary to the delivery
address stated in the "CONFIRMATION OF ORDER". If the [buyer] had not
approved of this delivery, it could have required delivery at the contractual place of
delivery under Arts. 46, 47 CISG, and otherwise resorted to the remedies available
under the CISG. That [buyer] did not object to the deviating place of delivery is
evident from the fact that it never complained to the [seller], not even at the occasion
of a meeting in December of 1995. In the pre-judicial exchange of documents, [buyer]
furthermore took the view that it would only have been obliged to pay the price had
it also received the goods from the [processing company]. [Buyer] held this view
until the end of the hearing of the Court of First Instance and objected to the place of
delivery only in its brief supporting the appeal. This conduct shows unambiguously
that the [buyer] initially approved of the delivery to the [processing company] as a
performance under the contract. [Buyer] is therefore denied from retrospectively alleging
the non-performance of the contract (v. Caemmerer/Schlechtriem, Kommentar zum
einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, Art. 31, n. 82). Since the [seller] performed its obligations under the contract, [buyer] is obligated to
pay the purchase price, even though [buyer] itself has not received any salmon from the
[processing company]. After [seller] had delivered the salmon, the risk passed to the
[buyer] under Art. 69(2) CISG, so that the delivery to other customers of the
[processing company] does not discharge [buyer] from the obligation to pay the price
to the seller (Art. 66 CISG). [...] FOOTNOTES * All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, the Plaintiff-Appellee of Norway is referred to as
[seller]; the Defendant-Appellant of Germany is referred to as [buyer]. Amounts in
Danish currency (Denmark Kroner) are indicated as [DKK]; amounts in German
currency (Deutsche Mark) are indicated as [DM]. Quantities in kilograms are referred
to as [kg]. ** Ruth M. Janal, LL.M (UNSW), a Phd candidate at Albert-Ludwigs-Universitát
University of Copenhagen. Go to Case Table of Contents
Commercial Law - Last updated September 15, 2006