United Nations A/CN.9/SER.

C/ABSTRACTS/51
General Assembly Distr.: General
26 January 2006

Original: English

UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON

INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

CASE LAW ON UNCITRAL TEXTS

(CLOUT)

Contents
Page

I. Cases relating to the United Nations Sales Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Case 574: CISG 1 (1) (a); 6; 7 (2); 30; 35; 74—United States: U.S. [Federal] District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois; No. 01 CV 5938, Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can
Eng Manufacturing Ltd. (29 January 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Case 575: CISG 1 (1) (a); 6; 7 (1); 9 (2); 36 (1); 39 (1); 40—United States: [U.S.] Court
of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; No. 02 20166, BP Oil International, Ltd. and BP Exploration &
Oil, Inc. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos de Ecuador et al. (11 June 2003; corrected 7 July
2003) .................................................................... 4
Case 576: CISG 1 (1) (a); 8 (3); 11; 14; 18; 19 (3); 23; 29—United States: U.S. [Federal]
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; No. 02 15727, Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté
USA Inc. (5 May 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Case 577: CISG 1 (1) (a); 38; 39—United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Northern
District of Illinois; No. 01 CV 4447, Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food
Trading Co. (28 May 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Case 578: CISG 8; 9; 25; 29; 38; 39; 64; 71-73—United States: U.S. [Federal] District
Court for the Western District of Michigan; No. 1:01-691, Shuttle Packaging Systems,
L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A. and Ina Plastics Corporation (17 December 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Case 579: CISG 1 (1) (a); 4 (a); 7 (1); 9; 11; 14 (1); 16 (2) (b); 18 (3); 60 (a)—United
States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New York; Nos. 98CIV861
(RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr
Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002 - opinion on rehearing) . . . . . . . . . . 8
Case 580: CISG 1 (1) (a); 7; 35 (2) (b)—United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit; No. 00 1125, Schmitz-Werke GmbH + Co. v. Rockland Industries,
Incorporated (21 June 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Index to this issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

V.06-50748 (E) 270306 270306

*0650748*
A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

Introduction
This compilation of abstracts forms part of the system for collecting and
disseminating information on Court decisions and arbitral awards relating to
Conventions and Model Laws that emanate from the work of the United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Information about the
features of that system and about its use is provided in the User Guide
(A/CN.9/SER.C/GUIDE/1/REV.1). CLOUT documents are available on the
UNCITRAL website (http://www.uncitral.org).
Issues 37 and 38 of CLOUT introduced several new features. First, the table of
contents on the first page lists the full citations to each case contained in this set of
abstracts, along with the individual articles of each text which are interpreted by the
Court or arbitral tribunal. Second, the Internet address (URL) of the full text of the
decisions in their original language are included, along with Internet addresses of
translations in official United Nations language(s), where available in the heading to
each case (please note that references to websites other than official United Nations
websites do not constitute an endorsement by the United Nations or by UNCITRAL
of that website; furthermore, websites change frequently; all Internet addresses
contained in this document are functional as of the date of submission of this
document). Third, abstracts on cases interpreting the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration
Law now include keyword references which are consistent with those contained in
the Thesaurus on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial
Arbitration, prepared by the UNCITRAL Secretariat in consultation with National
Correspondents, and in the forthcoming UNCITRAL Digest on the UNCITRAL
Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Finally, comprehensive
indices are included at the end, to facilitate research by CLOUT citation,
jurisdiction, article number, and (in the case of the Model Arbitration Law)
keyword.
Abstracts have been prepared by National Correspondents designated by their
Governments, or by individual contributors. It should be noted that neither the
National Correspondents nor anyone else directly or indirectly involved in the
operation of the system assumes any responsibility for any error or omission or
other deficiency.

Copyright © United Nations 2006

Printed in Austria

All rights reserved. Applications for the right to reproduce this work or parts thereof are welcome and
should be sent to the Secretary, United Nations Publications Board, United Nations Headquarters, New
York, N.Y. 10017, United States of America. Governments and governmental institutions may reproduce
this work or parts thereof without permission, but are requested to inform the United Nations of such
reproduction.

