Search for cases

CISG-online number
2216
Case name
MITEC Automotive AG v. Ford Motor Company
Jurisdiction
Germany
Court
Oberlandesgericht Jena (Court of Appeal Jena)
Chamber
7. Zivilsenat (7th panel for civil matters)
Judges
Michael Weber (Presiding Judge), Gerhard Linsmeier (Judge), Sabine Langer (Judge)
Date of decision
10 November 2010
Case nr./docket nr.
7 U 303/10
Claimant 1
Name
MITEC Automotive AG
Place of business
Germany
Role in transaction
Seller
Respondent 1
Name
Ford Motor Company
Place of business
USA
Role in transaction
Buyer
Case History
MITEC Automotive AG v. Ford Motor Company
Landgericht Meiningen (District Court Meiningen)
Germany, 25 March 2010 – HKO 78/08, CISG-online 3065
decision on jurisdiction and on the applicable law
Present decision affirming
MITEC Automotive AG v. Ford Motor Company
Bundesgerichtshof (German Supreme Court)
Germany, 05 July 2011 – VIII ZR 314/10, CISG-online 3082
declaring appeal inadmissible
MITEC Automotive AG v. Ford Motor Company
Landgericht Meiningen (District Court Meiningen)
Germany, 29 November 2012 – HKO 78/08, CISG-online 3076
decision on merits
MITEC Automotive AG v. Ford Motor Company
Oberlandesgericht Jena (Court of Appeal Jena)
Germany, 08 December 2015 – 5 U 1042/12, CISG-online 2664
affirming
MITEC Automotive AG v. Ford Motor Company
Landgericht Meiningen (District Court Meiningen)
Germany, 22 November 2018 – HK O 78/08, CISG-online 4671
Seller 1
Name
MITEC Automotive AG
Place of business
Germany
Role in trade
Manufacturer of the goods sold
Buyer 1
Name
Ford Motor Company
Place of business
USA
Role in trade
Manufacturer purchasing goods as supplies for production purposes
Category of goods
74: General industrial machinery and equipment, not elsewhere specified, and machine parts, not elsewhere specified
Goods as per contract
„Balancers“ (car parts reducing movement and noise of car motors) (amount: 300,000, later 450,000 annually for the years 2002–2006)
CISG applicable
yes
CISG applied
yes
Key CISG provisions applied
Art. 8
CISG provisions also cited
Art. 4(a); Art. 6; Art. 7(1); Art. 57(1)(a)
This decision cites the following other CISG-online cases 3
Multimedia recorders case
Oberlandesgericht Celle (Court of Appeal Celle)
Germany, 24 July 2009 – 13 W 48/09, CISG-online 1906
Machinery case
Bundesgerichtshof (German Supreme Court)
Germany, 31 October 2001 – VIII ZR 60/01, CISG-online 617
Vine wax case
Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken (Court of Appeal Zweibrücken)
Germany, 31 March 1998 – 8 U 46/97, CISG-online 481
This decision is cited by 4
Rotary compound liners case
Landgericht Hamburg (District Court Hamburg)
Germany, 17 July 2017 – 419 HKO 57/15, CISG-online 2925
Used Opel Vivaro Combi case
Landgericht Fulda (District Court Fulda)
Germany, 29 September 2015 – 2 O 681/14, CISG-online 2716
Blue poppy case
Oberlandesgericht Naumburg (Oberlandesgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt) (Court of Appeal Naumburg)
Germany, 13 February 2013 – 12 U 153/12, CISG-online 2455
MITEC Automotive AG v. Ford Motor Company
Landgericht Meiningen (District Court Meiningen)
Germany, 29 November 2012 – HKO 78/08, CISG-online 3076
Decision published in 4
Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des Internationalen Privatrechts (IPRspr) (2010), No. 59, 127–128 [Leitsatz (headnote) – in German]
BetriebsBerater (BB) (2011), 130 [Leitsatz (headnote) – in German]
BetriebsBerater (BB) (2011), 468 [Abstract – in German]
Internationales Handelsrecht (IHR) (2011), 79–82 [Full text – in German]
European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)
ECLI:DE:OLGTH:2010:1110.7U303.10.0A
Case identifier in the old Albert H. Kritzer Database
101110g1
Full text of decision 1
Full text of decision
Original language: German