natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Parternes forudsatte vilje og kontraktforholdets tyngdepunkt førte i det konkrete tilfælde til, at tysk lovgiv­ning skulle finde anvendelse.
In this case the supposed intention of the parties and the focus of the contractual relationship led to the conclusion that German law was applic­able.
Ifølge § 269 i Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch skal ydelsen præste­res på det sted, hvor skyldneren på det tidspunkt, da skyldforholdet opstod, havde sin bopæl, såfremt et andet sted hverken er fastsat af parterne eller fremgår af omstændighe­derne, særlig skyldforholdets natur.
According to Paragraph 269 of the German Civil Code, an obligation is to be per­formed at the place where the person liable resides at the time when the obligation comes into being, in so far as no other place is designated by the parties or may be in­ferred from the circumstances, in particular the nature of the obligation.
Efter Oberlandesgericht's opfattelse havde par­terne i den foreliggende sag ikke indgået en aftale om opfyldelsesstedet for betalingsfor­
In the view of the Oberlandesgericht, in this case the parties had not agreed upon the place of perform­ance of the obligation to pay the purchase price.
Det fulgte tværtimod af skyldfor­holdets natur, at også forpligtelsen til at betale købesummen skulle opfyldes i Stuttgart.
Since there was no agreement over prior payment the reciprocal obligations were to be performed simultaneously.
Ved sådanne ydelser er der som regel et fælles opfyldelsessted på grund af skyldforholdets natur.
As a rule, in such cases there is a single place of performance, because of the nature of the obligations.
Dette er det sted, hvor den forpligtelse, der er karakte­ristisk for aftalen, skal opfyldes.
That is the place in which the obli­gation which characterizes the contract is to be performed.
I den foreliggende sag var Stuttgart opfyldelsesstedet for begge parter i aftalen, da overgivelsen af det købte, der var en ydelse, der var karakte­ristisk vor aftalen, skulle ske dér.
In this case Stuttgart was the place of performance for both parties, since it was there that the consideration typical of the contract — namely the delivery of the goods — was to be provided.
I en sag mellem en tysk entreprenør og bygherren, der var bosiddende i Nederlandene, angående betaling af vederlaget for et byggeprojekt, der var udført i Forbundsrepublik­ken Tyskland, antog Oberlandesgericht Köln (dom af 23. februar 1983, sag 16 U 136/82, RIW — Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 1984, s. 314) ligeledes, at der var et fælles opfyldelsessted for begges forpligtelser, idet den lagde tysk ret til grund.
In proceedings between a German building contractor and a client whose seat was in the Netherlands over payment fora building project in the Federal Republic of Germany the Oberlandesgericht Köln (judgment of 23 February 1983, Case 16 U 136/82, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 1984, p. 314) similarly held, on the basis of German law, that there was a single place of performance for the obligations of both parties.
Retten fastslog først og fremmst, at parterne, i det mindste stiltiende, havde aftalt, at det sted, hvor byg­geprojektet skulle udføres, skulle være opfyldelsessted for betalingen af vederlaget.
The court first took note of the fact that the parties had at least tacitly agreed upon the place of the building project as the place of payment.
Men også i mangel af en sådan aftale fulgte det af skyldforholdets natur, at opfyldelses­stedet for betalingen af vederlaget også var det sted, hvor bygnigen skulle opføres.
Even if there had not been such an agree­ment, however, it followed from the nature of the obligation that the place of payment was the place where the building was situated.
Ganske vist fulgte dette ikke allerede af, at parterne havde indgået en gensidig bebyr­dende aftale med forpligtelser for begge. På grundlag af entreprisekontraktens særlige karakter forekom det imidlertid påkrævet og formålstjenligt at anse det sted, hvor byg­ningen skulle opføres, som fælles opfyldelsessted.
That did not follow from the simple fact that the parties had entered into a synallagmatic contract with obligations on both sides.
Der var en nøje sammenhæng mel­lem de forpligtelser, der påhvilede parterne i entreprisekontrakten.
The respective obligations of parties to contracts for work were closely connected.
Over for krav om be­taling af vederlaget gøres det ofte gældende, at arbejdet ikke er blevet udført eller ikke er blevet udført efter forskrifterne.
Claims for payment were frequently resisted on the ground that the work had not been carried out properly or at all.
Det er kun muligt at efterprøve sådanne indvendinger på selve stedet.
