Data

Date:
30-04-2014
Country:
China
Number:
(2014) Min Shen Zi No. 266
Court:
Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China
Parties:
C&J Sheet Metal Co. Ltd v. Wenzhou Chenxing Machinery Co. Ltd

Keywords

SELLER'S LIABILITY FOR LACK OF CONFORMITY OF THE GOODS - NEED FOR THE BUYER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF THEREOF

Abstract

[Draft abstract prepared by Bi Qianyun and Zhang Ruichen, ZUEL-SUR School of Law and Economics, Wuhan]

The case involves a dispute over an international sales contract between a U.S. buyer and a Chinese seller. The U.S. buyer appealed the judgment rendered by the Zhejiang Provincial Higher People's Court in 2013 before the Supreme Court. In its claim, the buyer alleged that the machinery supplied by the seller was defective and that the seller had failed to provide relevant documents and customs clearance, thus breaching the contract. Moreover, the buyer argued that Chinese law should apply to the contract and contested the translation of the contract text provided by the seller. In response, the seller contended that the evidence presented by the buyer was not sufficient to prove the existence of the defects in the machinery and that it had correctly performed the contract. Further, it insisted that CISG was applicable and that the translation of the contract document was accurate and binding on the buyer.

The Supreme Court determined that the dispute arose from an
international sales contract and that the parties had their place of business in different countries, both of which were signatories to the Convention. The Supreme Court then confirmed that the inferior courts had correctly decided that CISG applied to the case at hand (Art. 1(1)(a) CISG).
Regarding the discrepancies between the translations of the contract document exhibited by both parties, the Court concluded that the buyer’s acceptance during the trial of the translation provided by the buyer as to those clauses in the contract concerning payment modalities was to be considered binding on the buyer.

Also, the Court found that the seller had duly performed its contractual obligations, while the buyer had not provided sufficient evidence that the failure of the machinery after some months of use was due to a lack of quality imputable to the seller.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the buyer’s claim.

Fulltext

}}

Source

Original in Chinese and English Translation:
available at www.cisg-online.ch}}