Netherlands Arbitration Institute Case No. 2319
Netherlands Arbitration Institute
Case No. 2319, CISG-online 740 (2002)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Several companies (collectively, the seller) (defendant) conducted exploratory activities in the gas fields of the Netherlands. The exploration of gas fields generated a liquid product, or condensate. The seller’s condensate was known as Rijn Blend. Rijn Blend, like other condensates, had varying chemical compositions. There was no industry standard for mercury levels in condensate. Rijn Blend could be used for different refining processes. Prior to 1993, a major international oil refinery (the buyer) (plaintiff) contracted to purchase Rijn Blend from the seller. For the first two years, there were no issues relating to levels of mercury in the Rijn Blend. In June 1998, the buyer refused delivery of the product. The buyer normally resold the Rijn Blend, but unexpectedly higher levels of mercury in the condensate had made it unacceptable for further processing or sales. To cover the buyer’s refusal to take delivery, the seller agreed to sell the Rijn Blend to several third parties (cover transactions). The cover transactions were for a substantially reduced price, or about $6.3 million less than the contract price. The seller initiated an arbitration against the buyer, arguing that their contract did not call for any specific quality requirements. The buyer argued that the Rijn Blend was nonconforming under the relevant standard of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.