2
 A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

Cases relating to the United Nations Sales Conventions (CISG)

Case 574: CISG 1 (1) (a); 6; 7 (2); 30; 35; 74

United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Northern District of Illinois;
No. 01 CV 5938
29 January 2003
Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can Eng Manufacturing Ltd.
Published in English: 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1306; 2003 Westlaw 223187;
http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030129u1.html
Abstract prepared by Peter Winship, National Correspondent
The issue before the court was whether the claims of the buyer should be dismissed
before trial on the ground that there was no genuine issue as to material fact and the
seller was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The seller, a company with its place of business in Ontario, Canada, agreed to sell a
fluidized bed furnace to the buyer, an Illinois corporation with its place of business
in the United States. The parties’ contract provided that the seller would repair or
replace, at its option, any defects in workmanship or material which might develop
under normal use during a period of 90 days after the date of shipment. The contract
also provided that repair or replacement under this provision constituted the seller’s
full liability with respect to the furnace and that the seller was not liable for
consequential damages. The contract was to be governed by the laws of the
Province of Ontario.
During the four years following shipment, the buyer encountered numerous
difficulties with the furnace. The buyer notified the seller of the difficulties and the
seller attempted many repairs without charge to the buyer. All the buyer’s notices
were given after 90 days from shipment. The buyer sued the seller for breach of
contract and warranties. The buyer moved to dismiss the suit before trial. As to most
claims, the court declined to grant summary judgment.
The court found that the parties’ contract was governed by the Convention because
the parties had their places of business in two different Contracting States pursuant
to art. 1(1)(a) CISG. The court also found that the parties had not agreed to exclude
application of the Convention according to art. 6 CISG. The contract term making
the laws of Ontario govern was read to be a reference to the Convention as the
relevant law applicable in Ontario. Although the buyer’s pleadings made claims
under the domestic sales law of Ontario rather than the Convention, the court
concluded that the pleadings gave legally sufficient notice of claims under the
Convention.
As for the buyer’s claim that the seller had breached express terms with respect to
the quality of the furnace (art. 35(1) CISG), the court declined to grant summary
judgment because there remained an issue of material fact as to whether the seller
had waived the 90-day contract clause or was stopped from enforcing that clause.
The court stated that the Convention did not address the issue of waiver and it
applied the laws of Ontario to fill the perceived gap. On the basis of art. 7(2) CISG.
On the same ground, the court declined to grant summary judgment with respect to
the buyer’s claim that the seller had breached its obligations to deliver a furnace fit
for its ordinary use and fit for the buyer’s particular use (art. 35(2)(a), (2)(b) CISG)

3
A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

The court further found that the parties had not agreed to exclude these obligations
as per art. 6 CISG.
The court did, however, grant summary judgment with respect to the buyer’s claims
for damages for consequential losses. The court stated that the contract term
excluding such damages was enforceable according to art. 6 CISG. It also stated that
the buyer had failed to produce evidence that the losses were foreseeable by the
seller (art. 74 CISG).

