Search for cases

The present decision briefly addresses the status of Taiwan under the CISG, albeit without providing any detailed reasoning. The respective passage (in para. 25 of the decision) reads in translation (emphases added):

"Where the respective contractual obligations have to be performed must be determined in accordance with the substantive law applicable via the forum's rules of conflict of laws (lex causae; German Supreme Court, Judgment of 27 April 2010 – IX ZR 108/09 –, BGHZ 185, 241–252, para. 15, juris, referring to European Court of Justice, Judgment of 6 October 1976 – Tessili, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1977), 491). In the present case, Art. 4(1)(a) of the Rome I Regulation determines that contracts for the sale of goods are governed by the law of the country where the seller has his habitual residence. In this context, primarily the CISG is decisive (Thorn in Palandt, BGB, 79th ed., Art. 4 Rom I-VO para. 5), but this Convention is presently inapplicable. According to its Art. 1(1), the CISG applies only if both States in which the parties have their place of business are CISG Contracting States, or if the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a CISG Contracting State. Neither is the case here, because the seller Y[...] has its place of business in Taiwan, and Taiwan is (in contrast to Switzerland) not a Contracting State of the CISG. As a consequence, Art. 4(1)(a) of the Rome I Regulation results in the place of performance of Y[...]'s claim for payment of the contract price having to be determined in accordance with Taiwanese law."