Scribd
Upload
51 views

Ex 2 Part 1 PDF

The document describes several hypothetical scenarios involving international sales contracts governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). In the first scenario, a German company (Krones) makes an offer to a Swedish company (Aqua) involving the sale of packaging machines. The terms of the offer and acceptance differ, and problems arise after delivery regarding liability for machine leaks. Subsequent scenarios pose questions about issues such as the place of delivery if not agreed, the seller's choice of transport, compensation for delivering non-conforming goods, notice and cure for defective goods, payment terms, avoidance of the contract, replacement of non-conforming goods, and damages.

Uploaded by

Joe Hilbert
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views

Ex 2 Part 1 PDF

The document describes several hypothetical scenarios involving international sales contracts governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). In the first scenario, a German company (Krones) makes an offer to a Swedish company (Aqua) involving the sale of packaging machines. The terms of the offer and acceptance differ, and problems arise after delivery regarding liability for machine leaks. Subsequent scenarios pose questions about issues such as the place of delivery if not agreed, the seller's choice of transport, compensation for delivering non-conforming goods, notice and cure for defective goods, payment terms, avoidance of the contract, replacement of non-conforming goods, and damages.

Uploaded by

Joe Hilbert
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Art.

14-24 CISG
Exercise 1
The Krones, a company established in Germany makes an offer to Aqua, a company from Sweden
concerning the sale and delivery of packaging machines. The offer made by Krones contains a copy
of their terms of sale and delivery. Aqua sends its acceptance of the offer containing their terms of
sale and delivery, which differ on several points from the terms of sale and delivery of Krones.
Some problems arise after delivery: the machines do not function properly because there are some
leaks in the hydraulic system. Krones states that they have excluded all liability for this kind of
damage in their terms of sale and delivery (so they are not liable). According to the terms of sale of
Aqua Krones is responsible for this kind damage.

Question: Which terms of sale and delivery apply to this contract?

Art. 25-34 CISG


Exercise 2
Liverani, a company from Italy, sells to TOP, a company from Russia, a number of pair of shoes at
a price of €5,000.

Question 1: If the parties didn’t agree upon the place of delivery, where should delivery of the shoes
take place?
Question 2: If the seller has to arrange transport of the shoes, is he free to choose the means of
transport?

Art. 35-44 CISG


Exercise 3
Rossi, a company from Italy, manufactures dresses. Rossi buys from Laurent, a company
established in France, a big quantity of fabric. The fabric should consist of 70% cotton and 30%
viscose. The fabric are supplied to Rossi. When Rossi supplies the dresses to DMC, a company
from Holland, DMC refuses to accept them, because the fabric only consists of 40% cotton. Rossi
claims compensation from Laurent because of Laurent delivering the wrong fabric.

Question: Does Rossi have a right to compensation for damage suffered?

Art 45-52 CISG


Exercise 4
A sales contract is concluded between Ricci, a company established in Italy, and Anders, a
company from Germany; the object of the contract is a machine. The parties agreed that in case of
any problem, the claims should be put to the Italian seller in writing.
This machine does not function properly, so the German buyer puts in his claim in writing within
the period of three weeks the parties had agreed on. The Italian seller informs the German buyer
that he can repair the machine within one month. A quicker repair of the machine is not possible,
due to the lack of the components necessary. The German buyer does not react to this immediately,
but three weeks after he notifies the seller of the fact that the contract is going to be nullified.
Anders wants to get a reimbursement for the price he paid for the machine and return the machine
back to Ricci.

Question: Is it possible for Anders?


Art. 53-65 CISG
Exercise 5
Gomez, a company from Spain, sells a machine to Bonnet, a company from France, at a price of
€100,000. The parties agreed that the condition of payment shall be “cash on delivery”. The
machine is to be delivered at Bonnet's factory on 1 December 2015. But the factory is closed on this
date and Gomez cannot deliver the machine to Bonnet that day.

Question: Does Bonnet nevertheless have to pay?

Exercise 6
Health&Care, a company from Italy, sells to Egberts, a company from Holland, medical equipment
at a price of €90,000. Egberts pays €40,000 in advance. When Health&Care wants to deliver the
equipment on the day both parties had agreed on, Egberts refuses to accept and pay for the
equipment. An amount of €50,000 should have been paid on delivery. Health&Care offers Egberts a
period of three weeks in order to fulfil his legal obligations. Egberts does not respond.

Question: What options does Health&Care have? (Look into Art. 81 – 84 CISG as well)

Exercise 7
Health&Care, a company from Italy, sells to Egberts, a company from Holland, medical equipment
at a price of €90,000. Egberts pays €40,000 in advance. When Health&Care wants to deliver the
equipment on the day both parties had agreed on, Egberts refuses to accept and pay for the
equipment. An amount of €50,000 should have been paid on delivery. Health&Care offers Egberts a
period of three weeks in order to fulfil his legal obligations. During this time these medical
equipment get lost due to circumstances beyond the control of the seller.

Question: Does Egberts nevertheless have to pay?

Art. 71-77
Exercise 8
Boon, a company from Holland, is to deliver a large quantity of flowers to Fleur, a company from
France. It is agreed that Boon will deliver to Fleur on 1 December 2015. Fleur has agreed to deliver
the flowers on 5 December 2005 to Bouvais. Boon does not fulfil his obligations. If Fleur wants to
fulfil his, he has to buy the flowers elsewhere. In that case Fleur, due to an increase in flowers
prices, has to pay an extra €2,000.

Question: What are the options for Fleur in this case?

Art. 78-88
Exercise 9
Anders, a company from Germany, sells a machine to Diaz, a company from Spain. Diaz delays
accepting this machine. Anders incurs costs because he has to store the machine.

Question: Does Diaz have to pay these expenses made by Anders?

Exercise 10
Anders, a company from Germany, sells a machine to Diaz, a company from Spain.
Diaz accepts the machine, but it does not function properly. So Diaz declares the contract null and
void. Diaz stores the machine, waiting for Anders to collect it, in an unlocked and unguarded
hangar. The machine is stolen. Diaz has already paid for the machine.
Question: Is it possible for Diaz to demand of Anders to refund the money he has paid?

Art. 35-81 CISG


Exercise 11-12-13
On 1 November 2015 Drinks Company from Italy buys 4.000 cases of beer from Broz, Czech
Republic. According to their contract the beer is to be collected on 4 November 2015 from storage
space Broz rents in Germany. Payment for this delivery will be made on the same day into an
account Broz has with a bank in Germany.
On arrival in Italy on 7 November 2015, Drinks Company discovers that a big number of the cases
contain expired beer. He immediately notifies Broz of this non-conformity. Drinks Company wants
its money back: they already made a down payment of €12,000.
On 8 November 2015 Broz informs Drinks Company that they will make a new delivery of 4.000
cases of the beer he ordered within three weeks. It is not possible to deliver these cases immediately
due to a key defect of their production machines.
On 22 November 2015 the 4.000 cases of new beer are delivered, but on delivery Drinks Company
refuses to accept them, because it already bought beer somewhere else (replaced the delivery of
Broz).
Drinks Company claims an extra € 3,000 from Broz because of the difference between the price of
Broz and the price in their substitute transaction.
Broz claims from Drinks Company payment of the rest of the price.

Questions
Regarding the new delivery made by Broz in order to replace the first delivery it made:
1. Is it possible for seller Broz to replace the first delivery with a new delivery, the way they did in
this case?
2. Must the claim of Drinks Company (returning the down payment of € 12,000) be awarded?
3. Can Drinks Company get compensated for the extra € 3,000 they paid in the substitute
transaction?

You might also like