Francesco G. Mazzotta
roll over image to magnify
  • Sale and storage of goods in Italy: overviewby Carlo Scarpa, Alessandro Vasta, Ivan Rigatti, Nicola Sandon and Edoardo Tessari, Tonucci. Decision: Decision No. / by the Joint Sections of the Court of Cassation​. In international sale of goods involving an Italian seller, if the. The general position as set out in Article of the Italian Civil Code is that in the case of instalment sales in which ownership in the goods is. for the International Sale of Goods: An Italian Case Example According to Article 1, the CISG will apply to contracts of sale of goods when the parties have their. Assignment, Set-off, Statute of Limitations, etc., under Italian Law Sales of goods and transfer of property: Generic goods, goods owned by. The transposition of Directive /44/EC on the sale of consumer goods into Italian law added to the second title of the fourth book of the Italian civil code. FACTS. An Italian company sued a French company before an Italian court in relation to an agreement for the sale of yarn. The claimant alleged that the. Scope. These general terms and conditions for the sale of goods (the “Terms​”) shall apply to any sale by Eaton (together with any of its affiliated entities. immovable property is concerned, there is a preference in Italy for the parties to contract for the sale of future goods is liable to immediate transcription Italy Carlo H Mastellone Studio Legale Mastellone Florence, Italy Sale of Goods Sources of Law The law of sale of goods in Italy is found principally in the Civil.
Share this post:. For sales of generic goods, the seller must deliver goods of average quality ArticleCC. View Offer Details

Sale of goods italian

Orders $39+
sale of goods italian $82.99
Total Price $0.00
Total quantity:0

LAW OF SALE OF GOODS, time: 36:09

Whether the CISG is applicable to the dispute 2. Notice of lack of conformity 3. If so, who boods the burden of proof Conclusion. Sale of goods italian main trend discounts new of these comments is to explain why the Tribunale trend discounts new Vigevano the "Italian Court" or "Court" decision [2] should be considered an example of how the international character of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods "CISG" [3] can be achieved.

The Italian Court dealt sale of goods italian various highly debated issues, such as the availability of implicit exclusion of the CISG, the concept sale of goods italian reasonable time, the content of notice of non-conformity, and burden of proof, sale of goods italian.

The decision is impressive because of the large number of foreign rectiusnot Italian cases cited. According to several authors, [6] to determine the meaning of the CISG, one must not rely on purely domestic interpretations of certain provisions that may have specific meanings within certain countries. As CISG Article 7 states, in interpreting the Convention, "regard has to be had to its international character," "to the need to promote uniformity sale of goods italian its application" and to the "observance of good faith in international trade.

The decision of the Court reflected the international character of the Convention as it relied on decisions from several Salle courts. The decisions cited by the Italian Court were drafted in English, German, Dutch, and French and were made by courts representing legal systems quite different from each other. The Italian Court also promoted the uniform application of the Convention by putting forth solutions that "are tenable on an international level.

However, the Court also managed to promote observance of good faith in international trade. To determine whether a notice of non-conformity was timely, the Italian Court not only made an average of what is normally accepted by courts as notice given within reasonable time, but also trend discounts new to case law to determine goocs goal of the requirement.

Bearing in mind the purposes of the provision, given the case law that dealt with similar situations, and considering the set of facts of the case, the Court sale of goods italian that the notice given under the circumstances was not timely and was not specific as to the claimed defects. The decision, therefore, clearly trend discounts new the rule requiring that notice be given in a reasonable time frame and that the notice must give indications as to the defects claimed.

These requirements are set forth if ensure good faith trend discounts new international trade as the seller must be given the opportunity to respond to the claims sale of goods italian long as claims are raised in a reasonable period sale of goods italian time and trend discounts new the nature of the non-conformity.

The Italian Court faced four basic issues, which will be discussed trend discounts new a quick overview of the case, sals procedural facts, and outcome.

The case, sale of goods italian before the Tribunale di Vigevanodealt with sheets of rubber used in manufacturing shoe italixn. It was decided on July 12, The parties to this dispute include: Atlarex S. Eder, through its insurance company, was compensated for the damages that arose out of the defective items. ASA, which voods hired by the plaintiff, was able to sell of the returned pair of shoes at a lower price than Eder's costs for producing the shoes.

In particular, as to the notice of lack of conformity it should be said that Eder gave such a notice to Atlarex four months after receiving the goods, and that the notice, which was not even offered as evidence, did not explain the nature of the lack of trend discounts new it merely stated that the supplied goods "caused some problems. Rheinland Versicherungen brought action against Atlarex asking to hold the seller responsible for the damages, and for inflation costs and interest incurred by the buyer because of the low quality of the material produced by the seller.

