Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060403g1.html
Timestamp: 2017-04-29 23:22:07
Document Index: 75806670

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 62', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 58', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 78', 'Art. 78', 'Art. 120']

Germany 3 April 2006 Appellate Court Köln (Strawberry plants 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
Germany 3 April 2006 Appellate Court Köln (Strawberry plants case) [translation available] [Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060403g1.html] Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text Case Table of Contents
DATE OF DECISION: 20060403 (3 April 2006) JURISDICTION: Germany TRIBUNAL: OLG Köln [OLG = Oberlandesgericht = Provincial Appellate Court] JUDGE(S): Unavailable CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 16 U 17/05 CASE NAME: German case citations do not identify parties to proceedings CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Amtsgericht Heinsberg (18 C 88/05) SELLER'S COUNTRY: Netherlands (plaintiff) BUYER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant) GOODS INVOLVED: Strawberry plants Classification of issues present
APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 6 ; 8 ; 18 ; 74 [Also cited: Articles 2 ; 58 ; 59 ; 62 ; 78 ] Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code
Descriptors: Intent ; Acceptance of offer ; Damages ; Collection costs 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=1133&step=Abstract>
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION Original language (German): CISG-online.ch website <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/1218.pdf>; Unilex database <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=1133&step=FullText>
3 April 2006 [16 U 65/05] Translation [*] by Stefan Dietrich [**]
I. [Seller] requests from [Buyer] payment of the remainder of the purchase price due under a sales
contract for strawberry plants which [Buyer], domiciled in Germany, ordered orally from [Seller] in
the Netherlands. Also at issue is whether [Buyer] is obliged to pay the 6 % Dutch sales tax as well as
the cost of collection and pre-procedural attorneys' fees. The contract transaction originally called for the delivery of a total of 250,000 strawberry plants,
however, the purchase of 150,000 of the strawberry plants was changed to 100,000 plants, with the
final price was kept the same because of the superior quality of the replaced plants. [Seller] issued
two accounts on 18 January 2004: - With one of these accounts, [Seller] requested a prepayment of 13,238.73 Euros in January 2004; - The payment of the remaining 75 % of 39,716.22 Euros was requested with the second account two weeks before the delivery, which was carried out in May 2004. Altogether, [Seller] requested 52,954.95 Euros including a 6 % Dutch sales tax. [Buyer]
made two partial payments of a total of 49,687.50 Euros, refusing to pay the outstanding
Dutch sales tax on this cross-border transaction. This is an action by [Seller] to obtain payment of the remainder, in particular, the outstanding
sales tax amount (3,267.45 Euros) as well as pre-procedural costs alleged by [Seller], such
as collection and attorneys' fees. [Buyer] declined to pay the sales tax, referring to the fact that hitherto, it did not receive an
account on the modified scope of delivery, which it requires as proof of this transaction for
the tax office. Thus, it desires, by way of counterclaim, the issuance of a correct account, an
account that complies with the modified delivery volume as well as restitution of accrued
attorneys' fees. For additional facts, reference is directed to the conclusions in the appealed decision. The Lower Court only allowed the action in regard to 270 Euros, and for the rest dismissed
the action as far as the recovery of the sales tax that was sought, because it would have been
the matter of an intra-community delivery, which is exempted from sales tax, and because
other claims of [Seller] could not be justified. [Buyer]'s claim for accounts to which it was
entitled to was supported. Against this decision, to which reference is directed for the further details of the status of the
facts and the dispute, [Seller] appeals. [Seller] alleges that, according to Dutch law, the sales
tax would first have to be paid. [Seller] presented the relevant provisions. No special
arrangements were made between the parties regarding the tax (- exemption). For the rest of
its case, [Seller] repeats its submission before the Court of First Instance.
In its appeal, [Seller] applies for amendment of the First Instance Decision to require [Buyer]
to pay to [Seller] an overall sum of 3,267.45 Euros together with interest at 7 percentage
points above the base rate since 19 February 2004, as well as 111.87 Euros extra-judicial
costs and 780.- Euros collection costs; [Seller] also applies for dismissal of the [Buyer]'s
claim in its entirety. [Buyer], in turn, applies for dismissal of the [Seller]'s appeal. [Buyer] alleges that during the
transaction, which was negotiated primarily with Witness B, if requested [Buyer] would have
left its German tax number (DE-No.) of the German tax office with him, in order to achieve
an exemption from sales taxation. II. [Seller]'s appeal is permissible, timely and filed in due form, and [Seller]'s appeal is for
the most part successful. [Seller] is entitled to payment of the Dutch sales tax in the amount of
6%, however, this is only unconditional with respect to the amount of 2,097.45 Euros; for the
rest, the maturity of [Seller]'s claim (delivery of 100,000 strawberry plants instead of
150,000 plants) depends on the issuing of accounts on [Seller]'s part, so that the claim in the
amount of 1,170.- Euros is to be performed only on counter-performance of a correct
account. By presenting an up-to-date excerpt from the Dutch commercial register ("Kamer van
Koophandel"), [Seller] proved that it is a company according to Dutch Law domiciled in the
Netherlands and, therefore has legal capacity and capacity to sue and to be sued. 1. The claim
In addition to the monetary claim of 270 Euros, about which the Lower Court already validly
adjudicated, [Seller] is entitled to another monetary claim against [Buyer] in the amount of 2,997.45
Euros on the basis of the sales contract, Art. 62 CISG. This concerns the Dutch sales tax which
accrues for the delivery of the plants as well as for the examination costs. The Lower Court rightly acted in accordance with the parties on the assumption that the contract as a
sale of goods between contractual partners domiciled in different Contracting States, is subject to the
provisions of the CISG (Art. 1(1), Art. 2); the applicability of which was not excluded. The
interpretation of the contractual statements, which has to be carried out according to the provisions of
the CISG (Art. 8 CISG), leads to the conclusion that [Buyer] is obliged to pay the Dutch sales tax if
not all requisites for a tax exemption are existent, which is not the case here. This transaction commenced with a telephone order placed by [Buyer] around the end of 2003.
