Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050221s1.html
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 00:41:41
Document Index: 439859809

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 100', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'in casu', 'Art. 54', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 5', 'Art.\n16', 'Art. 46', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 6', 'Art.\n100', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 99', 'Art. 96', 'Art. 101', 'Art. 102', 'Art. 35', 'Art.\n35', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 39', 'Art. 39', 'in fine', 'Art. 45', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 25', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 26', 'Art. 82', 'Art. 25', 'Art.\n39', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 39', 'Art. 49', 'Art.\n82', 'Art.\n81', 'in casu', 'Art. 81', 'Art. 81', 'Art. 81', 'Art. 81', 'Art. 126', 'Art. 130', 'Art. 126', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 252', 'Art. 260']

Switzerland 21 February 2005 Appellate Court Valais / Wallis (CNC machine case) [translation available] Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data) CISG CASE PRESENTATION
Switzerland 21 February 2005 Appellate Court Valais / Wallis (CNC machine case) [translation available] [Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050221s1.html] Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text Case Table of Contents
DATE OF DECISION: 20050221 (21 February 2005) JURISDICTION: Switzerland TRIBUNAL: Tribunal cantonal / Kantonsgericht [Appellate Court] Valais / Wallis JUDGE(S): Hermann Murmann (Pr�sident), Jér�me Emonet, Dr. Lionel Seeberger CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: C1 04 162 CASE NAME: Unavailable CASE HISTORY: Unavailable SELLER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant)
GOODS INVOLVED: CNC-machine Case headnote
Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/90], CLOUT abstract no. 905
The judgement in question, given by default, dealt with the sale of a production
plant by a German company (the defendant) to a limited company from Valais (the
plaintiff). On delivery of the plant in October 203, the plaintiff realized that the
ordered goods were totally rusted. The defects were immediately reported to the
defendant, even prior to assembly. After laying out the equipment and commencing
assembly, the erectors discovered that that the plant was not in operating condition.
The defendant was offered the possibility of carrying out the assembly itself, against
the provision of a security. It did not take up that offer and thereafter gave no further
news. In a letter dated 25 November 2003, the plaintiff invited the defendant to take
back the plant by mid-December 2003.
The court held that the plaintiff, by its letter of 25 November, had declared the
contract avoided within the meaning of article 49 CISG. It deemed the requirements
for such avoidance to have been met. The fact that the plant was unfit for operation
and the defendant, in violation of its obligations, had failed to put the plant into
service constituted, in the court's view, a fundamental breach of contract within the
meaning of articles 49(1)(a) and 25 CISG. The court deemed the declaration
of avoidance to have been made in timely fashion with the meaning of
article 49(2)(b)(i) CISG. It was admittedly difficult to determine the exact day in
October when delivery had actually taken place but, given that the defendant had
had the possibility of carrying out itself the assembly of the plant following
discovery of the defects and that the plaintiff had had survey reports prepared by
different persons prior to avoidance of the contract, that time limit had in any event
been observed. By giving notice immediately following delivery, the plaintiff had
also observed the time limit provided for in article 39(1) CISG.
Since the defendant, despite a further invitation, had never taken back the plant, the
plaintiff requested, in addition to the court's cancellation of a bank guarantee in
favour of the defendant, authorization to discard the plant. That second request was
rejected by the court on the basis of article 81(2) CISG. The plaintiff had a duty to
make restitution of the plant to the defendant but the defendant had an obligation to
take back the plant at the principal place of business of the plaintiff.
A claim for damages by the plaintiff was also rejected since the plaintiff had not
sufficiently detailed the loss.
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 4 ; 25 ; 35 ; 39 ; 49 ; 74 ; 81 [Also cited: Articles 6 ; 26, 38 ; 45 ; 82 ; 100 ] Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code
Descriptors: Scope of Convention ; Procedural matters vs. substantive law ; Burden of proof ; Fundamental breach ; Avoidance ; Lack of conformity notice, specificity ; Damages ; Restitution Go to Case Table of Contents Editorial remarks
CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION German: Swiss Review of International and European Law (SRIEL) 1/2006, 208 et seq.
