VULLIETY Jean-Paul - Athens presentation_CISG notice

Case name & no
Goods involved
2014
Germany, 03.07.2014 Saplings/ Cuttings
OLG Brandenburg, 5 U (Stecklinge)
1/13
Delay between discovery Holding (Reasonable or not)
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
Delivery
of
goods
Winter
2008/2009
notification of defect 30
April 2009.
The court held that the usual reasonable time period for notifying the lack
of conformity can last up to 1 month. But in this case, since it was possible
to discover the defect from the beginning, the reasonable time period has
to be much shorter than usually. In these situations the reasonable time
period cannot be longer than 2 weeks. This shorten time period seems to
be coherent with the jurisprudence of the Austrian Supreme Court.
An die Feststellung der Vertragswidrigkeit oder den Ablauf der
Untersuchungsfrist schließt sich eine mit regelmäßig maximal einem Monat
bemessene Anzeigefrist nach Art. UNKAUFRUE Artikel 39 Abs. UNKAUFRUE
Artikel 39 Absatz 1 CISG an (vgl. Gruber, a. a. O., Art. 39 CISG Rn. 34 m. w.
Nachw.), die hier jedoch deutlich kürzer anzusetzen ist, da der Beklagte ja
bereits bei einer ersten Sichtung feststellen konnte, dass mindestens 70%
der Ruten mängelbehaftet waren. Im Streitfall wird der auf Untersuchungsund Anzeigefrist entfallende Zeitraum daher insgesamt mit nicht mehr als
zwei Wochen zu veranschlagen sein, was auch der Rechtsprechung des
Obersten Gerichtshofs in Österreich entspricht (vgl. Gruber, a. a. O., Art. 39
CISG Rn. 34 m. w. Nachw.).
2013
France, 21 March 2013 Amphibious
Appellate
Court excavator
Limoges
10/00477
Goods
delivered The court did not consider the question of whether the delay was
December 2005
reasonable or not. It only stated that the end term of the delay is not the
introduction of an action before the courts but the notice of nonNotice of defect sent conformity given by the buyer. The buyer’s action was therefore not yet
25/26 October 2006 by precluded by the statute of limitation.
email
1
Case name & no
Germany, 3 June 2013
Appellate Court
Koblenz (case)
2 U 50/12
Goods involved
Ice-cream
Two types of
“Grundstoffe zur
Speiseeisherstellung
”, i.e. base
ingredients/material
s for the production
of ice-cream
Switzerland, 26 March Orange/Grapefruit/L
2013 Bundesgericht
emon juice and
(Organic juices and
Orange /Lemon oil
organic oil case)
4A_617/2012
France, 13 February Bags
2013 [Supreme Court]
10-24850
Delay between discovery Holding (Reasonable or not)
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
(Mais attendu cependant que ce n’est pas l’action en justice qui constitue
Action
introduced le terme du délai, mais la dénonciation du vice, que cette dénonciation est
before the courts on 6 intervenue régulièrement par un courriel du 25 octobre 2006 puis un second
March 2009
du 26 avec une réponse de Bigfloat Oy du même jour, soit dans les deux ans
;)
No specific indication.
But notification of lack
of conformity was
made prior to the
invoice on which the
dispute is based
No direct discussion, but implicitly the court held the time period to be
reasonable
No specific indication
In referring to the decision of the first instance, the court explicitly states
that the time limit for notification is of six weeks.
