Data
- Date:
- 25-10-2019
- Country:
- China
- Number:
- Court:
- Beijing No 2 Intermediate People's Court
- Parties:
- Re Beijing Boyuan Ruida Trading Co Ltd
Keywords
DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CHINESE PARTIES - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - CHINESE COURT CONFIRMING THE SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE CLAIMANT EVEN IF WITHOUT CLEAR REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
FORSEEABILITY OF HARM - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Abstract
The defendant bank, in breach of contract, failed to extend credit to the plaintiff but submitted that the trading losses the plaintiff suffered under contracts with its buyers were ‘unforeseeable’ and hence not recoverable.
The first-instance court rejected the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that such trading losses were not proved and that they were not ‘foreseeable’ by the bank.
During the appeal, counsel for the plaintiff argued that the bank was able to foresee the type of the losses sustained by the plaintiff, relying upon Article 7.4.4 of the PICC and its Official Comment. Unlike Judge Yuan in his comment to the Zhejiang Xinlong case (alerady in Unilex), the appellate court chose not to express a view on the point and upheld the first-instance decision solely on the ground that the trading losses were not proved.
Summary of the decision extracted from Qiao Liu, The PICC in Chinese Courts, Uniform Law Review, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp. 472–491
Fulltext
}}
Source
}}