国际贸易法

案例10-5 。

天然气案件
奥地利最高法院，1996。

案例518号/ 95 。

Österreichische Rechtsvergleichung ，第一卷。

1996年，第248 （1996）。

在1990年的秋天，原告，一家德国公司，与奥地利的关系伙伴谈判购买天然气。

经过了一系列的磋商与意见，原告1990年12月18日传真给被告，从被告处购买700至800万吨的丙烷气。

被告回应的第二天早上，它可以从美国运送丙烷以376美元每吨交付给原告在比利时，原告同意。

由于双方没有处理彼此之前，原告同意，以确保其购买的信用证。

在12月19日的传真中，原告要求被告确定天然气将被装入一艘油轮在美国，因为原告的银行需要这些信息，然后它会发出信用证。

通过传真，被告回应说，它是在等待从美国得到的信息为装货。

虽然这种交换传真，双方互相交谈的电话。

被告希望原告加大丙烷的订购量，使交易更值得。

原告在响应这一要求，联系了荷兰的天然气经销商，同意购买3000万吨的丙烷$ 381每吨。

原告为了增加了3,000吨。

在1月2日和3日，1991 ，[在没有经过双方同意的情况下，丙烯开始装船托运，原告发出出两个传真要求被告通知丙烷将加载的地方，并说明没有这个信息，银行不会处理其信用证。

1991年1月7日，被告通知原告通过传真，其在美国的供应商不会同意让丙烷气出口到比利时，因此，被告不能提供丙烷。

第二天，原告通知被告的荷兰人自然气体经销商认为，由于被告的违约，提出替代购买什么被告曾承诺上述的价格，和后来原告转发荷兰公司的要求141131美元增加成本。

被告拒绝这种说法，并且，荷兰天然气经销商与原告起诉要求被告赔偿成本增加及原告的损失15000美元的利润。

初审法院裁定原告胜诉，上诉法院确认其决定。

被告上诉到最高法院。

法院的决定：
[违约]
根据合同，原告未开的信用证，原告未提供约定的货物（天然气）。

[联合国国际货物销售合同公约（ CISG ） ]第54条，合同规定，“他买方的义务付出的代价，包括采取这样的步骤，并符合作为可能会被要求根据合同等手续或任何法律，法规，使支付款项。

