Search for cases
CISG-online number
5951
Case name
Colorado Tire Corp. et al. v. Moraglis S.A.
Jurisdiction
USA
Court
Court of Appeals of the State of Washington
Date of decision
01 August 2022
Case nr./docket nr.
82633-6-I
Claimant 1
Respondents 3
Case History
Seller 1
Buyer 1
Category of goods
62: Rubber manufactures, not elsewhere specified
Goods as per contract
2,200 steel radial tires (to be used as supplies for the NATO and the Greek army)
Price
190'850.00 USD (U.S. Dollar)
CISG applied
no, because applicability of the CISG was not raised by the parties to the court proceedings in a timely manner
(Domestic) law applied in addition
Washington law
This decision cites the following other CISG-online case 1
Decision published in 1
Full text of decision 1
by Ulrich G. Schroeter
The Court addressed the CISG - which arguably would have been applicable to the U.S.-Greek sales contract at hand under Art. 1(1)(a) CISG - in paras. 32-34 of the present decision as follows (footnotes omitted):
„CTC first contends the Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) applies to this sales contract and preempts Washington’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provisions on the sale of goods, ch. 62A.2 RCW. In the United States, the CISG is a self-executing treaty with the preemptive force of federal law. R. Speidel, The Revision of UCC Article 2, Sales in Light of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 16 Nw. J. Int’l Law & Bus. 165, 166 (1995); see also Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabate USA, Inc., 328 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir. 2003) (international sales contracts ordinarily governed by CISG when parties to contract do business in states that are parties to the convention).
But CTC did not invoke the CISG or argue federal preemption before the trial court, even on reconsideration. Federal preemption may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Wingert v. Yellow Freight Sys., 146 Wn.2d 841, 853–54, 50 P.3d 256 (2002). A choice-of-law preemption defense is deemed waived if not raised in the trial court. Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 94 F.3d 1260, 1266 (9th Cir. 1996); Rapid Settlements, Ltd.’s Application for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights, 166 Wn.App. 683, 695, 271 P.3d 925 (2012). When CTC answered Moraglis’s complaint, it raised defenses under the UCC; it did not raise the CISG as the applicable law. We conclude CTC waived its federal preemption defense.
Additionally, CTC has not demonstrated that the CISG conflicts with Washington law. When the parties dispute choice of law, there must be an actual conflict between the laws of Washington and the laws of the other state before Washington courts will engage in a conflict of law analysis. Erwin v. Cotter Health Centers, 161 Wn.2d 676, 691, 167 P.3d 1112 (2007). We therefore apply Washington law, as the trial court did.“