Case 575: CISG 1 (1) (a); 6; 7 (1); 9 (2); 36 (1); 39 (1); 40

United States: [U.S.] Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; No. 02 20166
11 June 2003; corrected 7 July 2003
BP Oil International, Ltd. and BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. Empresa Estatal
Petroleos de Ecuador et al.
Published in English:
(1) Federal Reporter (Third Series) 332, 333,
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/02/02-20166-cv0.pdf
(2) Correction: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/02/02-20166-
cv1.pdf, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13595, 2003 Westlaw 21523355
Abstract prepared by Peter Winship, National Correspondent
The issue before the court was whether the claim of the buyer should be dismissed
before trial on the ground that there was no genuine issue as to material fact and the
seller was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The seller, a corporation with its place of business in the United States, agreed to
sell 140,000 barrels of unleaded gasoline to the buyer, a corporation with its place
of business in Ecuador. The contract provided that the gasoline’s gum content was to
be less than three milligrams per one hundred milliliters as determined by a third
party before shipment. Delivery was to be “CFR La Libertad-Ecuador.” The contract
form stated “Jurisdiction: Laws of the Republic of Ecuador”.
The third party certified that the gum content limitation was satisfied before
shipment. However, the buyer tested the oil after receiving it at La Libertad and
found that the limit was not satisfied. The buyer refused to accept delivery of the oil
and drew upon a letter of guarantee. The seller sold the oil to its supplier for a loss
and sued the buyer for breach of contract and wrongful draw upon the letter of
guarantee. The district court, applying domestic Ecuadorian law, granted summary
judgment for the buyer. The seller appealed.
The appellate court concluded that the contract was governed by the Convention
because the parties had their places of business in two different Contracting States
pursuant to art. 1(1)(a) CISG. Applying an “affirmative opt-out requirement”
because it best promoted uniform application of the Convention and good faith in
international trade, the court also found that the parties had not excluded application
of the Convention by their choice of the laws of Ecuador to govern the contract
when Ecuador was a Contracting State (art. 6 CISG).
The court found that the seller had not breached its contract with respect to the
quality of the oil sold because the gasoline conformed at the time that risk of loss
passed to the buyer. (art. 36(1) CISG). The court also stated that Incoterms are
“incorporated” into the Convention under article 9(2) because they are well known

4
 A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

in international trade even if their use is not global. The relevant Incoterm states
that the risk of loss passes when the goods pass the ship’s rail. Having appointed a
third party to inspect the gasoline before shipment, the buyer ought to have
discovered the nonconformity (“defect”) before the gasoline was shipped according
to art. 39(1) CISG. Only if the seller “knew or could not have been unaware” of the
nonconformity at the time that risk passed would the seller be responsible on the
basis of art. 40 CISG.
The appellate court therefore reversed the lower court decision and remanded the
case to determine whether the seller had provided nonconforming gasoline by
failing to add sufficient gum inhibitor.

Case 576: CISG 1 (1) (a); 8 (3); 11; 14; 18; 19 (3); 23; 29
United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; No. 02 15727
5 May 2003
Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté USA Inc.
Published in English: Federal Reporter (Third Series) 328, 528;
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1A2AF3B55A2B5FC988256
D1A007A6C99/$file/0215727.pdf?openelement
Abstract prepared by Peter Winship, National Correspondent
The issue before the court was whether it should dismiss the suit because the parties
had agreed to an exclusive forum selection clause designating a foreign court.
The buyer, a company in Ontario, Canada, concluded several contracts with a
corporation, with its place of business in the United States, to purchase specialty
wine corks manufactured by that corporation’s parent company in France. The
parent company supplied the corks but the buyer alleged that contrary to the seller’s
representations the corks did not prevent “cork taint,” a distasteful flavour left by
some corks. The buyer brought suit for breach of contract against both the parent
and subsidiary companies. The sellers moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that
the buyer was bound by a forum selection clause printed in the sellers’ invoices paid
by the buyer. The district court dismissed the suit and the buyer appealed.
The appellate court stated that the Convention governed whether the parties had
agreed to a choice of forum clause because the parties had their places of business
in different Contracting States pursuant to art. 1(1)(a) CISG.
The court found that the forum selection clause on the invoices was not binding
because the clause materially altered the offer as per art. 19(3) CISG. The court also
found no evidence that the buyer had affirmatively agreed to the clause under
art. 8(3) CISG. The appellate court therefore reversed the district court’s dismissal
of the case.

