Search for cases

CISG-online number
441
Case name
Attorneys Trust and CMC Magnetics Corp. v. Videotape Computer Products Inc.
Jurisdiction
USA
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Date of decision
20 August 1996
Case nr./docket nr.
95-55410
Claimants 2
Name
Attorneys Trust
Place of business
USA
Role in transaction
Seller’s assignee
Name
CMC Magnetics Corp.
Place of business
Taiwan
Role in transaction
Seller
Respondent 1
Name
Videotape Computer Products Inc.
Place of business
USA
Role in transaction
Buyer
Seller 1
Name
CMC Magnetics Corp.
Place of business
Taiwan
Role in trade
Manufacturer of the goods sold
Buyer 1
Name
Videotape Computer Products Inc.
Place of business
USA
Role in trade
Dealer / Trader
Category of goods
89: Miscellaneous manufactured articles, not elsewhere specified
Goods as per contract
Videotape housings
CISG applicable
left open
CISG applied
no, because the CISG's applicability had not been timely raised by the party relying thereon
(Domestic) law applied in addition
California law
This decision is cited by 1
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
Editorial remark
by Ulrich G. Schroeter

The dispute that lead to these court proceedings resulted from a sales contract between a Taiwan seller and a U.S. buyer. The only reference to the CISG in the present appellate decision can be found in its para. 6:

"CMC’s final attempt to avoid the district court’s judgment consists of its assertion that the district court erred because it should have applied the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. That would have led to the application of the law of Taiwan to this case, says CMC. However, this claim is too little too late. Assuming that Taiwan is a party to the Convention, «[a] party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of a foreign country shall give notice by pleadings or other reasonable written notice.» Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. The failure to raise the issue results in application of the law of the forum, here California. See [...]. The parties cited only California law to the district court. Indeed, they cite only California law to us. The district court did not err."

Case identifier in the old Albert H. Kritzer Database
960820u1
Comment on this decision 1
James E. Bailey, 'Facing the Truth: Seeing the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods as an Obstacle to a Uniform Law of International Sales', 32 Cornell International Law Journal (Cornell Int'l L.J.) (1999), 273–317, at 283 [– in English]  
Full text of decision 1
Full text of decision