Data
- Date:
- 26-09-2011
- Country:
- Georgia
- Number:
- 1055-1085-2011
- Court:
- Supreme Court
- Parties:
- --
Keywords
PARTIES OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITY BUT HAVING THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE SAME STATE - CISG NOT APPLICABLE
Abstract
[Case CLOUT no. 1453. Abstract prepared by Mariam Jorbenadze]
A Georgian joint stock company (the buyer) concluded a sales contract with an
individual entrepreneur, a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran (the seller) for the
purchase of polyethylene granules, i.e. plastics. The buyer failed to pay the full
amount of the purchase price to the seller in due time. Accordingly, the seller
brought a claim before the city court, suing for the outstanding amount of the
purchase price referred to in the sales contract. The buyer filed a counter-claim,
suing for damages incurred as a result of a delay in the supply of the goods. Upon
appeal, the final judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court of Georgia, which
upheld the position of the buyer.
The applicability of the CISG was invoked at several points during the proceedings
due to the case’s cross border element, namely that the goods should have been
delivered to Georgia from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Supreme Court of
Georgia shared the position of the lower instance courts on this point. The Court
elaborated on Article 1(1)(a) of the CISG, stating that the Convention applies to
contracts for the sale of goods between the parties whose places of business
(described as commercial enterprises) are located in different States. The sales contract in this case was concluded between a Georgian joint stock company and an
individual entrepreneur, who was a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
However, the Court highlighted the fact that, when concluding the sales contract,
the citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran acted as an individual entrepreneur duly
registered under the laws of Georgia. The Court further noted that the buyer was
also a duly incorporated legal entity under Georgian law and thus the case should be
resolved under domestic law.
Fulltext
Original available at http://prg.supremecourt.ge}}
Source
}}