5
A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

Case 577: CISG 1 (1) (a); 38; 39

United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Northern District of Illinois;
No. 01 CV 4447
28 May 2003
Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food Trading Co.
Published in English: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/RACER2/index.html [, 2003
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9122, 2003 Westlaw 21254261,
http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030529u1.html]
Abstract prepared by Peter Winship, National Correspondent
The issue before the court was whether judgment on the seller’s claim for the price
should be rendered without trial or the claim dismissed for failure to state a claim
for which relief can be granted.
The seller, a Delaware corporation with its place of business in Illinois, agreed to
sell 40,500 pounds of pork ribs to the buyer, a company with its place of business in
Quebec, Canada. At the time of the sale the pork ribs were stored in a cold storage
plant. Two and one-half weeks after the sale, a carrier hired by the buyer picked up
the ribs and delivered them to a processor. The carrier issued a non-negotiable bill
of lading with the notation “property above in apparent good order,” while the
processor noted in its receiving log that the condition of the ribs was “good with the
exception of 21 boxes that had holes gouged in them and the meat inside shows
signs of freezer burn.” U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors subsequently
inspected the ribs and ordered their destruction because of spoilage. The buyer
notified the seller refused to pay the purchase price. The seller sued the buyer to
recover the price. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
The court ruled that the contract was governed by the Convention (art. 1(1)(a)
CISG) and that when it did so the Convention pre-empted domestic U.S. law.
However, the court stated that case law interpreting analogous provisions in
domestic sales law might be consulted when the language of the Convention tracked
that of those provisions.
The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the
buyer had examined the ribs “within as short a period as practicable under the
circumstances.” The court therefore refused to render summary judgment for either
party.

Case 578: CISG 8; 9; 25; 29; 38; 39; 64; 71-73

United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Western District of Michigan;
No. 1:01-691
Shuttle Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A. and Ina Plastics
Corporation
17 December 2001
Published in English: 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21630; 2001 WL 34046276
Abstract prepared by Peter Winship, CLOUT National Correspondent
United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Western District of Michigan;
No. 1:01-691
17 December 2001

6
 A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

Shuttle Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A. and Ina Plastics
Corporation
Published in English: 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21630; 2001 WL 34046276
Abstract prepared by Peter Winship, National Correspondent
The issue before the court was whether it should issue a preliminary injunction
forbidding the seller from making sales in breach of a non-competition agreement.
A company with its place of business in the United States concluded a contract with
two companies, one of which had its place of business in Greece, for the purchase of
equipment to be used to manufacture plastic gardening pots. The contract provided
that the parties would conclude a non-competition agreement and they subsequently
did so. The sellers delivered the equipment. The buyer later ceased to make the
agreed progress payments, alleging that the equipment was nonconforming and that
the sellers had breached the non-competition agreement. The buyer brought suit
claiming breach of the non-competition agreement, breach of contract, and breach
of warranty. It asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction with respect to the
breach of the non-competition agreement.
The court declined to issue a preliminary injunction. It concluded, among other
matters, that the buyer was unlikely to succeed at a trial on the merits.
In a preliminary assessment, the court found that the Convention was the governing
law with respect to all issues other than the non-competition agreement. The court
concluded that the buyer had committed a fundamental breach by failing to make
agreed progress payments. On the basis of art. 25 CISG. This entitled the sellers to
avoid the contract of sale and non-competition agreement or to suspend their
obligations under these agreements pursuant to arts. 64, 71-73 CISG. The court also
concluded that the alleged nonconformities in the equipment did not constitute a
fundamental breach by the sellers.
The court applied the Convention when rejecting several arguments made by the
sellers. In response to the defense that there was no consideration for the
non-competition agreement, the court ruled that the agreement was supported by
consideration for the contract of sale and that the Convention (art. 29 CISG)
provided that contract modifications are enforceable without regard to
consideration. In response to the argument that the territory covered by the
non-competition agreement was not sufficiently defined, the court applied the
Convention’s rules on the meaning of the parties’ statements (art. 8 CISG) and
course of dealing (art. 9 CISG) to interpret the agreement as sufficiently definite. In
response to the sellers’ argument that they were not bound by the non-competition
agreement because the buyer had breached the sales transaction first by failing to
duly notify the sellers of the alleged nonconformities (arts. 38, 39 CISG), the court
found that notice was timely because the equipment was unique, complicated,
delivered in installments and subject to training and on-going repairs.