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION Original language (German): CISG-online.ch website <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/1193.pdf>; Internationales Handelsrecht (4/2006) 155-158 Translation (English): Text presented below CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION Unavailable Go to Case Table of Contents Case text (English translation) [second draft]
A. [Buyer], the PHK AG [*], located in [Switzerland], submitted a claim before the District Court
[...] against [Seller] Andreas R. D, D- [of Germany] on 29 March 2004, with the following
1. The contract between [Buyer] and [Seller] concerning the CNC-machine is declared to be
non-binding and is avoided.
2. Within the scope of the restitution of the contract, the [Buyer] is authorized to destroy the
3. The irrevocable payment promise of the [Buyer] at the Raiffeisenbank Naters is cancelled
and the blocked amount of EUR 29,040.00 is released.
Essentially, the [Buyer] bases these pleadings on its allegation that the CNC-machine
(Strahlhausmaschine) with a turntable that it bought from the [Seller], which was delivered in
October 2003, was not functional.
B. On 7 April 2004, the District Court judge served the [Seller] with the claim and set a time limit
in which to submit a response to [Buyer]'s claim and to state a place for service in Switzerland. As
the [Seller] did not comply with this request, by letter dated 4 June 2004 referring to the
consequences of default of Art. 100 and 102 of the Valais Civil Procedure Regulations of 24
March 1998 (ZPO [*]), the Court set a second and final time limit of 10 days and again requested
the [Seller] to state a place for service in Switzerland. The orders of the District Court judge were
all served in a proper legal manner.
As the [Seller] did not provide a response within the second time limit either, the District Court
judge sent the files to the Cantonal Court on 2 September 2004 for examination of the default and
for the eventual rendering of a default judgment. THE CANTONAL COURT HOLDS AND CONSIDERS:
1. a) The [Buyer] has its seat in [Switzerland]; the [Seller] his place of residence in Germany.
Thereby, an international relationship exists (cf. Volken, Zürcher Kommentar, 2nd ed., Zurich
2004, para. 17 on Art. 1 IPRG [*]; Gerhard Walter, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht der Schweiz,
Berne/Stuttgart/Vienna 1995, p. 43; see also Kellerhals/von Werdt/Güngerich, Kommentar zum
Bundesgesetz über den Gerichtsstand in Zivilsachen, para. 16 on Art. 1 GestG [*]). The
(Lugano Convention; SR [*] 0.275.11) entered into force in Switzerland on 1 January 2002 and
in Germany on 1 March 1995. The present claim was brought on 29 March 2004, thereby
subsequently, with the consequence that the Convention is applicable in casu (Art. 54(1) Lugano
If a contract or claims arising from a contract constitute the subject of the dispute, Art. 5 No. 1
Lugano Convention enables the [Buyer], as an alternative to the general jurisdiction at the place
of residence under Art. 2 Lugano Convention, to bring a claim against the [Seller] at the court of
the place where the obligation was performed or ought to have been performed. The place of
performance is thereby determined by the law to be applied to the contract or to the performance
(lex causae; BGE [*] 122 III 43 reason 3b with further references). The admissibility of an
agreement on a place of performance is also to be determined under the applicable law. In any
case, a private agreement on a place of performance -- without complying with the formal
requirements of Art. 17 Lugano Convention -- is only effective to establish jurisdiction if it
determines an actual place of performance (BGE 122 III 249 reason 3b/aa, with further
references). If the [Buyer] asserts claims for damages or applies for the dissolution of the contract
due to the fault of the other party, then attention must be paid to that contractual obligation, the
non-performance of which is alleged to form the basis of such claims (BGE 124 III 188 reason 4a,
In the case at hand, the [Buyer] requests, first and foremost, that the contract concluded between
the parties be declared to be non-binding and be avoided (cf. No. 1 of the pleadings), because the
[Seller] failed to sell a functional machine. Thereby, the avoidance of the contract constitutes the
main subject-matter of the proceedings, whereby, in determining the place of performance,
emphasis is placed on the contractual obligation, the non-performance of which is alleged to form
the basis of such claim. The contract comprised the sale (incl. delivery and assembly) of a CNC-machine with a turntable (cf. facts 1, 6 and 8). According to the [Seller]'s order confirmation dated
20 January 2003, the delivery term was "freight to [...]" (in the Canton of Valais) (p. 10 et seq.)
and the machine was, in fact, delivered to this named place (fact 6). Thereby, that named place was
agreed as the place of performance for the delivery of the subject-matter of the sale. As the United
Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG; SR [*] 221.211.1),
which is applicable here (cf. c) below and Art. 1(2) IPRG [*]), does not contradict any agreement
on a place of performance (cf. Art. 31 CISG), [...] (in the Canton of Valais) constituted the place
of performance with respect to the delivered goods within the meaning of Art. 5 No. 1 Lugano
Convention. As, in the present case, no exclusive place of jurisdiction within the meaning of Art.