According to [Seller]'s uncontested testimony, the parties did not at that time expressly discuss
whether [Buyer] - who is domiciled in Germany -- should pay the sales tax. Indeed, [Buyer] argues,
had the subject been discussed, the parties would have agreed - in communications with Mr. B -- that the sales tax is not to be paid and that [Buyer] would therefore provide [Seller] with its tax
number, and [Buyer]would have provided this. [Seller], however, uncontestedly claimed that Mr. B
was neither its employee nor its representative; it was also not authorized to accept statements.
Therefore, [Seller] alleges that possible agreements between Mr. B and [Buyer] have no legal effect
on [Seller]. Finally, [Buyer]'s submission remains unsubstantiated and controversial. [Seller] showed
the amounts in gross, including sales tax, in its accounts of 18 January 2004, which [Buyer] had
wanted to receive on 4 January 2004; furthermore, on 25 February 2004, [Seller] confirmed the
order and expressly alluded to the fact that [Buyer] has to pay the BTW (= value added tax), which
can be refunded afterwards from the Dutch authorities. If these writings do not already include an
acceptance of [Buyer]'s oral offer, then they constitute a written order confirmation at any rate, to
which [Buyer] did not object. Facing these unequivocal writings as regards contents, by [Seller], then
[Buyer]'s submission to the -- dissenting -- contents of the contract negotiations is not concrete
enough, because [Buyer] does not comment on the writing of 25 February 2004, nor did [Buyer]
explain the inconsistencies between its behavior in the past - it did not contradict either the account
issued or the further writing of [Seller] -- and [Seller]'s present submission. No supplement to this
submission was provided. Therefore, the acceptance of the contract on the part of [Seller] as a result of the telephone order
was either effected expressly with the proviso that [Buyer] pays the BTW with the possibility of a
subsequent refunding, or the contract is to be interpreted -- in the absence of such an agreement - so
that the established obligations of the parties should stand in line with the Dutch tax law. Based on
this interpretation, it can be assumed that the parties wanted to adhere to the existing Dutch laws. [Seller] referred to the, in this case authoritative, legal situation under fiscal law according to Dutch
law. [Buyer] did not counter this. The Dutch tax law provides, in consideration of EC-Directive
77/388 of 17 May 1977 -- Harmonisation of the Laws of the Member States Relating to Turnover
Taxes (Gazette No. L 145 of 13 June 1977 with several later modifications, inter alia, through
Council Directive 2003/92 of 7 October 2003), for a tax exemption if the recipient is a business
person that was identified in another EC-State and the goods were shipped in line with the delivery
into the area of another EC-State (cf. thereto Communication No. 38 of the excise taxes office as
well as the information brochure of the Dutch tax authorities, page 168 et.seq.). The last condition,
the proof of which is problematic in the present case, must be -- apart from the sales tax identification
number of the recipient, which is to be noted on the account -- proved by the Dutch business person
through different documents, such as the waybill and inter alia entries in its books, when it initiates
the shipment of the goods abroad. If, as in the present case, it is a matter of a collection transaction
("Abholgeschäft"), whereby it is unimportant whether the buyer itself or a carrier ordered by it collects the goods, the Dutch tax law demands for a "permanent recipient" on behalf of the
distributor, as a result of an existing business connection as well as a documentation on the export
through a formalized declaration of the recipient, which must contain details of the carriage of the
goods as another condition for a tax exemption. The Dutch law provides a model form for this
declaration. The provision of the German tax number alone, which is alleged by [Buyer], accordingly, is not
sufficient to prove the export was actually carried out. In particular, the necessary formalized
declaration of the recipient of the carriage of the goods to Germany is lacking. Therefore, this
transaction cannot be treated as sales-tax-exempted. [Buyer] still has the possibility to apply to the
Dutch authorities for the refund of the Dutch sales tax. Consequently, [Seller] can demand payment for the sales tax in the amount of 2,997.45 Euros, which
calculates at 1,800 Euros for the delivery of 100,000 cold frame plants; in the amount of 1,170
Euros for the modified purchase of 100,000 strawberry plants, and in the amount 27.45 Euros for
examination costs in connection with this delivery. But the claim for the amount of 1,170 Euros (100,000 strawberry plants) is not yet due as [Seller]
has not yet provided a correct account for this delivery. Pursuant to Art. 58 CISG, the maturity of
the claim has to conform to the contractual agreement, which in this case calls for payment in two
steps (25 % at conclusion of the contract, 75 % two weeks before the first delivery; similarly, in the
writing of 25 February 2004 and in the accounts of January 2004). This agreement is henceforth to
be interpreted according to the contract modification, that an additional condition for the maturity of
the modified order sum is an orderly issue of account. Such an interpretation complies with [Seller]'s
procedure; [Seller] issued accounts on the whole originally intended transaction directly after the
contract conclusion still in January 2004 and called on [Buyer] to pay on the basis of these accounts.
