1. Case 10-5 Case10-5

2. Information Austria,Supreme Court,1996. Austria,Supreme Court,1996. Case No.518/95. Case No.518/95. Osterreichische Zeitschrift fur Rechtsvergleichung,vol.1996,p.248(1996). Osterreichische Zeitschrift fur Rechtsvergleichung,vol.1996,p.248(1996). Details: P440 Details: P440 图解 图解 图解

3. Case 10-5 P440 [the Dutch natural gas reseller] [the Seller] [the Buyer]

4. Case 10-5 PlaintiffDefendant Judge On the court CLAIM CISG articles CISG articles CLAIM CISG articles CISG articles

5. Case 10-5 CLAIM The plaintiff breached this obligation. The buyer who has agreed to open a letter of credit must do so in a timely manner. In the case, however, the plaintiff did not open the letter of credit The buyer who has agreed to open a letter of credit must do so in a timely manner. In the case, however, the plaintiff did not open the letter of credit

6. Case 10-5 CISG article Article 54, ” [t]he buyer ’ s obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and complying with such formalities as may be required under the contract or any laws and regulations to enable payment to be made. ”

7. Case 10-5 CLAIM CLAIM Because of the defendant ’ s breach, the Dutch natural gas reseller had made a subtitute purchase at a price above what the defendant had promised, and latter the plaintiff forwarded the Dutch company ’ s claim for $141131 for increased costs. They sued the defendant to cover their increased costs and plaintiff ’ s loss of profits of $15000. Because of the defendant ’ s breach, the Dutch natural gas reseller had made a subtitute purchase at a price above what the defendant had promised, and latter the plaintiff forwarded the Dutch company ’ s claim for $141131 for increased costs. They sued the defendant to cover their increased costs and plaintiff ’ s loss of profits of $15000. The defendant failed to notify it of the place where the natural gas would be loaded so that plaintiff did not open the letter of credit The defendant failed to notify it of the place where the natural gas would be loaded so that plaintiff did not open the letter of credit

8. Case 10-5 CISG article Article 80: [a] party may not rely on a failure of the other party to perform, to the extent that such failure was caused by the first party ’ s act or omission Article 80: [a] party may not rely on a failure of the other party to perform, to the extent that such failure was caused by the first party ’ s act or omission

9. Case 10-5 The decision of the Court [The Breach] The seller breached the contract [Indemnification] Because the seller breached the contract, the buyer is entitled to be fully indemnified for its losses. The judgment is affirmed.

10. Case 10-5 The decision of the Court [Loss of Profits] The plaintiff, accordingly, is entitled to the $15,000 claimed in lost profits. The plaintiff, accordingly, is entitled to the $15,000 claimed in lost profits. The defendant knew that the plaintiff intended to resell the goods. The defendant knew that the plaintiff intended to resell the goods.

11. Case 10-5 The decision of the Court [Duty to Mitigate] In addition to lost profits, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recoup the $141,131 due the Dutch natural gas reseller. In addition to lost profits, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recoup the $141,131 due the Dutch natural gas reseller.

12. Case 10-5 [Case Points] —P442 In this case, the court considered whether a seller of propane gas had breached its contractual duties by failing to deliver the gas as promised, and if so, what damages were appropriate. Firstly, the court looked at each party ’ s duties under the CISG and found that the buyer was supposed to open a letter of credit. But here, the buyer could not do so because the seller never supplied the necessary information for the letter. Also, the breach was really due to the seller ’ s failure to make proper arrangements to ship the gas, not because of the letter of credit. So, the court concluded that the seller had breached the contract and buyer was entitled to damages. In this case, the court considered whether a seller of propane gas had breached its contractual duties by failing to deliver the gas as promised, and if so, what damages were appropriate. Firstly, the court looked at each party ’ s duties under the CISG and found that the buyer was supposed to open a letter of credit. But here, the buyer could not do so because the seller never supplied the necessary information for the letter. Also, the breach was really due to the seller ’ s failure to make proper arrangements to ship the gas, not because of the letter of credit. So, the court concluded that the seller had breached the contract and buyer was entitled to damages.

13. Case 10-5