16 Lugano Convention needs to be observed either, the international jurisdiction of the Swiss
courts and the territorial jurisdiction of the Valais Courts to judge the present dispute is established. b) As the [Buyer] would have had to pay EUR 28,740.00 for the purchase, delivery and
assembly (cf. p. 10 et seq.), which converts to approximately Swiss francs [CHF] 44,500.00, and
it additionally claims CHF 5,000.00 for storage of the machine and sales, resulting in a total dispute
value of approximately CHF 49,500.00, thus more than CHF 8,000.00 (cf. Art. 46 OG [*]), the
subject-matter jurisdiction of the Cantonal Court can be derived from Art. 23(1)(b) ZPO [*].
c) According to Art. 1(1)(a), the CISG is applicable to contracts for the sale of goods between
parties which have their places of business in different States, if these States are Contracting States.
As in the present case, the parties did not make a choice of law (cf. p. 29), they concluded the
disputed contract in February 2003, and it is neither alleged nor apparent from the files that they
excluded the application of the CISG (cf. Art. 6 CISG), the CISG is the applicable substantive law
(entry into force for Switzerland on 1 March 1991 and for Germany on 1 January 1991; Art.
100(2) CISG; cf. also Keller/Siehr, Kaufrecht: Kaufrecht des OR und Wiener Kaufrecht, 3rd ed.,
Zurich 1995, p. 168; Conrad, Die Lieferung mangelhafter Ware als Grund für eine
Vertragsaufhebung im einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht (CISG), Zurich 1999, p. 5). If, as in the present
case, the requirements of Art. 1(1)(a) are satisfied, then the CISG applies directly or
autonomously, namely without recourse to Swiss conflict of laws rules. The CISG governs the
substantive sales law for contracts for the international sale of goods. Its provisions apply in the
place of the domestic substantive law. In contrast, the CISG itself does not regulate any procedural
law questions (cf. Federal Court Judgment 4C.100/2000 dated 11 July 2000 reason 3, with further
references). Consequently, from a procedural law perspective, the provisions of the ZPO are
2. a) According to Art. 99 ZPO, a party is in default if it does not undertake a legal act or does
not fulfill another procedural obligation within both time limits set in conformity with the law. Such
a legal act, the omission of which gives rise to the consequences under Arts. 100 and 102 ZPO,
is to submit a response to a claim (ZWR [*] 2003 p. 232 reason 3a; 1999 p. 18 reason 2; 1990
p. 108 reason 2a). In the present proceedings, the District Court judge set the [Seller] the time
limits to respond to the claim in conformity with the law, in a proper legal manner, and with a notice
as to the consequences of default. Despite this, the [Seller] failed to submit a response to claim. In
addition, [Seller] has not stated any excuse within the meaning of Art. 96(1) ZPO, with the
consequence that [Seller] is to be regarded as in default and a default judgment is to be handed
down against him (Art. 101(5) ZPO).
b) In the case of default, the facts and pleadings put forward by the non-defaulting party are
allowed, to the extent that the claim is not obviously inadmissible or unfounded on the files and the
law (Art. 102(1) ZPO). The authoritative facts of the case are to be taken from the factual
allegations of the non-defaulting party, to the extent that evidence to the contrary is not apparent
from the files. However, the pleadings of the non-defaulting party are only to be allowed to the
extent that they can be established under the applicable law on the basis of the determined facts
of the case (ZWR 1992 p. 205 reason 1c with references).
