Case number: 157
Article number: sales convention / 3(1)
Thessaurs issue:
Country of decision: France
Year of decision: 1993
Type of decision: Judicial decision

Case 157: CISG 3(1)
France: Court of Appeal of Chamb‚ry (Civil Division)

25 May 1993

Soci‚t‚ AMD El‚ctronique v. Soci‚t‚ Rosenberger Siam S.p.A.

Original in French

Published in French: Revue de Jurisprudence Commerciale 1995, 242; [1995] UNILEX, E.93-16

Reported on in French: Bull. inf. C. cass, 01-10-1993, 35

In English: [1995] UNILEX, D.93-16

Commented on in French by Witz, Claude, Revue de Jurisprudence Commerciale 1995, 244; Les premi res applications jurisprudentielles du droit uniforme de la vente internationale - Convention des Nations Unies du 11 avril 1980, Librairie G‚n‚rale de Droit et de Jurisprudence (L.G.D.J.), Collection Droit des Affaires, Paris, (1995), 34

The buyer, a company established under Italian law, placed an order for connectors with a French company, the seller, in February 1990. Under the agreement, the connectors were to be manufactured on the basis of designs provided by the company Rosenberger and checked in accordance with the quality-control standards adopted and communicated by the latter company.

Various problems arose between the parties. On 18 June 1991, the seller brought proceedings against the other party to the contract before the Regional Court of Bonneville for payment of the price due for goods delivered but not paid for. The buyer raised an objection on the ground of the lack of jurisdiction of the French court as against an Italian court. On 6 January 1993, the Regional Court upheld the objection on the grounds that the defendant was resident in Italy and that the delivery had also been made in Italy.

The buyer lodged an appeal.

In order to determine the place where the obligation to pay the price should be performed, pursuant to article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments, the Court of Appeal considered whether CISG was applicable. It found that the disputed contract was not a sale within the meaning of CISG, which was not applicable when, as in the case in question, the party placing an order supplied "a substantial part of the materials necessary for such manufacture or production" (cf. art. 3(1) CISG).