7
A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

Case 579: CISG 1 (1) (a); 4 (a); 7 (1); 9; 11; 14 (1); 16 (2) (b); 18 (3); 60 (a)
United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New York;
Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS)
10 May 2002; 16 August 2002 (opinion on rehearing)
Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al.
Published in English:
(1) Federal Supplement (Second Series) 201, 236
(2) Opinion on rehearing: 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15442, 2002 Westlaw
1933881,
http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/020821u1.html
Abstract prepared by Peter Winship, National Correspondent
The issues before the court included whether the plaintiff’s claims of breach of
contract, promissory estoppel, negligence and negligent misrepresentation should be
dismissed on the ground that there was no genuine issue as to material fact and the
alleged seller was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation with its place of business in the
United States, sought to develop, manufacture and distribute a generic
anti-coagulant drug to treat blood clots. To develop the drug, the plaintiff obtained
sample amounts of clathrate from defendant, a company with its place of business in
Ontario, Canada. The defendant also supplied a reference letter in support of the
plaintiff’s application to the Federal Drug Administration for approval to
manufacture and distribute the anti-coagulant drug. Prior to FDA approval, the
defendant concluded an exclusive purchase agreement with a third party. Following
FDA approval, plaintiff sent a purchase order to defendant for 750 kg. of clathrate.
The defendant did not accept the plaintiff’s order and denied that it was obligated to
sell calthrate to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging, among other
claims, that the defendant had breached a contract, was estopped from rejecting the
order, had been negligent and had made negligent misrepresentations. The defendant
moved for summary judgment on these claims.
The court concluded that the Convention governed the breach of contract claim. The
court found that the plaintiff had alleged facts, including an industry usage that
buyers could rely on implied supply commitments, that would support a finding that
the plaintiff’s initial proposal was an offer (art. 14(1) CISG). Noting that the
plaintiff alleged an industry usage that the provision of a reference letter is an
acceptance, the court also found that there were sufficient facts to support a finding
that the defendant had accepted the offer based on art. 18(3) CISG. The court also
found that there was consideration to support the alleged contract and that the
contract was therefore not invalid under applicable domestic law pursuant to
art. 4(a) CISG. Under the alleged “implied-in-fact” contract, defendant was
obligated to supply calthrate if the plaintiff gave it commercially reasonable notice
of an order. The court declined to render summary judgment on this claim because
there were material facts in dispute.
With respect to the plaintiff’s claim under domestic law that it had relied on
defendant’s promise so that the promise was binding as if it were a contract, the
court concluded that this claim was not preempted by the Convention. The court
distinguished plaintiff’s claim from claims specifically addressed by the Convention

8
 A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

(art. 16(2)(b) CISG). The court declined to render summary judgment on this claim
because there were material facts in dispute.
With respect to the claims of negligence and negligent misrepresentation, the court
concluded that the claims were outside the scope of the Convention. Applying
domestic law, the court rendered summary judgment for the defendant on these
claims.

Case 580: CISG 1 (1) (a); 7; 35 (2) (b)

United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit; No. 00 1125
21 June 2002
Schmitz-Werke GmbH + Co. v. Rockland Industries, Incorporated
Published in English: Federal Appendix, 37, 687;
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001125.U.pdf
Abstract prepared by Peter Winship, National Correspondent
The issue before the appellate court was whether to affirm a judgment for the buyer
that awarded damages to the buyer for losses resulting from the delivery of
nonconforming goods.
The buyer, a German company with its place of business in Germany, concluded
several contracts with the seller, a Maryland corporation with its place of business
in the United States, for the purchase of drapery fabric. During initial negotiations a
representative of the seller stated that the fabric was suitable for transfer printing.
The buyer purchased increasingly larger amounts of the fabric notwithstanding
problems with transfer printing. The buyer brought suit against the seller for breach
of its obligation to deliver conforming goods. The district court entered judgment
for the buyer. The seller appealed.
The appellate court stated that the Convention governed the contract on the basis of
art. 1(1)(a) CISG. It also stated that gaps in the Convention were to be filled by
Maryland law if the Convention or the general principles on which it was based did
not provide a solution (art. 7(2) CISG).
The court concluded that the buyer could recover for breach of the seller’s
obligation to deliver fabric that satisfied the buyer’s particular use (art. 35(2)(b)
CISG) by showing the fabric was not satisfactory for transfer printing without the
additional need to show the particular defect that caused this failure. Ruling that the
Convention was silent on the issue, the court applied applicable state law to
determine whether the buyer must establish that a particular defect caused the loss.
[This opinion was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter.
Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c) sets out rules for citing this opinion in U.S. courts.]

