Search for cases

CISG-online number
847
Case name
Paprika powder case II
Jurisdiction
Germany
Court
Bundesgerichtshof (German Supreme Court)
Chamber
VIII. Zivilsenat (8th panel for civil matters)
Judges
Dr. Katharina Deppert (Presiding Judge), Dr. Dieter Wolst (Judge), Dr. Dietrich Beyer (Judge), Monika Hermanns (Judge), Ulrich Wiechers (Judge)
Date of decision
30 June 2004
Case nr./docket nr.
VIII ZR 321/03
Claimant 1
Place of business
Spain
Role in transaction
Seller
Respondent 1
Place of business
Germany
Role in transaction
Buyer
Case History
Paprika powder case II
Landgericht Stade (District Court Stade)
Germany, 11 April 2003 – 8 O 63/02, CISG-online 3228
Paprika powder case II
Oberlandesgericht Celle (Court of Appeal Celle)
Germany, 24 September 2003 – 3 U 134/03, CISG-online 3229
affirming
Present decision reversing and remanding
Seller 1
Place of business
Spain
Role in trade
Producer of the goods sold
Buyer 1
Place of business
Germany
Role in trade
Producer purchasing the goods as supplies for production purposes
Category of goods
7: Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, and manufactures thereof
Goods as per contract
Paprika powder and oil
Price
30'816.00 EUR (Euro)
CISG applicable
yes, Art. 1(1)(a)
CISG applied
yes
Key CISG provisions applied
Art. 39(1); Art. 40
CISG provisions also cited
Art. 1(1)(a); Art. 44; Art. 36
Non-provision-specific issues addressed
Burden of proof
This decision cites the following other CISG-online cases 8
Milk powder case
Bundesgerichtshof (German Supreme Court)
Germany, 09 January 2002 – VIII ZR 304/00, CISG-online 651
La San Giuseppe v. Forti Moulding Ltd.
Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
Canada, 31 August 1999 – 98-CV-142493CM, CISG-online 433
Coke case III
ICC International Court of Arbitration
Arbitration, 06. 1999 – 9187 (Final Award), CISG-online 705
Dryblend for the production of PVC tubes case
Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Court of Appeal Koblenz)
Germany, 11 September 1998 – 2 U 580/96, CISG-online 505
Beijing Light Automobile Co., Ltd v. Connell Limited Partnership
Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)
Arbitration, 05 June 1998, CISG-online 379
Cashmere clothing case
Oberlandesgericht München (Court of Appeal Munich)
Germany, 11 March 1998 – 7 U 4427/97, CISG-online 310
Foil case I
Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Court of Appeal Karlsruhe)
Germany, 25 June 1997 – 1 U 280/96, CISG-online 263
Fallini Stefano & Co. snc v. Fordic BV
Rechtbank Roermond (District Court Roermond)
Netherlands, 19 December 1991 – 900336, CISG-online 29
This decision is cited by 7
Flanges case III
Landgericht Wuppertal (District Court Wuppertal)
Germany, 11 March 2020 – 11 O 79/18, CISG-online 5266
Byttebier Hout NV v. Société Forestière du Maine SAS
Hof van Beroep Antwerpen (Court of Appeal Antwerp)
Belgium, 04 March 2020 – 2017/AR/68, CISG-online 6268
Chinese wire rod case II
Bundesgericht/Tribunal fédéral (Swiss Federal Supreme Court)
Switzerland, 02 April 2015 – 4A_614/2014, CISG-online 2592
Paprika powder case IV
Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court)
Austria, 14 February 2012 – 10 Ob 4/12d, CISG-online 2308
Used car case II
Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Court of Appeal Hamm)
Germany, 02 April 2009 – 28 U 107/08, CISG-online 1978
Pamesa Ceramica v. Yisrael Mendelsohn Ltd.
Supreme Court of Israel
Israel, 17 March 2009 – CA 7833/06, CA 8125/06, CA 8495/06, CISG-online 1980
Italian tiles case IV
Landgericht Bayreuth (District Court Bayreuth)
Germany, 10 December 2004 – 32 O 508/04, CISG-online 1131
Editorial remark
by Ulrich G. Schroeter
In the present decision, the German Supreme Court deals with the burden of proof under Art. 40 CISG. After confirming that the burden of proof is a matter impliedly governed by the CISG, the Supreme Court refers to German and foreign CISG law and holds that under Art. 40 CISG, it is generally the buyer who bears the burden of proving that the seller "knew or could not have been unaware" of the goods' non-conformity. However, the Supreme Court points out that it may be appropriate in certain cases to lower the standard of proof in this regard, e.g. if the facts to be proven are exclusively within the seller's sphere of control.
Decision published in 5
Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) (2004), 3181–3183
Internationales Handelsrecht (IHR) (2004), 201–203
Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) (2004), 788
Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht (MDR) (2004), 1305
European Legal Forum (EuLF) (2004), 385
CLOUT number
773
Case identifier in the old Albert H. Kritzer Database
040630g1
Comments on this decision 4
Harry M. Flechtner, 'Moving Through Tradition Towards Universalism under the U.N. Sales Convention (CISG): Notice of Lack of Conformity (Article 39) and Burden of Proof in the Bundesgerichtshof Opinion of 30 June 2004', in: J. Erauw, V. Tomljenović & P. Volken (eds.), Liber Memorialis Petar Šarčević: Universalism, Tradition and the Individual, Munich: Sellier. European Law Publishers (2006), 457–470 [– in English]
Tobias Malte Müller, 'Die Beweislastverteilung für die Bösgläubigkeit des Verkäufers im Rahmen des Art. 40 CISG - zugleich Anmerkung zum Urteil des BGH vom 30. Juni 2004', Internationales Handelsrecht (IHR) (2005), 16–20 [– in German]
Ingo Saenger & Elisabeth Sauthoff, 'Anmerkung zum Urteil des BGH vom 30.6.2004 - VIII ZR 321/03 (zur Beweislast für die Bösgläubigkeit des Käufers nach Art. 40 CISG)', LMK – Kommentierte BGH-Rechtsprechung (LMK) (2004), 201–202 [– in German]
Martin Schmidt-Kessel, 'Anmerkung zu BGH, 30.6.2004 – VIII ZR 321/03', Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht (EWiR) (2005), 345–346 [– in German]
Full text, translation and abstract of decision 3
Abstract of decision
CLOUT Abstract 773 (Language: English)
Full text of decision
Original language: German
Translation of decision
Language: English
translated by
Birgit Kurtz