Case number: 137
Article number: sales convention / 11
Thessaurs issue:
Country of decision: United States of America
Year of decision: 1996
Type of decision: Judicial decision

Case 137: CISG 11
United States: Supreme Court of Oregon SC S42285 11 April 1996
GPL Treatment, Ltd. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
Published in English: 914 Pacific Reports (2d Series), 682; 323 Oregon Reports, 116
Intermediate appellate decision
United States: Court of Appeals of Oregon CA A81171
Published in English: 894 Pacific Reports (2d Series), 470; 113 Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals, 633
Commented on by Flechtner in 1995 Journal of Law & Commerce 15, 127.

Plaintiffs, three Canadian manufacturers and sellers of raw shakes (long wooden shingles), sued a U.S. corporation to recover damages for breach of alleged contracts for the sale and purchase of truckloads of cedar shakes. Defendant denied entering into these contracts. Defendant moved in limine for dismissal on the ground that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the writing requirement of the "statute of frauds" of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as enacted in Oregon. The trial court denied the motion. During the trial, the plaintiffs attempted to raise the issue of whether the CISG, rather than the UCC, governed, but the trial court ruled that plaintiffs' attempt was untimely and that they had waived reliance on that theory. The jury returned a verdict awarding lost profits to the plaintiffs and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.

Defendant appealed to an intermediate appellate court on the ground, inter alia, that the trial court had erred when it denied defendant's motion in limine. A majority of the three-judge appellate court found that plaintiffs had satisfied the UCC statute of frauds. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's analysis of the UCC as applied to the facts in the case. In a final footnote, the dissenting judge also stated that he would have addressed the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in its ruling on the applicability of the CISG.

On appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, the decision of the trial and intermediate courts were affirmed. The majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions do not address the issue of whether the CISG governed or whether the trial court abused its discretion.