Not specified
The time period of 2 years stipulated at article 39 of the Vienna Convention
is a delay for notification of the default and not a delay within which an
action must be introduced. Questions concerning the limitation period are
not governed by the Vienna Convention but by national laws (…)
le délai de deux ans de l’article 39 de la Convention de Vienne est un délai
de dénonciation du défaut de conformité et non un délai pour agir ; que la
2
Case name & no
Goods involved
2012
France, 27 November Machine
2012 Supreme Court
manufacturing
11-24358
staves
France, 18 October Christmas trees
2012, Appellate Court
Lyon
Delay between discovery Holding (Reasonable or not)
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
prescription des actions en justice issues de la vente ne relève pas de la
Convention de Vienne du 11 avril 1980, mais des règles nationales telles
qu’elles résultent de la Convention de La Haye du 15 juin 1955 sur la loi
applicable aux ventes d’objets mobiliers corporels
Delivery and notification Il apparaît certes que la recevabilité de son action au regard des
of non-conformity on dispositions de l’article 39 de la Convention de Vienne ne peut être
the same day 5 May 200 contestée dès lors que le délai de deux ans instauré par ce texte constitue
un délai de dénonciation et non de forclusion et que non seulement elle a
dénoncé les défauts de conformité au vendeur dès le jour de la réception de
la machine soit le 5 mai 2000, mais que bien plus elle a assigné celui-ci
devant le juge du fond le 11 décembre 2001.
Discovery of defects : le The court held that the delay of 2 months was NOT reasonable. The
12 December 2005 up notification must intervene within a few days or a few weeks, but not in
to Christmas
months.
11/01896
Notification of defects : Le délai raisonnable pour des marchandises périssables et amenées à être
23 février 2006, i.e. 2 vendues sur la période restreinte des fêtes de Noël peut s’étendre sur
quelques jours voire quelques semaines, mais en aucun cas sur deux mois, ce
months
délai ne permettant pas au vendeur de procéder à ses propres
constatations.
Germany,
26 Clay
September
2012,
Supreme Court
Discovery of the
defects: Between
[Buyer] did not lose the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods
under Art. 39 CISG because they did not give notice to [Seller] specifying
3
Case name & no
Goods involved
VIII ZR 100/11
Delay between discovery
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
Autumn 2004 and
November 2004
(examination conducted
in the beginning of
November 2004 of the
clay
on
Buyer's
premises)
Holding (Reasonable or not)
Contractually fixed at 48
hours
(because
it
concerns
perishable
goods)
The court did not have to rule on the reasonableness of the delay of
notification but on the reasonableness of the seller claiming that the delay
started to run from the loading of the goods instead of the discovery of the
defect.
the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after they
discovered it or ought to have discovered it.
This question may be left open because, in any case, [Seller], pursuant to
Art. 40 CISG, is not entitled to rely thereon because the dioxin
contamination of the delivered clay and the consequential additional
necessity to clean the separated potatoes, which limits the fitness for the
ordinary purpose of the potato separation clay under Art. 32(2)(a) CISG, are
Buyer notified seller on facts of which [Seller] could not have been unaware and which it did not
4 November 2004
disclose to [Buyer].
France, 24 May 2012 Citrus fruits
Appellate Court d’Aixen-Provence
10/20457
Attendu que le fait que les marchandises aient été négociées en prix FOT au
départ de Poeldjick (Rotterdam) et d'Aubagne a une incidence sur le
transfert des risques en ce qui concerne le contrat de transport, mais n'en a
aucune sur le contrat de vente sur lequel porte le litige ; que dès lors, la
société C... n'est pas fondée à prétendre que le délai raisonnable de
contestation, que les parties dans leurs conclusions s'accordent à fixer à 48
heures, s'agissant de denrées périssables, ait commencé à courir à compter
du chargement de la marchandise ;
4
Case name & no
Goods involved
United Kingdom, 1
May 2012 The High
Court
of
Justice,
Queen's
Bench
Division [Commercial
Court]
(Kingspan
Environmental
Limited, Tyrrell Tanks
Ltd, Rom Plastics
Limitd, and Titan
Enviornmental Ltd v.
Borealis
A/S
and
Borealis UK Ltd)
Borecene (polymer
used by claimants as
the raw material with
which to rotomould
static tanks to hold
bulk liquids)
2009 FOLIO 871
Spain, 16 February Margarine
2012 Las Palmas
Canary Islands
70/2012
Delay between discovery
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
Delivery
between
23.01.02 to 25.10.02
(the 2 year period
expired at various dates
between 14 September
2003
and 16 September
2005)
Holding (Reasonable or not)
Five months
The delay of notification was not reasonable.