3. According to the factual allegations of the [Buyer], which do not obviously contradict the
pleadings and are deemed to have been proven in these default proceedings, the following facts
of the case are to be assumed:
The [Buyer] bought from the [Seller] a second-hand CNC-machine with a turntable, which had
previously been offered to it, on the basis of digital pictures, as a "good-as-new" machine which
had only been in partial operation in England for four years. As security for the purchase price, the
[Buyer] obtained an irrevocable payment promise from the Raiffeisenbank Naters on 3 December
2002, payable to the [Seller]. The parties had only met once in Basel for the purpose of contractual
negotiations. The [Buyer] did not visit the [Seller]'s factory to view the machine. Although the
[Seller] demanded monthly rent for storage in a warehouse, he had stored the machine unprotected
out in the open for more than a year.
When the machine was delivered in October 2003, it turned out that it was completely rusty.
The lack of conformity was immediately communicated to the [Seller] before assembly
commenced. After the material had been dispersed and the assemblers had begun their work, it
was determined that the machine was not functional. Although the [Seller] was given the
opportunity to assemble the machine if it offered security, [Seller] did not make use of this offer
and, subsequently, nothing was heard from him. By the [Buyer]�s letter dated 25 November 2003,
the [Seller] was therefore requested to collect the machine by mid-December. As this deadline
passed without the [Seller] collecting the machine, by letter dated 22 December 2003, [Seller] was
again asked to collect the machine -- by mid-January 2004. Subsequently, the [Seller] neither
collected the machine nor did he attempt to cash in the irrevocable payment promise from the
Raiffeisenbank Naters. 4. a) Initially, the [Buyer] requested that the contracts concluded between the parties be declared
to be non-binding and avoided (legal pleadings No. 1).
aa) According to Art. 35(1) CISG, the seller is to deliver goods that correspond to the
amount, quality and type as well as packaging or form of transport agreed upon in the contract. In
the absence of agreement of the parties, the goods are then in conformity with the contract, among
other factors, only if they are suitable for the ordinary purpose of goods of the same type (Art.
35(2)(a) CISG). The buyer is to examine the goods or have them examined within the shortest
period possible under the circumstances (Art. 38(1) CISG). If the contract requires transport of
the goods, the examination of the goods can then be postponed until the goods have arrived at their
final destination (Art. 38(2) CISG). If the buyer is relying on a non-conformity in the goods, he
must give the seller notice of such non-conformity within a reasonable period of time after he
becomes aware of the non-conformity, and must thereby precisely describe the type of non-conformity (Art. 39(1) CISG). For the purpose of describing the nature or type of the non-conformity within the meaning of Art. 39(1) CISG, it is sufficient if the buyer communicates that
the machine is not functional. He is not required to also describe the causes of the functional
disturbances (BGE [*] 130 III 258 reason 4.3 in fine).
If the seller fails to fulfill one of its obligations under the contract or this Convention, the buyer can
exercise the rights provided for in Articles 46-52 CISG and claim damages under Articles 74-77
CISG (Art. 45(1)(a) and (b) CISG). According to Art. 49(1)(a) CISG, the buyer can declare the
contract avoided if the non-performance by the seller of one of its obligations under the contract
or this convention constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. A breach of contract is fundamental
if it results in such detriment for the other party so as to substantially deprive it of what it was
entitled to expect under the contract unless the breaching party did not foresee, or a reasonable
person in the position of the breaching party could not have foreseen such detriment under the same
circumstances (Art. 25 CISG; cf. also Keller/Siehr, ibid, p. 199; Conrad, ibid, pp. 39 and 74).
However, if the seller has delivered the goods, the buyer loses its right to declare the contract
avoided if it, in a case other than that of later delivery, does not declare the contract avoided within
a reasonable period of time after it becomes aware of the breach of contract or ought to have
become aware of it (Art. 49(2)(b)(i) CISG). Thereby, the avoidance of contract does not take
place ex lege, but rather, requires an unambiguous declaration of the buyer free from particular
formal requirements (cf. Art. 26 CISG; Conrad, ibid, p. 76 et seq.). The buyer loses the right to
avoid the contract if it is impossible for him to return the goods in the same state in which he
received them (Art. 82(1) CISG).