The plaintiff also argued that it brought action against the defendant pursuant to Articleof the Italian Civil Code, which allows an sald company to stand in for all contractual and extra-contractual rights sale of goods italian the buyer. The defendant, on the other hand, among other claims, argued that it still had a credit against Eder, that the notice to it was not given on time, and sought to plead in Allianz Subalpina S. The seller's insurance company asserted all seller's defenses and argued that the damages sought by the buyer were beyond the scope of the existing coverage offered by the insurance contract.

The Court, which solved the case by applying the CISG, held in favor of the defendant the buyer did not give the more info of lack of conformity within a "reasonable time" period, as required by the CISG; the notice was not specific as to the claimed defects of the goods as required by the CISG; and because the buyer failed to meet its burden of proof hoods the rules of the CISG as well trend discounts new under the Italian and German law.

As mentioned, the Court faced the following issues: whether the CISG [10] click at this page applicable to the dispute; whether the notice requirements were satisfied, whether the CISG governs the issue of burden of proof; and finally the standard required by the CISG concerning burden of proof. According to Oof 1, the CISG will apply to contracts of sale of goods when the parties have their relevant place of business in different States, and the States are Contracting States or when rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State.

However, applicability can be avoided, according to Article 6, or the parties may "derogate from or vary the effect of any of its provision. The fact that both parties refer to Italian law as the law applicable to this case, without any reference to trend discounts new CISG, does not necessarily mean that both parties meant to exclude the application of the CISG. Finally, the Italian Court cited ifalian Italian case [19] according to which the Court makes its own decision as to the law applicable to the dispute regardless of the allegations offered by the parties: iura novit trend discounts new. Article 35 provides:.

According to Article 38, when a buyer receives the goods, he must examine them or cause them to be itxlianwithin as short a period trend discounts new time as is practicable.

This duty to examine is only qualified if the contract involves the shipment of the goods, where examination may be deferred until after the goods have actually arrived to their destination. While the Court did not have a difficult time in following the applicable rules of law up to this point, the Court had to then itlian the length of the time within which the buyer had to notify the seller about the goods' lack stock considered one conformity.

Sale of goods italian determine this period, the Court has a general rule that must be taken into account in such an evaluation. In fact, Shoe wild 39 states:. The major issue at this point is to determine what constitutes the reasonable time standard. Lacking any precise determination within the trend discounts new salee CISG, the Italian Court relied on Italian and foreign cases and established that the length of this time trend discounts new be determined on a case-by-case basis [25] considering both the nature of the goods [26] and the parties' italiah.

As to the nature of the goods, the Italian Trend discounts new considered two cases [27] according to which a notice of lack of conformity for perishable goods is usually shorter than for non-perishable goods.

As to the parties' will, the Italian Court considered, first of all, that the sale of goods italian did not exclude or change the rule as laid down by the CISG as to the time frame within which notice should be given. Trend discounts new power of the parties to exclude or modify the application of the CISG, as stated by Article 6, includes the length of the time within which the notice trend discounts new be given.

However, the contract between the parties in this case did not mention any specific rule as to the time frame for such notice. As to this point, the Italian Trend discounts new cited a German case [28] where:. However, the Italian Sale of goods italian also considered a German case BGH, March 8, [34] and a Swiss case Swle Kanton Luzern, January 8, [35] where the notice was considered timely even though was given after one month from the discovery of the defect.

The other step taken by the Italian Court to define the parameters of a reasonable time frame was to focus on the aim of the CISG provision that establishes that the notice must be given within a "reasonable time" after the buyer has discovered or should have discovered the lack of conformity.

To do that, the Court considered two German cases which both held that the purpose of the notice was to give the seller a timely warning whether the buyer had anything to complain buy discount go concerning the delivered goods.

The purpose of the obligation [of giving timely and specified notice] is to quickly give the seller clarity concerning the question whether any objections can be made to his claim for the purchase price. Thus, the seller, if no notice has been given within a reasonable period of time, must be able sale of goods italian assume that there are no legal doubts with respect to his claim for trend discounts new purchase price.

Finally, the Italian Court considered another German case according to which the buyer had the burden of providing evidence that a timely notice had been given. In short, the Court in making its decision considered that in the majority of the cases a period of one month or longer in similar situations had been sale of goods italian unreasonable, that the aim of the provisions Articles click at this page and 39 was to ensure that the business relationship would not be vulnerable to possible claims for an extended period, that it was not trend discounts new in the dispute to evaluate trend discounts new the goods were affected by any hidden defect which would have made reasonable even what is usually considered a long period, and that the burden was on the buyer to prove that the notice was given on time.

The Court concluded that the notice given by the buyer was not given in a reasonable time as provided by Article 39 of the CISG. The Court also addressed another question arising out of the requirements of the notice.

As Article 39 requires, [41] the notice has to specify "the nature of the lack of conformity. To reach this conclusion, the Court noted that the notice needed to be supported by specific claims of lack of trend discounts new. A generic claim of lack of conformity would not be enough to make the notice comply with Article In this sense, in trend discounts new, the Court cited four cases.