Failure to give notice within the time limits stipulated by Article 39 bars the
buyer from pursuing any claim against the seller in respect of the alleged
non conformity whether or not the buyer has then suffered loss thereby.
The 2 year period, which begins on the date of delivery of the goods, is
applied strictly. Subject always to Article 40, the buyer loses his right to rely
on a lack of conformity, even in respect of a non-conformity which was not
detected by the buyer after reasonable examination or one which was not
capable of detection. If, therefore, the defect in question is a latent defect
the buyer may have the whole of the 2 year period in which to give notice Notification was given but not beyond. Buyer contends that the defects in the present case were
on 30 or 31 October latent defects such that it had until the expiry of the 2 year period in the
2002 by email and case of each delivery in which to give notice.
during a meeting in
(…)
19 January
It is not apparent to (the judge) that notice of non-conformity should have
2005.
been given at any time earlier than October 2002. Accordingly (the judge)
do(es) not regard Buyer as time barred under Danish law in respect of RM
8402.
The Court found that the goods had arrived in poor condition, the buyer
having complained of defects five months after it had received them. In that
connection, the Court held that, since margarine was undoubtedly a
perishable product, the buyer had an obligation, under the Convention, to
examine it as quickly as possible and, where appropriate, to complain of
defects within a reasonable period of time. In the present case, the buyer
5
Case name & no
Goods involved
Delay between discovery Holding (Reasonable or not)
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
had not undertaken such an examination nor lodged a complaint within a
reasonable time, which should be measured in days or, at most, a number
of weeks, but should never extend over a period of five months, which was
the length of time that it had taken it to send a written communication
clearly indicating the nature of the lack of conformity.
Austria, 22 November
2012 Appellate Court
Graz 3 R 192/12y
A press Machine
Austria, 14 February
2012 Supreme Court
(Paprika case) 10 Ob
4/12d
Paprika Powder
The machine was
delivered May-July
2006 and in October
2006 the press began
to operate (from the
beginning onwards it
never worked
properly). The
notification of the
defects was made in
January/February/Marc
h 2007
6 October 2003 delivery was of the
powder was made; No
control by the buyer;
3 December 2003 the
authorities made a
control;
The court does not clarify whether the defect could have be detected
already from the delivery or just from the “operating date”. Depending
on this assessment the reasonable time period varies from 3 to 7 months
The courts does not identify what would have been the time limit for the
discovery of the defects, but it is of the opinion that more than 5 months
between delivery and notification cannot been seen as reasonable time
period for notifying the lack of conformity.
6
Case name & no
Goods involved
Delay between discovery
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
10 March 2004 - test
result were notified; 16
March 2004 notification of lack of
conformity
Spain, 11 May 2012 Production machine The date from which the
Court of First Instance for air conditioning time
limit
was
of Fuenlabrada
ducts
calculated (dies a quo),
114/2012
as laid down in article 39
(2), had not even
started, since there had
been
no
formal
recognition of the
buyer’s
taking
possession
of
the
machine
and
its
accessories, in the form
of
documentation
relating to occupational
safety protection.
France, 27 November Induction Cook tops
Not specified
2012 Supreme Court
Holding (Reasonable or not)
In the case of non-perishable goods, or where a delay did not adversely
affect the seller’s activities vis-à-vis third parties, the dies a quo of the
“reasonable time” referred to in article 39 was the moment at which the
buyer became certain, rather than merely suspecting, that the machine did
not work (here he cited Saarbrücken Regional Court, 1 June 2004, and Forli
District Court, 16 February 2009).
The dies a quo should be different in the case of goods requiring a period
of training and regular repairs (here he referred to the District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, United States of America, 26 March2009, and
Versailles Court of Appeal, 29 January 1998).
Court did not rule on reasonableness because buyer failed to prove the the
different dates on which the goods were delivered.