9
A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

Index to this issue

I. Cases by jurisdiction

United States of America

Case 574: CISG 1 (1) (a); 6; 7 (2); 30; 35; 74—United States: U.S. [Federal]
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; No. 01 CV 5938, Ajax Tool
Works, Inc. v. Can Eng Manufacturing Ltd. (29 January 2003)
Case 575: CISG 1 (1) (a); 6; 7 (1); 9 (2); 36 (1); 39 (1); 40—United States: [U.S.]
Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; No. 02 20166, BP Oil International, Ltd. and BP
Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos de Ecuador et al.
(11 June 2003; corrected 7 July 2003
Case 576: CISG 1 (1) (a); 8 (3); 11; 14; 18; 19 (3); 23; 29—United States: U.S.
[Federal] Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; No. 02 15727, Chateau des Charmes
Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté USA Inc. (5 May 2003)
Case 577: CISG 1 (1) (a); 38; 39—United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court,
Northern District of Illinois; No. 01 CV 4447, Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v.
Northam Food Trading Co. (28 May 2003)
Case 578: CISG 8; 9; 25; 29; 38; 39; 64; 71-73—United States: U.S. [Federal]
District Court for the Western District of Michigan; No. 1:01-691, Shuttle
Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A. and Ina Plastics Corporation
(17 December 2001)
Case 579: CISG 1 (1) (a); 4 (a); 7 (1); 9; 11; 14 (1); 16 (2) (b); 18 (3); 60 (a)—
United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New York;
Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology
Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002—opinion on
rehearing)
Case 580: CISG 1 (1) (a); 7; 35 (2) (b)—United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of
Appeals, Fourth Circuit; No. 00 1125, Schmitz-Werke GmbH + Co. v. Rockland
Industries, Incorporated (21 June 2002)

II. Cases by text and article

United Nations Sales Convention (CISG)

CISG 1 (1) (a)
Case 574: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois; No. 01 CV 5938, Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can Eng Manufacturing Ltd.
(29 January 2003)
Case 575: United States: [U.S.] Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; No. 02 20166, BP
Oil International, Ltd. and BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos
de Ecuador et al. (11 June 2003; corrected 7 July 2003)
Case 576: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit;
No. 02 15727, Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté USA Inc. (5 May 2003)

10
 A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

Case 577: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Northern District of
Illinois; No. 01 CV 4447, Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food Trading
Co. (28 May 2003)
Case 579: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New
York; Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002—
opinion on rehearing)
Case 580: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit; No. 00
1125, Schmitz-Werke GmbH + Co. v. Rockland Industries, Incorporated
(21 June 2002)
CISG 4 (a)
Case 579: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New
York; Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002—
opinion on rehearing)
CISG 6
Case 574: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois; No. 01 CV 5938, Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can Eng Manufacturing Ltd.
(29 January 2003)
Case 575: United States: [U.S.] Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; No. 02 20166, BP
Oil International, Ltd. and BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos
de Ecuador et al. (11 June 2003; corrected 7 July 2003)
CISG 7
Case 580: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit;
No. 00 1125, Schmitz-Werke GmbH + Co. v. Rockland Industries, Incorporated
(21 June 2002)
CISG 7 (1)
Case 575: United States: [U.S.] Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; No. 02 20166, BP
Oil International, Ltd. and BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos
de Ecuador et al. (11 June 2003; corrected 7 July 2003)
Case 579: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New
York; Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002—
opinion on rehearing)
CISG 7 (2)
Case 574: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois; No. 01 CV 5938, Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can Eng Manufacturing Ltd.
(29 January 2003)
CISG 8
Case 578: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Western District of
Michigan; No. 1:01-691, Shuttle Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A.
and Ina Plastics Corporation (17 December 2001)