The buyer who alleges a fundamental breach of contract bears the burden of satisfying the elements
of the claim. Therefore, it must allege and prove those facts that allow the conclusion that, due to
the breach of contract, it has been fundamentally deprived of what it was entitled to expect under
the contract. The buyer also bears the burden of demonstrating that it satisfied the formal
requirements for avoidance of contract. In this way, the buyer must, for example, show and prove
that it communicated the declaration of avoidance within a reasonable period of time after
discovering the breach of contract (Conrad, ibid, p. 91; cf. also Keller/Siehr, ibid, p. 161).
bb) In the case at hand, the parties agreed on the purchase of a "good-as-new" machine.
This is undisputed in the present default proceedings, but can, in any case, be seen explicitly from
the confirmation of order of the [Seller] dated 20 January 2003, in which the [Seller] expressly
describes the machine as "good-as-new" (p. 10). In this way, it goes without saying that a "good-as-new" machine must also be understood as implying the ability to function. In any case, the
[Seller]'s confirmation of order expressly provided for the "commencement of operation [of the
assembled machine] (...) by [the [Seller]'s] personnel" (p. 11), which, in turn, clearly indicates that
both parties had assumed that the machine was able to function and that this, thereby, constituted
a term of the contract. Therefore, based on the concluded sales contract, the [Buyer] could expect
that the machine functioned and would be put into operation by the [Seller]'s personnel. Thereby,
the machine's inability to function and the fact that it was never put into operation, without a doubt,
constitute a fundamental breach of contract within the meaning of Art. 25 CISG.
The [Buyer] notified the [Seller] of the machine's (general) inability to function immediately after
delivery in October 2003, and before assembly commenced (cf. facts 8, 9 and 10). The
notification of the lack of conformity thereby took place within a reasonable period of time (Art.
39(1) CISG; cf. also Art. 38(2) CISG) and suffices, as already seen, as a description of the type
of lack of conformity within the meaning of Art. 39(1) CISG. With its letter dated 25 November
2003, the [Buyer] then declared the contract avoided (p. 12). As delivery took place sometime
in October 2003 -- there is no need to determine the precise date -- and the [Seller] was offered
the possibility of assembling the machine upon giving a guarantee, which, however, it did not do,
and subsequently failed to contact the [Buyer] (facts 11 and 12), and the goods were not
perishable, the Cantonal Court regarded the declaration of avoidance as being made within a
reasonable period of time (Art. 49(2)(b)(i) CISG). Here, on the basis of the files, it has to be taken
into account that the [Buyer] initially had various people (electronic mechanic, civil engineer, a
metal construction tradesman, pressurized air technician) make reports on the machine (p. 13),
which was also time-consuming. On the basis of the foregoing, the formal requirements for the
declaration of avoidance have been met. Thus, as it is not apparent from the files that the [Seller]'s
performance can no longer be restituted in the same condition in which it was originally made (Art.
82(2) CISG), nothing is standing in the way of an avoidance of contract. Accordingly, the sales
contract concluded between the parties is avoided.
b) The [Buyer] then makes the pleading that it should be authorized to destroy the machine
within the scope of the avoidance of the contract (legal plea point 2).
The avoidance of the contract releases both parties from their primary contractual obligations (Art.
81(1), first sentence, CISG). Accordingly, in particular, the obligations to pay the purchase price
- which in casu is not open to debate as payment was never made -, to deliver the goods and
documents (Herber/Czerwenka, Internationales Kaufrecht, UN-Übereinkommen über Verträge
über den internationalen Warenkauf, Munich 1991, para 2 on Art. 81 CISG) cease to exist. If the
goods have already been delivered, they are to be returned (Art. 81(2), sentence 1, CISG).
Thereby, through the avoidance of contract, an obligation to make restitution
(Rückgewährschuldverhältnis) arises (Herber/Czerwenka, ibid, para 7 on Art. 81 CISG; cf. also
Keller/Siehr, ibid, p. 223). Here, the place of performance for the restitution of the goods is the
place of residence of the buyer (Herber/Czerwenka, ibid, para 12 on Art. 81 CISG, with further
Owing to the above reasons, the [Buyer] is to return the delivered machine to the [Seller], whereby
restitution can take place at the [Buyer]'s seat in [...], notice of which is hereby expressly made
to the [Seller]. Therefore, an authorization to destroy the machine is out of the question. Point 2 of
the legal plea is therefore dismissed.
c) The [Buyer] further applies for the cancellation of the irrevocable payment promise of the
Raiffeisenbank Naters, as well as the release of the blocked amount of EUR 29,040.-(legal plea
point 3). However, this application fails to acknowledge that, in this regard, there was no legal
relationship between the parties at all, as although the bank had given the payment promise on
behalf of the [Buyer] (under its previous company name), it had actually been given to the [Seller].