“鉴于此，在货物买卖合同的买方已同意开放的信用证必须及时这样做。

然而，在手的情况下，原告不开信用证，因为被告没有通知将装载天然气的地方。

这是如此，即使被告已明确承诺在其1990年12月19日的传真中这样做。

被告不能抱怨说，原告未履行其义务， [开一个信用证，作为被告的自己的义务通知原告的地方要装载的货物只好先发生。

被告知道原告知道为了打开信加载的地方，这是被告没有通知原告，导致原
告未能开信用证的装货。

换句话说，原告开信用证的失败是由被告人自己不采取行动造成的。

而且，正如在“销售公约”第80条，“ [ ]方可能不依赖于另一方的失败来执行，通过第一方的作为或不作为的程度，这种故障是由于”。

更重要的是，原告未能打开的信用证不违反本合同的原因。

由于下级法院举行，这是被告未能获得适当的间隙。

丙烷气需要出口到比利时，这是违约的原因。

根据“销售公约”第30条，“ [ T ]他卖方必须将货物交付，交出他们有关的任何文件和转移财产的货物，如按合同规定。

“被告的参数（第一本上诉），这是买方要导入到比利时的货物，必须获得相应的授权是一无是处。

一位买家不一定要问卖家，如果有任何不寻常的限制，可能让卖家执行。

如果卖方不告知此类限制的买方，则卖方可合理假设，这种情况下不存在。

“销售公约”第41条说，“ [t]他卖方交付的货物必须是不受任何权利或要求的第三者”，除非买方已同意接受这样的商品。

如果卖方的供应商将不会允许要出口的货物，物品受到限制。

当然，买方可能同意接受货物反正，但它不会有。

而且，如果买方不同意接受货物，然后，卖家是无法拯救他们，因为限制，它是卖方违反合同。

[赔偿]
由于卖方违反合同，买方有权充分赔偿其损失。

换句话说，非违约方的位置，它会被违约方进行承诺。

此外，违约方不有过失或非法行事，在这样的情况下，负责。

[各方谋求在确定赔偿由于原告申请“销售公约”第75条和76 。

]
在CISG的规定，第75条和76条，授予避免当一方因另一方违反合同的赔偿处理。

然而，由于一直存在违反，并不一定意味着会有一个回避。

CISG不提供避免作为一个法律问题，即使非违约方被剥夺的东西，它预计以避免receive.124 ，根据CISG ，只能由非违约方单方面宣布来。

然而，这样的声明，并没有任何特定形式，也不（载“销售公约”第49（2 ）在这里是不适用的，除某些情况下）是不受任何时间限制。

这种情况下，各方认为CISG中描述的回避，第49（1）条的申报，是否必须作出明示或是否它可以由非违约方的行为暗示。

然而，这样的说法，是无关紧要的，因为它不是仅仅发出通知，构成避免，但非违约方的意图不坚持是重要的合同。

这个意向，而且，一定要明确违约方。

在下级法院的事实的结果表明，原告没有通知被告，这是避免合同。

事实上，原告从来没有声称，它已经给出了这样的通知。

一个也不能意味着该通知仅仅从事实，原告给被告的列表遭受的损失由顾客[荷兰天然气经销商] 。

由于合同不避免，损害不加以确定，按照“销售公约”，第75条和76条，而是]按照“销售公约”第74条来确定。

第74条适用于这些案件的赔偿时，出现由于延迟交付或因为在商品上的一些缺陷。

[利润损失]
这里的情况下，非违约方声称向第三方转售的货物从预期利润的损失，利润损失，只会被认为，如果违约方有理由知道这一预期转售。

当然，当适销商品卖给一个商人，可以预期的转售推定。

被告不提出异议。

事实上，它已经承认知道，原告打算转卖货物。

[原告，因此，有权声称利润损失15,000美元。

[责任减轻]
非违约方不得要求赔偿，包括利润损失，如果它不能做出合理的努力以减轻其损失。

这种努力是合理的，如果一个合理的人在非违约方的位置，他们已承诺在faith.125好
被告辩称，原告违反了这一义务。

然而，证明这种违反的负担是被告，而被告未能满足其负担。

它并没有表现出什么样的原告没有违反这一义务，它不能表明原告有其他的替代品，它做了什么，也没有多少损害会减轻一些另类的行为，如果原告曾从事。

[除了利润方面的损失，因此，原告有权收回由于141131美元荷兰天然气经销商。

上诉法院的决定是肯定的。

CASEPOINT ：在这种情况下，法院认为丙烷气体卖方是否违反了其合同义务的承诺未能提供气体，如果是这样，什么损害是适当的。

首先，法院根据CISG看着每一方的职责，发现，买方本来是要开的信用证。

但在这里，买方不能这样做，因为卖家没有提供必要的信息，为信。

此外，违反真的是由于卖方未能作出妥善安排运送气体，不是因为信用证的。

因此，法院认为，卖方违反合同，买方有权获得赔偿。

Case 10-5. The Natural Gas Case
Austria, Supreme Court, 1996.
Case No. 518/95.
Österreichische Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung, vol. 1996, p. 248 (1996).
In the fall of 1990, the plaintiff, a German company, negotiated to buy natural gas from the defendant, an Austrian partnership. After a series of proposals and counterproposals, the plaintiff faxed the defendant on December 18, 1990, offering to buy 700 to 800 metric tons of propane gas from the defendant. The defendant responded the next morning that it could ship the propane from the United States for delivery to the plaintiff in Belgium for $376 per ton, and the plaintiff agreed. Because the parties had not dealt with each other before, the plaintiff agreed to secure its purchase with a letter of credit. In the December 19 fax, the plaintiff asked the defendant to identify the place in the United States where the gas would be loaded aboard a tanker, because the plaintiff’s bank needed this information before it would issue a letter of credit. The defendant responded by fax, stating that it was waiting to get the information from the United States as to the place of loading.
While this exchange of faxes was taking place, the parties were talking to each other on the telephone. The defendant wanted the plaintiff to order a larger quantity of propane to make the transaction more
worth its time. The plaintiff, in response to this request, contacted a Dutch natural gas reseller that agreed to buy 3,000 tons of propane at $381 per ton. The plaintiff then increased its order by 3,000 tons.
On January 2 and 3, 1991, [not having heard if the propane had been loaded for shipment as the parties had agreed,] the plaintiff sent two faxes to the defendant asking to be notified of the place where the propane would be loaded and stating that its bank would not process the letter of credit without this information. On January 7, 1991, the defendant informed the plaintiff by fax that its U.S. supplier would not agree to let the propane gas be exported to Belgium, and therefore that the defendant could not deliver the propane. The next day the plaintiff notified the defendant that, because of the defendant’s breach, the Dutch natural gas reseller had made a substitute purchase at a price above what the defendant had promised, and later the plaintiff forwarded the Dutch company’s claim for $141,131 for the increased costs. The defendant rejected this claim, and the Dutch gas reseller and the plaintiff sued the defendant to cover their increased cos ts and the plaintiff’s loss of profits of $15,000.
The trial court held in favor of the plaintiff, and the court of appeals affirmed its decision. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision of the Court:
[The Breach]
[Following the making of the contract,] the plaintiff did not open a letter of credit and the plaintiff did not deliver the agreed goods (the natural gas).
The [United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG),] Article 54, provides that “[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.” In light of this, a buyer in a sale of goods contract who h as agreed to open a letter of credit must do so in a timely manner. In the case at hand, however, the plaintiff did not open the letter of credit because the defendant failed to notify it of the place where the natural gas would be loaded. And this was so, even though the defendant had expressly promised to do so in its fax of December 19, 1990. . . . The defendant cannot complain that the plaintiff did not fulfill its obligation [to open a letter