After the modification of the extent of the transaction, according to this, again, in order to establish
the payment obligation, a modified issuing of accounts is necessary. This is called for, as [Buyer] as
the recipient of a delivery from the EC-area, is hence reliant on an account which contains the correct
scope of delivery, in order to provide to the tax authorities evidence of the actual receipt of these
goods. Until now, [Seller] has not satisfied this obligation. Indeed, the accounts of January 2004 show the
correct total sum, but do not reflect the scope of delivery correctly. The account of "29 August
2005" presented in the First Instance, does not comply with this, as it does not show the modified
delivery of plants. In the Second Instance, [Seller] presented an account which also did not resolve
the overall scope of delivery. [Seller]'s written submission of 29 March 2006 was after the conclusion of the oral hearing and
could no longer be considered, � 296a ZPO.
The Lower Court rightly denied [Seller]'s claim for collection costs, as [Seller] did not
demonstrate the requisites conclusively. Indeed, in Art. 74, the CISG provides a basis for a claim.
The entitlement to the claim is to be measured on the basis of the provisions of the CISG and not of
the Dutch Law of Obligations, as [Seller] alleges. And Art. 74 CISG imposes strict standards as to
the necessity of retaining of a collection agency in order to minimize losses (comp.
Schlechtriem/Stoll, CISG, 3rd ed., Art. 74, Rn. 19). Whether these standards have been satisfied
can be left unanswered because [Seller] did not adequately demonstrate how the collection costs
were calculated, nor if and when they were charged. Moreover, the collection rates presented cannot
be brought in line with the figures [Seller] claims. The question of whether the original reference by
the Lower Court was sufficient, can be left open. In the Second Instance, the [Seller] also did not
present any other facts to found this claim, notwithstanding the denial of the claim by the Court of
First Instance. c. Attorneys' fees The restitution of pre-procedural attorneys' fees within the scope of Art. 74 CISG fails
because it is no longer a matter of factually necessary costs of legal prosecution (comp.
Schlechtriem/Stoll, l.c., Art. 74, Rn. 19). The assignment of the lawyer occured after the
employment of the collection agency. At this time, [Seller] could no longer count on further payments
by [Buyer] without judicial help, who since that time settled the deliveries except for the sales tax and
a small remainder. d. Interest
The claim for interest is based upon Art. 78 CISG as far as the monetary claim is mature.
According to this provision, a reminder is not required. Interest is to be paid from the maturity of the
indebtedness, i.e., for the unmodified part of the contract, two weeks before the first delivery,
therefore from 27 April 2004. Regarding the rate of interest, Dutch law, as the law of the characteristic performance, is to be
applied, as the CISG does not contain provisions (Schlechtriem, l.c., Art. 78, Rn. 27 et seq.).
According to Art. 120 of the "New Dutch Civil Code", Book 6, the legal interest rate is 7 percentage
points above the base rate on 26 April 2004. 2. The [Buyer]'s counterclaim is justified, as far as it was not already adjudicated on. [Buyer]
can request the issue of an account which complies with the modified scope of delivery on the
delivery of 100,000 strawberry plants, type "Frigo 15-22", to the delivery date of May 2004.
Hereunto, reference is drawn to the considerations regarding the maturity of the monetary claim in the
amount of 1,170.- Euros (above under 1.a.). Against [Seller]'s claim in this amount, [Buyer] can hold its counterclaim claim on issuing an account
to which it is entitled, so that insofar [Buyer]'s performance is subject to counter-performance by
The order as to costs is based on �� 92, 97 ZPO, the one as to the provisional enforceability is
based on �� 708 No. 10, 713 ZPO. The amount in dispute in regard to the appellate proceedings is 4,189.32 Euros (action: 3,889.32
Euros + counterclaim 300.- Euros).
There is no reason to allow a further appeal (� 543(1) No. 1, (2) ZPO). The legal matter has neither fundamental importance nor do interests of the development of the law or of the protection of a
uniform adjudication require a decision of the Federal Court of Justice.
* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, the Plaintiff of the Netherlands is referred to as [Seller] and the
clerk with the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Hamm. *** Camilla Baasch Andersen, Lecturer in International Commercial Law, University of Leicester,
Fellow of the Institute of Commercial Law, Pace, visiting lecturer at University of London. Go to Case Table of Contents Pace Law School