International Law

International law

==========

The rotten plants case

A Dutch company purchased plants from a French company in March 2014. After delivery of the goods the buyer paid only part of the price. Seller brought an action claiming not only payment of the outstanding amount of the price but also the payment of the penalty for delay as provided for in its standard terms which it asserted formed part of the contract. The standard terms had been only reproduced on the back of the invoice, which was sent to the buyer only upon delivery of the goods. They were written in French, but the buyer never asked for a translation.

Buyer rejected both claims of the seller. As to his obligation to pay the outstanding amount of the price, he set it off against seller´s obligation to pay damages for defects of the goods delivered, while the payment of the penalty was not due at all, since seller´s standard terms were not incorporated into the contract.

Mind, that in international trade in general, and in the flower and plants trade in particular, standard terms are commonly used. Furthermore, mind, that in paragraph 1 of Art. 2.104 of the Principles of European Contract Law is written: “ Contract terms which are not individually negotiated may be invoked against a party which did not know them only if the party invoking them took reasonable steps to bring them to the other party´s attention before or when the contract was concluded.” Paragraph 2 reads: “Terms are not brought appropriately to a party´s attention by a mere reference to them in a contract document, even if that party signs the document.”

Does the buyer have to pay the penalty?

The Easter egg case

The “Valerie Süßwaren GmbH” (V) seated in Aachen sells 10.000 chocolate easter eggs filled with liqueur for 4.000,- Euro to the Dutch company “Andersson BV” (A) seated in Rotterdam. That company wants to deliver the eggs to contract partners in Sweden. According to the sales contract between V and A German law shall be applicable and the goods shall be sent on the 15.01.2015 directly to Sweden; the payment shall be made until 2.2.2015.

Since until 9.2.2015 V hasn´t received payment it calls A and is informed that the eggs had been damaged and cannot be enjoyed. A had received a letter of complaint from its partners in Sweden stating these damages. A is consequently in danger of a loss of reputation and a loss of turn-over. A therefore denies payment and revokes the contract. V on the contrary files a claim against A on the 16.10.2015 in the Landgericht Aachen for payment of the price plus the payment of interests since the 3.2.2015.

Will the court grant the claim of V?

The pork-meat case

In April 2005 a Belgian seller entered into a contract with a German buyer for the sale of pork-meat. The German buyer was a wholesale trader. It was agreed that the meat should be delivered directly to the buyer’s customer X and from there redispatched to the final destination, a company in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The meat was delivered in three instalments during April and May, whereby each delivery was accompanied by a certificate of suitability to consumption. All of the meat arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina on the latest on the 4th of June. The German buyer paid part of the agreed price.

Shortly thereafter, a suspicion arose in both Germany and Belgium that the meat produced in Belgium be contaminated by dioxin. This prompted first Germany, then the EU and afterwards also Belgium to enact a regulation on the subject, requiring inter alia for pork-meat a certificate stating the absence of dioxin. The