11
A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

CISG 8 (3)
Case 576: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit;
No. 02 15727, Chateau des Charmes
CISG 9
Case 578: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Western District of
Michigan; No. 1:01-691, Shuttle Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A.
and Ina Plastics Corporation (17 December 2001)
Case 579: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New
York; Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002—
opinion on rehearing)
CISG 9 (2)
Case 575: United States: [U.S.] Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; No. 02 20166, BP
Oil International, Ltd. and BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos
de Ecuador et al. (11 June 2003; corrected 7 July 2003)
CISG 11
Case 576: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit;
No. 02 15727, Chateau des Charmes
Case 579: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New
York; Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002—
opinion on rehearing)
CISG 14
Case 576: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit;
No. 02 15727, Chateau des Charmes
CISG 14 (1)
Case 579: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New
York; Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002—
opinion on rehearing)
CISG 16 (2) (b)
Case 579: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New
York; Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002—
opinion on rehearing)
CISG 18
Case 576: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit;
No. 02 15727, Chateau des Charmes
CISG 18 (3)

12
 A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

Case 579: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New
York; Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002—
opinion on rehearing)
CISG 19 (3)
Case 576: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit;
No. 02 15727, Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté USA Inc. (5 May 2003)
CISG 23
Case 576: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit;
No. 02 15727, Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté USA Inc. (5 May 2003)
CISG 25
Case 578: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Western District of
Michigan; No. 1:01-691, Shuttle Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A.
and Ina Plastics Corporation (17 December 2001)
CISG 29
Case 576: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; No. 02
15727, Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté USA Inc. (5 May 2003)
Case 578: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Western District of
Michigan; No. 1:01-691, Shuttle Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A.
and Ina Plastics Corporation (17 December 2001)
CISG 30
Case 574: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois; No. 01 CV 5938, Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can Eng Manufacturing Ltd.
(29 January 2003)
CISG 35
Case 574: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois; No. 01 CV 5938, Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can Eng Manufacturing Ltd.
(29 January 2003)
CISG 35 (2) (b)
Case 580: United States: U.S. [Federal] Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit;
No. 00 1125, Schmitz-Werke GmbH + Co. v. Rockland Industries, Incorporated
(21 June 2002)
CISG 36 (1)
Case 575: United States: [U.S.] Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; No. 02 20166, BP
Oil International, Ltd. and BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos
de Ecuador et al. (11 June 2003; corrected 7 July 2003)
CISG 38
Case 577: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Northern District of
Illinois; No. 01 CV 4447, Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food Trading
Co. (28 May 2003)

13
A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/51

Case 578: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Western District of
Michigan; No. 1:01-691, Shuttle Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A.
and Ina Plastics Corporation (17 December 2001)
CISG 39
Case 577: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Northern District of
Illinois; No. 01 CV 4447, Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food Trading
Co. (28 May 2003)
Case 578: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Western District of
Michigan; No. 1:01-691, Shuttle Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A.
and Ina Plastics Corporation (17 December 2001)
CISG 39 (1)
Case 575: United States: [U.S.] Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; No. 02 20166, BP
Oil International, Ltd. and BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos
de Ecuador et al. (11 June 2003; corrected 7 July 2003)
CISG 40
Case 575: United States: [U.S.] Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; No. 02 20166,
BP Oil International, Ltd. and BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. Empresa Estatal
Petroleos de Ecuador et al. (11 June 2003; corrected 7 July 2003)
CISG 60 (a)
Case 579: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court, Southern District of New
York; Nos. 98CIV861 (RWS), 99CIV3607 (RWS), Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al. (10 May 2002; 16 August 2002—
opinion on rehearing)
CISG 64
Case 578: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Western District of
Michigan; No. 1:01-691, Shuttle Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A.
and Ina Plastics Corporation (17 December 2001)
CISG 71-73
Case 578: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Western District of
Michigan; No. 1:01-691, Shuttle Packaging Systems, L.L.C. v. Tsonakis, Ina S.A.
and Ina Plastics Corporation (17 December 2001)
CISG 74
Case 574: United States: U.S. [Federal] District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois; No. 01 CV 5938, Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can Eng Manufacturing Ltd.
(29 January 2003)

14