A French seller, a jeans manufacturer, concluded a contract for the sale of a given quantity of goods with a buyer based in the United States of America. It was specified that the jeans purchased were to be sent to South America and Africa.
Both during the negotiations preceding the contract and during the follow-up to its performance, the seller had repeatedly and insistently demanded proof of the destination of the goods sold. It became apparent during a second delivery that they had been shipped to Spain.
The seller's refusal to maintain the trade relationship and to proceed with further deliveries triggered the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal invoked article 1(1)(a) CISG in order to determine the law applicable to the case, since the buyer and seller were nationals of two different States Parties to CISG.
The court then invoked article 8(1) CISG in order to conclude that the United States company had not respected the wish of the French company, namely to know the destination of the goods. That attitude constituted a fundamental breach of contract within the meaning of article 25 CISG.
Under article 64(1) the seller could declare the contract avoided. The Court of Appeal adopted this solution, invoking in addition article 73(2) with regard to the contracts for further deliveries.
Finally, it ordered the United States company to pay damages amounting to 10,000 French francs for abuse of process, finding that the conduct of the buyer, “contrary to the principle of good faith in international trade laid down in article 7 CISG, aggravated by the adoption of a judicial stand as plaintiff in the proceedings, constituted abuse of process”.
- 1 0 年前最佳解答
就正當 在協商先前的合約和隨後的履行合約, 這個賣家重複地而且緊急地需求這些已賣出的貨物送達地點證明.
這個賣家拒絕(和買家)保持交易的關係 和 不再繼續貨運 倒置這個訴訟的產生.
法庭訴諸條款 1(1)(a) CISG(United Nations Convention on Contracts for Internationa Sale of Goods, 聯合國國際貨物買賣契約公約) 針對&適用來裁定這個個案, 因為在聯合國國際貨物買賣契約公約, 買賣家都是不同的美國地方
然後法庭訴諸於條款8(1) 聯合國國際貨物買賣契約公約 是針對於在締結遠距離貨物的條約中 美國的公司並沒有尊重法國公司的期許.
這個基本的行為構成了違反 聯合國國際貨物買賣契約公約 第25條條款的合約的旨意.
在第64(1)的條款中, 賣家可以宣稱合約無效. 法庭也接受這樣的情況, 訴諸附加條款第73(2) 是說明對於後期合約的交貨事項.
最後, 宣判美國公司因為訴訟程序的濫用, 要付法郎10,000的賠償金, 判決買家的行為(表現) "(賣家)在國際交易本著和正面信賴 相反地信條, 在聯合國國際貨物買賣契約公約 中的第7條 有嚴令聲明 , (導致)加重法院在判定 起訴人/原告 於構成訴訟程序的濫用.
補充: 61(1) 指的是第六十一條條款, 第一項
( ) 裡面的字, 在字面上沒有, 只是讓你比較容易懂而已, 法 律的東西本來就比較難了解!!我是這樣覺得啦!! ^_^參考資料： myself with one year commercial law study experience