11-14588
Mais attendu, en premier lieu, que dans ses conclusions d'appel, la société
Rothelec invoquait l'expiration du délai de deux ans prévu par l'article 39.2
7
Case name & no
Goods involved
Delay between discovery Holding (Reasonable or not)
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
de la CVIM, de sorte que la cour d'appel n'a ni méconnu les termes du litige
ni violé le principe de la contradiction ;
Attendu, en second lieu, qu'après avoir énoncé que le délai de l'article 39.2
de la CVIM court à compter de la date à laquelle les marchandises ont été
effectivement remises à l'acheteur, ce qui suppose de connaître
précisément la date de chaque vente Rothelec intervenue auprès de la
société SMEG, notamment celle à laquelle la première a livré chaque table
à induction, identifiable par son numéro de série, à la seconde, et qu'il n'est
pas possible de se référer globalement aux livraisons au cours des années
considérées, l'arrêt constate que la société SMEG, qui a la charge de prouver
qu'elle a dénoncé le défaut de conformité dans le délai, omet de préciser et
de justifier des différentes dates auxquelles elle a précisément obtenu
livraison de chaque table litigieuse ;
2011
France 8 November Press Brakes
2011 Supreme Court
10-24691
The Fourth press brake
was received the 28
September 2005 and
put to work the 30
September 2005.
Then
there
were
problems,
so
the
machine was stopped
from 12 to 26 October
2005.
The Court did not state whether such a delay of 14 months was reasonable
or not but reprimanded the lower courts for not doing so.
The Court also found that the Seller was within the 2 year period stipulated
at article 40 of the CISG since the avoidance of the contract was based on
the non-conformity of the goods.
qu’en omettant de rechercher si l’assignation en résolution de la vente
délivrée par la société GETEC à la société BYSTRONIC France par acte
d’huissier du 28 décembre 2006, soit 14 mois après l’arrêt de la machine,
8
Case name & no
Goods involved
Italy 12 April 2011 Ceramic
District Court Reggio
Emilia
N.505/2010 R.G
Delay between discovery Holding (Reasonable or not)
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
n’avait pas été délivrée dans un délai raisonnable au sens de l’article 49 de
Seller moved the French la Convention de Vienne du 11 avril 1980, la Cour d’appel a privé sa décision
courts to avoid the de base légale au regard du texte susvisé.
contract by serving
notice on 28 December
Et alors, enfin, subsidiairement, qu’en tout état de cause selon l’article 39
2006
alinéa 2 de la Convention de Vienne du 11 avril 1980, l’acheteur est déchu
du droit de se prévaloir d’un défaut de conformité s’il ne le dénonce pas au
plus tard dans un délai de deux ans à compter de la date de la livraison ;
que selon l’article 49 de la Convention, l’acheteur peut déclarer le contrat
résolu en cas d’inexécution par le vendeur de l’une de ses obligations
constituant une contravention essentielle au contrat ; qu’il est déchu du
droit de déclarer le contrat résolu s’il ne l’a pas fait dans un délai
raisonnable à partir du moment où il a eu connaissance ou aurait dû avoir
connaissance de cette contravention ; qu’il en résulte que l’action en
résolution de la vente, lorsqu’elle est fondée sur un défaut de conformité,
peut être intentée dans un délai de deux ans à compter de la livraison ; qu’en
retenant en l’espèce qu’en attendant 18 mois pour dénoncer sa demande
de résolution concernant la 4ème plieuse, la société GETEC n’avait pas
respecté un délai raisonnable, la cour d’appel a violé les textes susvisés.