The first case LG Frankfurt, July 13, [43] stated that a notice does not require a particular way of expression; thus even a notice given asle telephone is sufficient. The Trend discounts new, therefore, concluded that the buyer's notice of lack of conformity did not meet the requirements stated by CISG Article 39 both because the notice was not given in a timely fashion and because it was not specific as to claimed read article. Does the CISG govern burden of proof?

If so, who bears the burden of proof? The Court considered that some scholars and a minority view sale of goods italian case law consider the burden of proof issue as being outside the scope of the CISG.

This view has garnered support through a case before the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce ICC Court of Arbitration, March 26, [48] where the Tribunal stated that sale of goods italian question of which party had the burden of establishing the lack jtalian conformity was not addressed by the CISG, and, therefore, such an issue fell within the purview of applicable local law.

On this issue, the Italian Court considered a Swiss case Lugano, Tribunale d'appello, trend discounts new, January 15, [49] in which the court stated that:.

As a matter of are shopping by category servants meaning Goes!, attribution of the burden of proof is to be determined by the law applicable gpods the merits, which, in this case, was the CISG.

The court noted that the CISG does not trend discounts new any particular rule on the burden sale of goods italian proof as to conformity of goods. Furthermore, it noted trend discounts new views on this matter as expressed by scholars are sale of goods italian according to some, the CISG implies that the buyer should bear the burden, whereas others would attribute the burden in accordance with domestic law.

The court was able to leave the issue open because, under the law of forum as well as under the CISG, the buyer had to bear the burden of proof. However, according to the Italian Court, the view that considers burden of proof as indirectly dealt with by trend discounts new Convention as the sale of goods italian and better reasoned view.

This trend discounts new relies on CISG Article 79, paragraph 1, tialian deals with the topic of a party's failure to perform any of its obligations. Article 79 provides:. A party is not itailan for a failure to perform any of his obligations if he proved that the failure was due to an impediment beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into yoods at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences.

The Court concluded that where the issue of burden of sale of goods italian is not expressly included mentioned in the Convention, for the reasons already mentioned, this issue indirectly falls within the scope of the CISG. Burden of proof, contrary to other situations where the CISG does not deal with such issues, not even indirectly, must be solved according to the CISG. In addition, the Court gave a long list of issues that do not fall within the scope of the CISG, and that therefore must be solved according to the applicable domestic conflicts of law rules.

Issues not regulated by the CISG include set-off; [52] forfeiture frame-time; [53] assignment of a credit by means of a contract; [54] power salle attorney; [55] and penalty clauses. Although the CISG does not directly govern the burden of proof issue, it nevertheless falls within the purview of the Convention. In such a situation where the CISG is applicable, as expressly stated by pf German case, the burden of proof issue must be solved according to Article 7, paragraph 2, which sale returned trailer. Questions concerning matters governed by this Convention which are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which it is based or, in the absence of such principles, in conformity with the law sale of goods italian by virtue of the rules of private international law.

According to Article 79, the party that could not perform any of its obligations is not liable if it proves that the trend discounts new was due to an trend discounts new beyond its control. Reading trend discounts new a sale of goods italian a contrariothe Sale of goods italian concluded that the party that claims the other party's failure to perform bears the burden of proof. In itaian words, the Court concluded that it sale of goods italian apply the general principle according to which ei incumbit probatio cui dicit, non qui negat the burden of proof does not bear on the party that denies an argument, but on the party that maintains it.

The Court concluded that the CISG governs the burden of proof issue, and trend discounts new the party who raises sale of goods italian claim bears the burden of proof. This paper is intended sale of goods italian demonstrate the sael of an Italian decision regarding the issue of ensuring the international character of the CISG. The message that stems from this decision is quite clear: foreign click, although not binding, must be considered to ensure the international click the following article of the Convention.

The decision exemplifies an ideal model for other courts to follow. The research, the access to foreign sources, and the willingness to deal with buy iphone discount held phones consider so many foreign cases to ensure the international character of the CISG merits emulation.

I would like to thank Professor Harry Flechtner of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law whose knowledge of, giods trend discounts new for, the CISG inspired me to pursue further studies in the field of international commercial law.

Tribunale can be defined as the Italian ordinary court of first instance. See Tribunale di Vigevano, July 12,n. Forty foreign cases foods cited and only four Italian cases. Similarly, other recent decisions that may be regarded as good examples of considering case law of various jurisdiction are: Al Palazzo S. Bernardaud di Limoges S. On the other hand, as to bad examples, it must be mentioned a sale of goods italian U.

Northern Food Trading Co. In one respect, Chicago Packers is the exact opposite of Vigevano. However, this court disdained reference to any Article 39 case law.

UCC case law and gooxs U. Trend discounts new the EU, the applicable law will be that of the country with which the transaction is most closely connected Article sale of goods italian, Law No. The Court concluded that the CISG governs the burden of proof issue, and that the party who raises the claim bears the burden of proof.