Search for cases

CISG-online number
5498
Case name
Golden-Legion Automotive Corp. et al. v. LUSA Industries, Inc.
Jurisdiction
USA
Court
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Judge
Margeret M. Morrow (District Judge)
Date of decision
04 October 2010
Case nr./docket nr.
CV 09-05962 MMM (CWx)
Claimants 2
Name
Golden-Legion Automotive Corporation
Place of business
Taiwan
Role in transaction
Seller
Name
Forerunner Automotive Corporation
Respondent 1
Name
LUSA Industries, Inc.
Place of business
USA
Role in transaction
Buyer
Seller 1
Name
Golden-Legion Automotive Corporation
Place of business
Taiwan
Role in trade
Manufacturer of the goods sold
Buyer 1
Name
LUSA Industries, Inc.
Place of business
USA
Role in trade
Distributor
Category of goods
78: Road vehicles (including air-cushion vehicles)
Goods as per contract
Replacement auto body parts
CISG applicable
no, requirements of Art. 1(1)(a) not met
CISG applied
applicability discussed, but rejected
(Domestic) law applied in addition
California law
Key CISG provisions interpreted and applied
Art. 1(1)(a); Art. 4(a); Art. 11
Non-provision-specific issues addressed
Status of Taiwan under the CISG
This decision cites the following other CISG-online cases 3
Golden Valley Grape Juice and Wine, LLC v. Centrisys Corp. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
USA, 21 January 2010 – CV F 09-1424 LJO GSA, CISG-online 2089
Rice Corp. v. Grain Board of Iraq et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
USA, 19 May 2008 – CIV E-06-1516 GEB DAD, CISG-online 1770
Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté USA, Inc. et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
USA, 05 May 2003 – 02-15727, CISG-online 767
This decision is cited by 2
Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
USA, 31 March 2021 – 3:18-cv-00373-BEN-MSB, CISG-online 5547
Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
USA, 16 March 2021 – 3:18-cv-00373-BEN-MSB, CISG-online 5532
Editorial remark
by Ulrich G. Schroeter
In this decision, the Court ruled that Taiwan (Republic of China) is not a Contracting State to the CISG (para. 16 of the decision). It also (mis-)interpreted Art. 4(a) and 11 CISG by holding if the CISG was applicable to the Taiwanese-U.S. contract at hand, California's statute of frauds would not be preempted by Art. 11 (freedom of form), because the statute of frauds concerns a matter of "validity" not governed by the CISG (Art. 4(a)) (paras. 17, 18 of the decision) – this view is incompatible with the overwhelming majority view among U.S. courts, according to which statutes of frauds are preempted by Art. 11 CISG.
Decision published in 1
2010 Westlaw (WL) 11570941 [Full text – in English]
Full text of decision 1
Full text of decision
Original language: English