Search for cases

CISG-online number
3046
Case name
Target Corp. v. JJS Developments Ltd
Jurisdiction
USA
Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Judge
Joan N. Ericksen (District Judge)
Date of decision
09 February 2018
Case nr./docket nr.
16-cv-1184 (JNE/TNL)
Claimant 1
Name
Target Corporation
Place of business
USA
Role in transaction
Seller
Respondent 1
Name
JJS Developments Ltd operating as ERS International
Place of business
USA
Role in transaction
Buyer
Seller 1
Name
Target Corporation
Place of business
USA
Buyer 1
Name
JJS Developments Ltd operating as ERS International
Place of business
USA
Category of goods
76: Telecommunications and sound-recording and reproducing apparatus and equipment
Goods as per contract
Returned, damaged or defective televisions
CISG applicable
no, Art. 1(1) (non-applicability of the CISG to domestic sales contract)
CISG applied
no, applicability discussed, but denied
(Domestic) law applied in addition
Minnesota law
Key CISG provisions applied
Art. 10(a)
CISG provisions also cited
Art. 1(1)
This decision cites the following other CISG-online cases 2
VLM Food Trading Int'l, Inc. v. Illinois Trading Comp. et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
USA, 10 April 2014 – 13-1799 & 13-1697, CISG-online 2810
Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food Trading Co.
U.S. Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
USA, 23 May 2005 – 04-2551, CISG-online 1026
Editorial remark
by Ulrich G. Schroeter
The present decision concerns a dispute between Target, a major U.S. supermarket chain, and ERS, a company in the business of asset disposition services, about the sale of damaged or returned televisions by Target to ERS. Although the contract between the parties contained a Canadian business address for ERS, the court found that ERS's relevant "place of business" under Art. 10(a) CISG was in Indianapolis (U.S.A.), where ERS maintained a facility and infrastructure for transport, inspection, repair and repackaging, disassembly and recycling, rerouting and disposal of TVs and other electronic products. Accordingly, the contractual relationship was a domestic one between two parties with their places of business in the U.S.A., and the CISG did not apply (Art. 1(1) CISG: "This Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States...").
Decision published in 1
2018 Westlaw (WL) 809587 [Full text – in English]
Comments on this decision 2
Kristen David Adams & Candace M. Zierdt, 'C.I.S.G.', 74 Business Lawyer (Bus. Law.) (2019), 1311–1317, at 1317 [– in English]  
William P. Johnson, Willem den Hertog, Martin Aquilina & Samuel G. Wieczorek, 'International Contracts Committee', 53 The Year in Review: An Annual Publication of the ABA/Section of International Law (ABA/SIL YIR) (2019), 61–78, at 64–65 [– in English]  
Full text of decision 1
Full text of decision
Original language: English