The validity of such ob­ligations could only be examined at the place concerned.
Noget tilsvarende gælder også for det tilfælde, at krav i henhold til ga­ranti søges modregnet i vederlaget.
The same was true in cases where a breach of warranty was pleaded in opposition to the action for payment.
For antagelsen af et fælles opfyldelsessted talte også, at det i hvert enkelt tilfælde er den kompetente ret på det sted, hvor bygningen er belig­gende, der skal træffe afgørelse om tinglysning af et skadesløsbrev.
The conclusion that there should be a single place of performance was also supported by the fact that it was invariably the court for the place where the building was located which must decide on the registration of the builder's lien.
Også i denne forbin­delse er kravet på vederlag og garanti i almindelighed tæt knyttet til hinanden.
From that point of view too claims for payment and guarantee claims were in general closely connected.
Det er også i overensstemmelse hermed, at det ligeledes er retten på det sted, hvor bygningen er beliggende, der har kompetence med hensyn til anteciperet bevisførelse.
Another factor supporting that conclusion was the fact that it was the court for the place where the build­ing was located which had jurisdiction over proceedings for the preservation of evi­dence.
Da det viste sig, at skibet ikke ville være klar til lastning inden udløbet af det tids­rum, der var nævnt i fragtaftalen, benyttede VPF sig af en aftalt tilbagetrædelsesret og lod valmuefrøene befordre med det første skib til Nederlandene.
MS Calypso N. When it became apparent that the ship would not be ready for loading within the period fixed in the charterparty Verenigde availed itself of its right of rescis­sion under the contract and had the cargo transported to the Netherlands by the first available ship.
VPF krævede merud­gifterne ved denne befordring godtgjort af Italmare, da dette måtte anses for at have mis­ligholdt fragtaftalen ved ikke at stille skibet rettidigt til rådighed.
It sought repayment from Italmare of the additional costs occasioned by the necessity of finding other means of transport, on the ground that Italmare was liable for the non-performance of its obligation to make the ship available at the relevant time.
VPF anlagde sag ved Rechtbank Rotterdam som retten på det sted, hvor Italmare skulle præstere den ydelse, der var karakteristisk for aftalen (udlevering af ladningen).
It brought proceedings before the Rechtbank, Rotterdam, as the court of the place in which Italmare was to have performed the obligation characteristic of the contract (the delivery of the cargo).
Italmare gjorde gældende, at retten savnede kompetence, men Rechtbank erklærede sig kompetent i medfør af kon­ventiones artikel 5, nr. 1.
Italmare pleaded want of jurisdiction, but the Rechtbank held that it had jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Efter rettens opfattelse beroede kravet i det væsentlige på mis­ligholdelsen af forpligtelsen til befordring af godset, som ifølge nederlandsk ret, der skulle finde anvendelse, skulle opfyldes på bestemmelsesstedet.
In its view the claim was based essentially on the non-performance of the obligation to carry the goods, which un­der Netherlands law, by which the charterparty was governed, was to be performed at their destination.
Gerechtshof Haag stadfæstede denne afgørelse med den begrundelse, at det tab, der søgtes erstattet, fulgte af Italmare's påståede misligholdelse af forpligtelsen til at be­fordre varen fra Calcutta til Rotterdam og udlevere den dér; denne misligholdelse skyld­tes, at Calypso Ν ikke var parat til lastning i rette tid.
The Gerechtshof, 's-Gravenhage, confirmed that decision on the ground that the loss complained of arose out of Italmare's alleged failure to perform its obligation to trans­port the goods from Calcutta to Rotterdam and to deliver them there; the origin of the non-performance lay in the fact that the Calypso Ν was not ready for loading at the pre­scribed time.
Opfyldelsesstedet for denne for­pligtelse var efter Gerechtshofs opfattelse bestemmelsesstedet.
In the Gerechtshofs view the place of performance ofthat obligation was the place of destination.
Under kassationsankesagen anførte sagsøgte på ny, at opfyldelsesstedet for selskabets forpligtelse i henhold til fragtaftalen var det sted, hvor skibet skulle have været stillet til rådighed for befragteren.
On a further appeal the defendant again argued that the place of performance of its obli­gation under the charterparty was the place at which the ship should have been placed at the disposal of the charterer.
