Search for cases

CISG-online number
7294
Case name
Kumpers Composites GmbH & Co KG v. TPI Composites Inc.
Jurisdiction
USA
Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Judge
Susan M. Brnovich (District Judge)
Date of decision
25 February 2025
Case nr./docket nr.
CV-23-00214-PHX-SMB
Claimant 1
Name
Kumpers Composites GmbH & Co KG
Place of business
Germany
Role in transaction
Seller
Respondent 1
Name
TPI Composites Incorporated
Place of business
USA
Role in transaction
Buyer
Seller 1
Name
Kumpers Composites GmbH & Co KG
Place of business
Germany
Role in trade
Manufacturer of the goods sold
Buyer 1
Name
TPI Composites Incorporated
Place of business
USA
Role in trade
Manufacturer purchasing goods as supplies for production purposes
Goods as per contract
700 metric tons of UD600 (a carbon fabric)
CISG applicable
yes, Art. 1(1)(a)
CISG applied
yes
(Domestic) law applied in addition
Arizona law
Key CISG provisions interpreted and applied
Art. 8; Art. 11; Art. 14(1); Art. 18(1)
Key CISG provisions interpreted
Art. 8(3)
Key CISG provisions applied
Art. 77
CISG provisions also cited
Art. 4; Art. 6; Art. 7(2); Art. 9(1); Art. 55; Art. 96
Non-provision-specific issues addressed
Contractual force majeure clause; Contractual termination for convenience clause; Framework agreement; Merger clause/entire agreement clause
This decision cites the following other CISG-online cases 29
Buergofol GmbH v. Omega Liner Company, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota
USA, 25 July 2024 – 4:22-CV-04112-KES, CISG-online 7077
Texmont Design Ltd. v. Halston Operating Comp. LLC et al.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
USA, 21 June 2023 – CV 18-10164-CJC (GSJx), CISG-online 6381
Perkins Manufacturing Comp. v. Haul-All Equipment Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 07 May 2020 – 19 cv 03769, CISG-online 5233
Jae Yeon Textile Inc. v. AKM Textile Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
USA, 27 November 2017 – CV 16-05349 SJO (JEMx), CISG-online 3366
Urica, Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
USA, 30 September 2016 – 14-56545, CISG-online 5543
Adonia Holding GmbH v. Adonia Organics LLC et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
USA, 16 December 2014 – CV-14-01223-PHX-GMS, CISG-online 2951
Urica, Inc. v. Pharmaplast S.A.E.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
USA, 08 August 2014 – CV 11-02476 MMM RZX, CISG-online 2952
Simar Shipping Ltd v. Global Fishing, Inc. et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
USA, 29 August 2013 – 12–35471, CISG-online 2491
Maxxsonics USA, Inc. v. Fengshun Peiying Electro Acoustic Comp.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 21 March 2012 – 10 C 1174, CISG-online 2372
Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co. et al. v. PMC Specialties Grp. Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
USA, 20 March 2012 – 1:10cv449, CISG-online 7255
Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Dongbu Hannong Chemical Co., Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
USA, 28 September 2011 – 06 Civ. 3972 (LTS)(JCF), CISG-online 2338
Caffaro Chimica S.r.l. et al. v. Sipcam Agro USA et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
USA, 15 July 2008 – 1:07-CV-2471-MHS, CISG-online 5529
Guang Dong Light Headgear Factory Co. Ltd. v. ACI International Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
USA, 28 September 2007 – 03-4165-JAR, CISG-online 1602
Valero Marketing & Supply Co. v. Greeni Oy
U.S. Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
USA, 19 July 2007 – 06-3390, 06-3525, CISG-online 1510
Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Saint-Gobain Technical Fabrics Canada Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
USA, 31 January 2007 – Civ. 04-4386 ADM/AJB, CISG-online 1435
TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
USA, 23 August 2006 – 00 Civ. 5189 (RCC), CISG-online 1272
American Biophysics Corp. v. Dubois Marine Specialties
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island
USA, 30 January 2006 – C.A. 05-321-T, CISG-online 1176
American Mint LLC et al. v. GoSoftware, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
USA, 06 January 2006 – Civ.A. 1:05-CV-650, CISG-online 1175
Valero Marketing & Supply Co. v. Greeni Oy
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
USA, 15 June 2005 – 01-5254 (DRD), CISG-online 1028
Caterpillar, Inc. et al. v. Usinor Industeel et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 30 March 2005 – 04 C 2474, CISG-online 1007
Amco Ukservice et al. v. American Meter Comp.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
USA, 29 March 2004 – Civ. A. 00-2638, CISG-online 1664
BP Oil International, Ltd. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos de Ecuador (PetroEcuador)
U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
USA, 11 June 2003 – 02-20166, CISG-online 730
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
Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can-Eng Manufacturing Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 29 January 2003 – 01 C 5938, CISG-online 772
St. Paul Guardian Ins. Comp. v. Neuromed Medical Sys. & Support GmbH
U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
USA, 20 December 2002 – 02-6095, 02-6103, CISG-online 3185
St. Paul Guardian Ins. Comp. v. Neuromed Medical Sys. & Support GmbH
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
USA, 26 March 2002 – 00-Civ934 (SHS), CISG-online 615
Asante Technologies, Inc. v. PMC-Sierra, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
USA, 30 July 2001 – C 01-20230 JW, CISG-online 616
MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino S.p.A.
U.S. Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
USA, 29 June 1998 – 97-4250, CISG-online 342
Delchi Carrier, SpA v. Rotorex Corp.
U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
USA, 06 December 1995 – 95-7182, 95-7186, CISG-online 140
This decision cites the following CISG-AC Opinions 3
CISG-AC Opinion No. 1 ‘Electronic Communications under CISG’ (Rapporteur: Christina Ramberg), adopted by the CISG Advisory Council on 15 August 2003
CISG-AC Opinion No. 3 ‘Parol Evidence Rule, Plain Meaning Rule, Contractual Merger Clause and the CISG’ (Rapporteur: Richard Hyland), adopted by the CISG Advisory Council at its 7th meeting in Madrid (Spain) on 23 October 2004
CISG-AC Opinion No. 16 ‘Exclusion of the CISG under Article 6’ (Rapporteur: Lisa Spagnolo), adopted by the CISG Advisory Council following its 19th meeting in Pretoria (South Africa) on 30 May 2014
This decision is cited by 1
JiangSu CorEnergy Semiconductor Co. Ltd v. OEM Group, LLC et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
USA, 03 June 2025 – CV-24-01675-PHX-DWL, CISG-online 7501
Decision published in 1
2025 Westlaw (WL) 603734 [Full text – in English]
Full text of decision 1
Full text of decision
Original language: English