Search for cases

CISG-online number
740
Case name
Rijn Blend oil case
Arbitral Tribunal
Nederlands Arbitrage Instituut
(Netherlands Arbitration Institute)
Seat of the arbitration
Rotterdam (Netherlands)
Arbitrators
Filip De Ly (Presiding arbitrator (Chairperson)), E.J. van Sandick (Co-arbitrator), L. Tjioe (Co-arbitrator)
Date of decision
15 October 2002
Case nr./docket nr.
2319
Claimants 13
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Place of business
Netherlands
Role in transaction
Seller
Respondent 1
Place of business
United Kingdom
Role in transaction
Buyer
Sellers 13
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Place of business
Netherlands
Buyer 1
Place of business
United Kingdom
Category of goods
33: Petroleum, petroleum products and related materials
Goods as per contract
Condensate crude oil mix ("Rijn Blend")
CISG applicable
yes, agreement of the parties
CISG applied
yes
Key CISG provisions applied
Art. 7; Art. 8; Art. 35; Art. 39(1); Art. 71; Art. 73; Art. 74; Art. 75; Art. 77
CISG provisions also cited
Art. 6; Art. 9; Art. 40; Art. 46; Art. 50; Art. 78; Art. 85
This decision is cited by 1
KT MOTORSPORT spol. s r.o. v. Garage Vandecasteele NV
Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Supreme Court of the Czech Republic)
Czech Republic, 29 September 2022 – 23 Cdo 1062/2021, CISG-online 6766
Decision published in 2
Internationales Handelsrecht (IHR) (2003), 283–292 [Text (excerpt) – in English]
Tijdschrift voor Arbitrage (TvA) (2003), 22 [Text (excerpt) – in English]
CLOUT number
720
Case identifier in the old Albert H. Kritzer Database
021015n1
Comments on this decision 3
Andrea L. Charters, 'Fitting the “Situation”: The CISG and the Regulated Market', 4 Washington University Global Studies Law Review (Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev.) (2005), 1–42, at 34–35 [– in English]  
Eun-Bin Kim, 'An Arbitral Case Study on Burden of Proof for Non-Conformity of Goods Under CISG', 32(3) Journal of Arbitration Studies (J. Arb. Stud.) (2022), 71–91, at 85–86 [– in English]  
Djakhongir Saidov, 'Article 35 of the CISG: Reflecting on the Present and Thinking about the Future', 58 Villanova Law Review (Vill. L. Rev.) (2013), 529–552, at 535–538 [– in English]  
Full text and abstract of decision 2