Efter Hoge Raad's opfattelse måtte det på grundlag af Domstolens dom af 6. oktober 1976 i sag 14/76 (De Bloos mod Bouyer, jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A 1) antages, at det i et tilfælde som det foreliggende, hvor der krævedes erstatning for misligholdelse, ved anvendelsen af artikel 5, nr. 1, var den kontraktmæssige forpligtelse, hvis mislighol­delse påberåbtes som grundlag for kravet, der skulle lægges til grund.
The Hoge Raad took the view that, on the basis of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 1976 in Case 14/76 (De Bloos v Bouyer, supra, 1-5.1.1 — A I), in applying Article 5(1) in a case such as the present one, in which damages for non-performance were claimed, regard must be had to the contractual obligation the non-performance of which had given rise to the action.
Gerechtshof slut­tede af stævningen, at der var to forpligtelser, som Italmare ikke havde opfyldt, nemlig forpligtelsen til at stille skibet til rådighed for befragteren klar til lastning og forpligtel­sen til at befordre varen til bestemmelsesstedet og udlevere den dér.
The Gerechtshof had concluded from the writ and the statement of claim that Italmare had failed to perform two obligations, namely to place the ship ready for loading at the charterer's disposal and to transport the goods to the place of destination and deliver them there.
Gerechtshof kom til den konklusion, at misligholdelsen af den anden forpligtelse skyldtes, at skibet ikke var parat til at indtage last i rette tid, og fandt således en sammenhæng mellem de to mislig­holdelser.
Deciding that the failure to perform the second obligation followed from the fact that the ship was not ready for loading at the prescribed time, the Gerechtshof had linked the two breaches.
Efter at VPF havde gjort brug af sin tilbagetrædelsesret på grund af, at skibet ikke blev stillet til rådighed i rette tid, måtte det lægges til grund, at Italmare heller ikke havde opfyldt sin forpligtelse til at befordre og udlevere godset. Efter det i stævningen
After Verenigde Pharmaceutische Fabrieken exercised its right of rescission because the ship was not placed at its disposal, it could be assumed that Italmare had not fulfilled its obligation to transport and deliver the goods either.
Gerechtshof havde derfor været beføjet til at træffe den afgørelse, at misligholdelsen af forpligtelsen til at befordre god­set lå til grund for sagen.
1­5.1.2 — Β 37 Arrondissementsrechtbank, Arnhem, Judgment of 30 July 1981,
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — det sted hvor købesummen skal betales — den uniforme købelov
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction —■ Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance — Place of payment of the purchase price — Uniform Law on lhe Internation­al Sale of Goods
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — parternes almindelige forretningsbetingel­ser i modstrid med hinanden
Jurisdiction — Agreement on jurisdiction — Contradictory general conditions of bus­iness of the parlies
Kompetence — indsigelse om inkompetence og samtidig stillingtagen til realiteten
Jurisdiction — Entry of appearance to challenge Jurisdiction and also to make a submission on lhe substantive issue
Indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — syns­ og skønserklæring i en sag mellem andre parter
Related actions — Expert's opinion in proceedings between other parties
De Maas havde forlangt betaling for levering af glas til Emaillerie Alsacienne i tiden fra juni 1976 til marts 1977.
De Maas claimed payment for consignments of glass delivered to Emaillerie Alsacienne between June 1976 and March 1977.
Selskabet udledte af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, at den neder­landske ret havde kompetence.
It asserted that the Dutch court had jurisdiction un­der Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Sagsøgte gjorde heroverfor gældende, at retten i Stras­bourg vor enekompetent ifølge selskabets almindelige købsbetingelser, der for så vidt fandt anvendelse.
The defendant argued, however, that its general con­ditions of purchase were applicable and that the courts in Strasbourg had exclusive juris­diction thereunder.
Selskabet anførte, at det ikke var forpligtelsen til at betale, men de leverancer, der var sket i Frankrig, der lå til grund for det af De Maas anlagte søgsmål.
De Maas's claim was based not on the payment obligation but on the deliveries which had taken place in France.
Selv hvis det var sagsøgtes forpligtelse til at betale, der skulle lægges til grund for sagsø­gerens krav, måtte der tages hensyn til, at betalingen altid var sket i Frankrig.
If however the defendant's payment obli­gation was at the basis of the plaintiffs claim, it should be borne in mind that payment had always been made in France.
Rechtbank tog ikke sagsøgtes anbringende om, at dette selskabs købsbetingelser fandt anvendelse, til følge.
The Rechtbank rejected the defendant's argument that its general conditions of purchase were applicable.
