UNCITRAL CLOUT Case 319
German Federal Court of Justice
VIII ZR 287/98 (1999)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Company X (X) (defendant) sold grinding equipment to a Swiss company that made semifinished articles. The Swiss company treated the semifinished articles in a paper machine furnished with X’s grinding equipment. A few days later, the paper machine suffered a total failure, which could have been caused by an operational error or X’s grinding equipment. Meanwhile, the Swiss company sold its treated, semifinished articles to a German paper manufacturer (plaintiff) for use in producing humid tissue paper. Thereafter, the German company notified the Swiss company that rust stains were appearing on finished tissue paper and that a large portion of the semifinished articles tended to develop brown stains. The Swiss company retained an expert to perform an examination. After receiving the expert’s report, the Swiss company notified X that X was liable for the damages observed by the German company and caused by X’s defective grinding equipment. The Swiss company assigned its rights against X to the German company, which sued X. The trial court found that X was not given timely notice of nonconforming goods under the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), barring the Germany company from recovery. The German company appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.