Home

Search

 

Case Law:

- Denmark

- Finland

- Iceland

- Norway

- Sweden

 

- Bulgaria

- Estonia

- Latvia

 

- Case by Article

 

CISG Text

Status Chart

AV Conference Book '14

Nordic Judicial Systems

Bibliography

Papers

 

Autonomous CISG Network

Dictionaries

Links to Sources

Media Library

 

Contributors

Citing the Database

Update History

Contact

Copyright

Disclaimer

Cookies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date:   7 April 2007
Court:   The Court of Latgale area of Riga city
Local case reference:   C29160007
CISG Nordic ID:   070418LV
Country of decision:   Latvia
Buyer's country:   Latvia
Seller's country:   Denmark
Goods involved:   Fresh pork meat
Case history:   n/a
Original language:   Latvian
Provisions cited:   CISG articles 14, 18, 23, 53, 62
Original court document:   n/a
Rapporteur:   Aleksandra Vasiljeva
Case citations:   n/a

 

Abstract

by Aleksandra Vasiljeva

The Danish seller (plaintiff) sued the Latvian buyer for payment of the purchase price and legal costs. In January 2006, the Seller entered into a contract with the Buyer for the sale of fresh pork meat. The contract implied two deliveries from the Seller to the Buyer. The Seller stated that the first installment was delivered to the Buyer on 17 July 2006. The Buyer accepted the delivery by signing the CMR waybill. The second installment was delivered on 24 July 2006 and the Buyer accepted it by signing the CMR waybill.
The Seller claimed that the Buyer never raised any objections against the quality of the goods. However, the Latvian company paid only part of the purchase price. The remaining part, amounting to LVL 24,106.47 was not paid. The Seller demanded the payment of the remaining purchase price and legal costs. The Seller sued the Buyer in the Court of Latgale area of Riga city (lower court). The Seller relied on Articles 19, 1587, 1590, 2004 and 2033 of the Latvian Civil Code (hereinafter CL) and on Articles 14, 18, 23, 53 and 62 of the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) in order to support its claims.
The Buyer did not respond to the Court’s official invitation to come to the court hearings. The Court ascertained that there was The Buyer’s signature on every waybill that was issued to the Latvian company by the Seller, which serves as a proof of the acceptance of the goods by the Buyer. Moreover, the Buyer never raised any objections concerning the quality of the goods or the purchase price.
The Court applied Article 1587 CL according to which, ‘a legally concluded contract obliges the party to perform it. The party can not rely on the hardship that appeared later or on the exceptional financial burden in order to be excused from the performance of its obligations.’
For the abovementioned reasons The Court held that the Seller’s claim was sustained and should be fully satisfied.

 

 

Translated text

n/a

 

Original text

n/a.

 

 

  © 2015 Thomas Neumann | Privacy Policy | Cookies | Disclaimer