De omtvistede købekontrakter var blevet afviklet på den måde, at sagsøgte havde tilsendt sagsøgeren en skriftlig ordre, på hvis forside de almindelige købsbetingelser, der var trykt på bagsiden, blev erklæret anvendelige.
The sales contracts in question came about in the following manner: the defendant sent to the plaintiff a written order on the face of which the general con­ditions of purchase printed on the back were declared applicable.
I tilslutning hertil havde sagsøgeren sendt sagsøgte en ordrebekræftelse, hvori sagsøgerens almindelige salgsbetingelser blev erklæret for anvendelige.
In return the plaintiff sent the defendant a written confirmation of its order, in which the plaintiffs general conditions of sale were declared applicable.
Herefter havde sagsøgeren leveret og ud­stedt fakturaer, hvori der på ny blev henvist til sagsøgerens almindelige salgsbetingelser.
The plaintiff then delivered the goods and made out invoices on which reference was again made to its general conditions of sale.
Under disse omstændigheder kunne det ikke antages, at sagsøgeren havde accepteret sagsøgtes købsbetingelser.
In those circumstances it could not be assumed that the plaintiff had accepted the pur­chase conditions of the defendant.
Lige så lidt kunne anbringendet om, at det løbende forret­ningsforhold mellem parterne faktisk var blevet afviklet i henhold til sagsøgtes alminde­lige købsbetingelser, tages til følge.
Nor was it possible to follow the argument that the regular commercial relations between the parties were as a matter of fact governed by the defendant's general conditions of purchase.
Da parterne hver gang henviste til deres egne betin­
Since in each case the parties referred to their own conditions it could not be assumed that their relations were based on the con­tractual conditions of one or other of the parties.
Rechtbank anså denne kollisionsnorm, der er indeholdt i EØF­konventionen om, hvilken lov der skal anvendes på kontraktlige forpligtelser, af 19. juni 1980 for en uskreven regel i nederlandsk international privatret, især efter Nederlandenes undertegnelse af denne konvention.
(continued 1) cable to contractual obligations, as an unwritten provision of Dutch private internation­al law, especially since the signature of that Convention by the Netherlands.
Også bestemmelserne i den uniforme købelov fandt anvendelse sammen med nederlandsk ret; i denne lov findes reglen om købesummens betaling i artikel 59.
Under Netherlands law the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, Article 59 of which governed the payment of the purchase price, was also applicable.
Da det ikke klart fremgik, på hvilken måde betalingen mellem parterne var sket, ind­kaldte Rechtbank parterne til at give møde for at finde frem til betalingsstedet.
Since the manner in which payments had been made was not clear, the Rechtbank ordered the par­ties to submit evidence on the question of the place of payment.
Med hensyn til sagsøgtes anbringende om, at sagen hang sammen med en sag, der ver­serede i Frankrig, anførte Rechtbank, at der ikke var tale om en sag, der verserede mel­lem sagsøgeren og sagsøgte, men om en sag mellem andre parter, hvori der blot var afgi­vet en syns­ og skønserklæring, som også kun vedrørte parterne i den foreliggende sag som henholdsvis leverandør og fabrikant af materialer (vinduer).
On the defendant's argument that the proceedings were connected with proceedings pending in France, the Rechtbank held that the latter were not proceedings pending be­tween the plaintiff and the defendant but proceedings between other parties in which an expert's opinion had been given which concerned the parties to these proceedings only as the supplier and manufacturer of materials (windows) respectively.
Desuden havde sag­søgte ikke godtgjort, at der var grund til at frygte, at der blev afsagt uforenelige afgørel­ser i den franske sag og i denne sag.
Furthermore, the defendant had not adequately shown that there was a risk of mutually contradictory decisions in the French proceedings and in these proceedings.
Sagsøgeren havde endvidere påberåbt sig konventionens artikel 18, fordi sagsøgte ikke udelukkende havde gjort gældende, at Rechtbank savnede kompetence, men også havde taget stilling til realiteten.
The plaintiff had also relied on Article 18 of the Convention, on the ground that the de­fendant had not restricted itself to arguing that the Rechtbank had no jurisdiction but had also presented argument on the substance of the case.
Rechtbank var imidlertid af den opfattelse, at sagsøgte ikke havde fortabt sin ret til at fremsætte indsigelse om inkompetence, da selskabet kun sub­sidiært havde taget stilling til realiteten, nemlig for det tilfælde, at indsigelsen om inkom­petence ikke blev taget til følge.