The ordered ceramic [Buyer] failed to comply with its obligation to inspect the goods pursuant
material had been to Art. 38: this circumstance is evident from the fact that the products that
delivered on 12 August
2003 and 9 September
9
Case name & no
Goods involved
Delay between discovery
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
2003 to [Buyer], which
immediately (on the
same dates) resold the
goods to installer Henri
Borner;
[Buyer] received the
complaint
from
Reinhold Seligmann, the
final buyer of the goods,
on 19 November 2003
and that the same party
confirms that it has
notified (verbally) the
agent of [Seller] in
Germany in the same
month, November 2003
(in fact, the first written
notification is dated 8
January 2004), two
months after the last
delivery;
2009
Netherlands , 11
February 2009,
Trees
Five working days
Holding (Reasonable or not)
had been bought from [Seller] were resold on the same day that they were
delivered;
-- considering that the aforementioned circumstance is decisive for the
dies a quo of the "reasonable time" referred to in Art. 39 of the CISG: like
already pointed out in several court decisions applying the CISG, the buyer
(especially when a professional in the field, like [Buyer] in the present case)
is requested to examine the delivered goods in a short time period to allow
the seller to remedy its eventual non-performances (it was determined that
in case the products are resold and the defect is discovered by a third party,
the reasonable time period to examine the goods is 15 days), if the buyer
fails to conduct the due examination, it loses its right to rely on the breach
of the contract;
With regard to the reasonable time period indicated in Art. 39 of the CISG
the prevailing case law indicates that a period of one month (or a maximum
of two months under specific conditions, that are not met in the present
case) from the time when the buyer could (or could and should) have
examined the goods can be considered adequate;
The duration of this time period - five working days - is prima facie not
unreasonable, as trees are living goods, that are sensitive to circumstantial
10
Case name & no
Goods involved
Rechtbank [District
Court] Arhem
Delay between discovery Holding (Reasonable or not)
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
factors and depreciation, and given the fact that such a time period is also
used by [Buyer] in its own general conditions.
172920 / HA ZA 08-1228
Netherlands, +&
January 2009
Rechtbank [District
Court] Breda
Watermelons
The Court thus agreed with the seller that the circumstances of the case
demanded a very short notice period “… whereby [the buyer] should have
complained either immediately, or at least a few days following delivery of
the watermelons”.
197586 / KG ZA 08-659
Germany, 15 October
2009, District Court
Stuttgart
Printing machine
Switzerland , 18 May
2009, Bundesgericht
[Federal Supreme
Court]
Packaging machine
Austria, 2 April 2009, Boiler
Supreme Court
Three months
It is disputed how to measure the ‘reasonable time’ regarding the defect
determined under Art. 39 CISG, however, according to jurisprudence and
the leading doctrine, the gross average is approximately one month (cf.
Schlechtriem/ Schwenzer, op. cit., No. 17, with further references). In any
case, an almost three-month period between discovering and giving notice
[of a defect], as is the case here, does not meet the requirements set out in
Art. 39 (1) CISG";
In general, a period of one to two months will be necessary and reasonable
for the buyer to sufficiently examine the situation, unless there is a special
case which would objectively justify either an extended or a reduced period
A period of fourteen days would be reasonable in order to examine the
goods and give notice due to lack of special circumstances
11
Case name & no
Goods involved
Delay between discovery Holding (Reasonable or not)
of defect/ delivery of
goods and notification of
the defect
Germany, 2 April 2009, Automobile
Appellate Court Hamm
2008
Germany, 19 May
2008, Appellate Court
Köln
Pesticides
A notice of non-conformity must be sufficiently specific so as to enable the
seller to form an idea about the defect and to take the necessary steps. A
notice of non-conformity given six weeks after the discovery of the defect
is not reasonable in the sense of Art. 39 CISG.
Goods
delivered
February 2006
: The delay of 5 months was not reasonable. According to the court a
“reasonable time” should have been a period of 14 days
Notification of default: 28 "...this Court confirms the legal reasoning enunciated by the District Court
July 2006
(denying a claim for damages on the part of [Buyer] on the grounds of a
(Five months)
16 U 62/07
breach of duty to examine and notify under Arts. 38, 39 CISG). It is
undisputed that the goods have been delivered in February 2006 and,
according to [Seller's] submissions, complaints have been raised on 28 July
2006 for the first time.
Switzerland, 18
August 2008,
Obergericht
[Appellate Court]
Appenzell
Ausserhoden
Clothes
In case the buyer passes goods on to his customers and if it is their
customers who discover defects, then an examination period of two weeks
and a notification period of four weeks is reasonable under the CISG";
12
13