In any case, the Raiffeisenbank Naters regards the payment promise in question as redundant (p.
23), with the consequence that the requested cancellation of the payment promise appears to be
doubtful per se. In any case, it is neither alleged by the [Buyer], nor apparent from the files, that
the amount in question was actually blocked by the bank to the [Buyer]'s detriment. Therefore, a
discussion on point 3 of the Claim shall not be entered into.
d) Finally, the [Buyer] requests that the [Seller] pay CHF 5,000.- for the storage of the machine
and the loss of sales (legal plea point 4).
Facts that establish a right -- in the same way as facts that revoke a right -- must be alleged by the
parties in the form and within the time limit required by the Cantonal procedural provisions, to the
extent that the negotiation norm applies (Vogel/Spühler, Grundriss des Zivilprozessrechts, 7th ed.,
Berne 2001, 10th chapter para 54 et seq.). According to the Civil Procedure Regulations of the
Canton of Valais, the parties must generally present the facts that are, in their opinion, fundamental
to the outcome of the proceedings in their legal documents in a substantiated form (Art. 126(1)(d),
Art. 130(1)(c) and (d) ZPO [*]). In this way, according to Art. 126(1)(d) ZPO, the plaintiff must
allege the facts upon which it bases its plea in the claim itself (ZWR [*] 2003 p. 148 reason 3a,
with further references). If a party claims damages under Art. 74 et seq. CISG, then it must show
the scope and causality of the damage (Herber/Czerwenka, ibid, para 13 on Art. 74 CISG).
In the present case, although the [Buyer] demands damages of CHF 5,000.- for the storage of the
machine and the loss of sales in its legal plea, in its allegations of fact, it does not make any
reference to why it had expenses for the storage of the machine or what losses of sales it suffered.
Thereby, the [Buyer] has failed to satisfy its duty to claim and substantiate with respect to the
damages asserted, even within the scope of default proceedings. In any case, in this regard, the files
are not helpful either. Therefore, point 4 of the legal plea is dismissed.
5. a) The process costs are usually borne by the losing party. If neither party is entirely victorious,
then they are distributed proportionally (Art. 252(1) ZPO). In the present case, the [Buyer], in its
plea, demands the avoidance of the contract with a converted purchase price of approximately
CHF 44,500.-, but, however, fails on points 2 to 4 of its plea. The latter comprises a claim for
damages in the amount of CHF 5,000.-. However, it was the claiming party itself. In contrast, the
[Seller] was in default and is to be viewed as the main losing party. On a complete view, it is
justifiable to allocate 1/10 of the costs to the [Buyer] and 9/10 to the [Seller]. Such allocation
applies (regarding the [Buyer]; cf. b)/bb) below) to the party compensation (Art. 260(1) ZPO).
[Omitted as discussion irrelevant for CISG jurisprudence; concerned interpretation of Swiss court
tariff system]
1. The sales contract concluded on 3 February 2003 between [Buyer] and [Seller] regarding the
CNC-machine with turntable is avoided.
* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, the Plaintiff of Switzerland is referred to as [Buyer] and the
Defendant of Germany is referred to as [Seller]. Amounts in the currency of Switzerland (Swiss
francs) are indicated as [CHF]; amounts in European currency are indicated as [EUR].
Translator's notes on other abbreviations: AG = Aktiengesellschaft [Swiss limited liability
company]; BGE = Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichts [Official Reporter of Cases of the Swiss
Supreme Court]; GestG = Bundesgesetz vom 24. März 2000 über den Gerichtsstand in
Zivilsachen [Federal Law on Jurisdiction in Civil Matters]; IPRG = Bundesgesetz über das
internationale Privatrecht [Swiss Code on the Conflict of Laws]; OG = Bundesgesetz über die
Organisation der Bundesrechtspflege [Swiss Federal Code on Court Organization]; SR = Swiss
systematic collection of Federal law; ZPO = Valais Civil Procedure Regulations; ZWR =
Zeitschrift für Walliser Rechtsprechung. [Valais case law reports].