The Rechtbank took the view, however, that the defendant had not forfeited its right to make an objection on the issue of jurisdiction, since it had submitted argument on the substance of the case only in the alternative, in the event that its objection on jurisdiction should be rejected.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting (artikel 5. nr. 1) — den forpligtelse der er karakteristisk for aftalen
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance (Article 5(1) — Obligation characteristic of the contract
Den nederlandske virksomhed Van den Berg gjorde gældende, at den havde solgt det franske selskab Ghesquières en maskine med tilbehør.
According to its submissions. Van den Berg, a Dutch firm, had sold a machine with ac­cessories to Ghesquières, a French company.
Sidstnævnte vægrede sig imidler­tid ved at aftage og betale maskinen og gjorde gældende, at det kun havde fremsat et til­bud, som det havde tilbagekaldt rettidigt pr. telex.
Ghesquières refused to take delivery of the machine or to pay the purchase price, however, and argued that it had merely made an offer to purchase which it had withdrawn by telex in good time.
Sagsøgeren havde imidlertid før mod­tagelsen af dette telex sendt sagsøgte en skrivelse med bekræftelse af købet og besvarede
Before receiving that tel­ex, however, the plaintiff had already sent written confirmation of the purchase contract to the defendant and therefore replied to its telex with a telex message that the confirma­tion was already on its way.
Spørgsmålet om, hvor denne forpligtelse skulle opfyldes, skulle efter nederlandsk international privatret afgøres på grundlag af nederlandsk materiel ret, dvs. i dette tilfælde artikel 2, stk. 1, i den uniforme købelov af 15. december 1971 (»denne lov finder også ... anvendelse, når nederlandsk ret i henhold til en internatio­nal­privatretlig regel finder anvendelse på et internationalt løsørekøb i denne lovs for­stand«).
The question where that obligation was to be performed was gov­erned, according to Dutch private international law, by Dutch substantive law, in this case Article 2(1) of the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods of 15 De­cember 1971 ("This law is also applicable where under a rule of private international law Netherlands law is applicable to a contract for the International sale of goods with­in the meaning of this law").
I henhold til artikel 19 i den uniforme købelov sker leveringen ved overgivelse af varen til fragtføreren for videre befordring til køberen.
Under Article 19 of the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods the delivery of the goods sold took place when the goods were handed over to the transporter for delivery to the purchaser.
Da sagsøgeren havde hjem­sted i Nederlandene, gik Rechtbank ud fra, at leveringen skulle finde sted i Nederlande­ne, således at forpligtelsen i den i artikel 5, nr. 1, forudsatte betydning, skulle opfyldes i Nederlandene.
Since the plaintiff had its seat in the Netherlands the Rechtbank assumed that delivery was to have taken place in the Nether­lands, so that the significant obligation for the purposes of Article 5(1) was to have been performed in the Netherlands.
Rechtbank udledte derfor sin kompetence af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
The Rechtbank therefore concluded that it had jurisdic­tion under Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — retten på opfydelsesstedetfor den omtivstede forpligtelse — køberens forpligtelse til at betale købesummen ved åbning af remburs — op­fyldelsessted — hjemstedet for det pengeinstitut, hvor sælgeren skal krediteres det beløb, han har til gode
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance of the obligation al issue — Purchaser's obligation to pay the purchase price by opening a letter of credit — Place of performance — Seal of the financial institution at which the amount due should have been credited to lhe seller's account
I henhold til en italiensk­tysk købekontrakt havde en italiensk virksomhed anlagt sag mod et tysk selskab ved Tribunale di Siena på grund af misligholdelse af forpligtelsen til at betale købesummen for den leverede vare; betalingen skulle ske i Italien ved åbning af remburs gennem en lokal bank.
On the basis of a sales contract an Italian undertaking brought proceedings against a German company before the Tribunale di Siena for its failure to perform its obligation to pay the purchase price of the goods delivered; payment was to have been made in Italy by the opening of a letter of credit with a bank located there.
Sagsøgte gav møde i sagen og gjorde gældende, at kontrakten skulle have været opfyldt i Tyskland, hvor varen skulle have været leveret og købesummen skulle have været betalt.
The defendant entered an appearance and argued that the contract was to have been performed in Germany, where the goods were to be delivered and the purchase price paid.