of credit,] as the defendant’s own obligation to notify the plaintiff as to the place where the goods were to be loaded had to happen first. The defendant knew that the plaintiff had to know the place of loading in order to open the letter, and it was the defendant’s failure to notify the plaintiff of the place of loading that led to the plaintiff’s failure to open the letter of credit. . . . In other words, the failure of the plaintiff to open the letter of credit was caused by the defendant’s own failure to act. And, as stated in CISG, Article 80, “[a] party may n ot 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.”
More significantly, the failure of the plaintiff to open a letter of credit was not the reason for the breach of this cont ract. As the lower courts have held, it was the defendant’s failure to obtain the appropriate clearances . . . needed to export the propane gas to Belgium that was the cause of the breach. According to CISG, Article 30, “[t]he seller must deliver the goods, hand over any documents relating to them and transfer the property in the goods, as required by the contract. . . .” The defendant’s argument (first made in this appeal) that it was the buyer that was obliged to obtain the appropriate authorization for the goods to be imported into Belgium is without merit. . . . A buyer is not obliged to ask a seller if there are any unusual restrictions that may keep the seller from performing. If the seller does not inform the
buyer of such restrictions, the seller may reasonably assume that such circumstances do not exist. CISG, Article 41 says that “[t]he seller must deliver goods which are free from any right or claim of a third party” unless the buyer had agreed to accept such goods. If the seller’s supplier will no t allow the goods to be exported, then the goods are subject to a restriction. The buyer, of course, may agree to accept the goods anyway, but it doesn’t have to. And, if the buyer doesn’t agree to accept the goods, and the seller is then unable to deliver them because of the restriction, it is the seller that has breached the contract.
[Indemnification]
Because the seller breached the contract, the buyer is entitled to be fully indemnified for its losses. In other words, the non-breaching party is to be put in the position that it would have been had the breaching party performed as promised. The breaching party, moreover, does not have to be at fault or to have acted illegally to be liable in such a case.
[The parties sought to apply CISG, Articles 75 and 76 in ascertaining the damages due the plaintiff.]
The provisions in the CISG, Articles 75 and 76, deal with the awarding of damages when one party avoids the contract because of a breach by the other party. However, because there has been a breach, does not necessarily mean that there will be an avoidance. The CISG does not provide for avoidance as a matter of law, even if the non-breaching party is deprived of what it expected to receive.124 Avoidance, under the CISG, can only come about by a unilateral declaration of the non-breaching party. Such a declaration, however, does not have to be in any particular form, nor (with the exception of certain cases set out in CISG, Article 49(2) which are inapplicable here) is it subject to any time limit.
The parties to this case argued over whether the declaration of avoidance described in CISG, Article
49(1), had to be made expressly or whether it could be implied from the non-breaching party’s conduct. This argument, however, is irrelevant, because it is not the mere giving of notice that constitutes avoidance, but the non-breaching party’s intention not to adhere to the contract that is important. This intention, moreover, must be clear to the breach party.
The findings of fact in the lower courts suggest that the plaintiff never actually notified the defendant that it was avoiding the contract. Indeed, the plaintiff never claimed that it had given such notice. Nor can one imply that such notice was given merely from the fact that the plaintiff gave the defendant a list of the losses suffered by its customer [the Dutch natural gas reseller].
Because the contract was not avoided, the damages [are not to be determined in accordance with CISG, Articles 75 and 76, but rather] are to be determined in accordance with CISG, Article 74. Article 74 applies to those cases when the damages come about because of delay in delivery or because of some defect in the goods.
[Loss of Profits]
When, as the case here, the non-breaching party is claiming a loss of profits from an expected resale of the goods to a third party, the loss of profits will only be considered if the breaching party had reason to know of this expected resale. Of course, when merchantable goods are sold to a merchant, the expected resale can be presumed. The defendant does not challenge this. Indeed, it has conceded that it knew
that the plaintiff intended to resell the goods. [The plaintiff, accordingly, is entitled to the $15,000 claimed in lost profits.]
[Duty to Mitigate]
A non-breaching party may not claim damages, including a loss of profits, if it fails to make reasonable efforts to mitigate its losses. Such efforts are reasonable if a reasonable person in the position of the non-breaching party would have undertaken them in good faith.125
The defendant argues that the plaintiff breached this obligation. However, the burden of proving such a breach is on the defendant, and the defendant has failed to meet its burden. . . . It has not shown what the plaintiff did to breach this obligation, it has not shown that the plaintiff had other alternatives to what it did, nor has it shown how much the damages would have been lessened if the plaintiff had engaged in some alternative conduct. [In addition to lost profits, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recoup the $141,131 due the Dutch natural gas reseller.]
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
CASEPOINT: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. First, 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 the buyer was entitled to damages.。