Data

Date:: 01-08-2013
Country:: Russian Federation
Number:
Court:: Supreme Commercial Court of Russian Federation
Parties:: Samson Distribution v. Taneko

Keywords

SUPPLY CONTRACT BETWEEN A GERMAN COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

CONTRACT NOT EXPRESSLY SPECIFYING COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF GOODS - SELLER UNDER DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE INFORMATION ABOUT ORIGIN OF GOODS DELIVERED - REFERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH AS LAID DOWN IN ART.304 OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND IN ART. 1.7 (1) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

Abstract

A German company and a Russian company entered into a supply contract. The contract did not provide for a specific country of origin of the goods, but Germany was implicitly intended. When the Russian buyer found out that the German seller supplied goods not from Germany but from Russia, it successfully brought an action claiming price reduction plus the payment of the litigation costs. The German seller, in turn, objected that this would amount to an unjust enrichment of the buyer as the contract did not provide for a specific country from which the goods were to be supplied.

The Court found that, since in the course of the court proceedings the seller did not contest the different origin of the goods supplied, it could not invoke unjust enrichment on the part of the buyer. Moreover, in application of the fundamental principle of good faith as stated in Art. 304 of the Russian Civil Code, as well as in Art. 1.7(1) of the UNIDROIT Principles, the German seller was under a duty to provide reliable information about the origin of the goods supplied therefore liable for damages in case of breach of that duty.

Fulltext

}}

Source

}}