Magellan International Corporation V. Salzgitter Handel Gmbh

1019 Words5 Pages
By virtue of Article 28, it has restrict the buyer and the seller rights to require specific performance. As this can be seen in the case of Magellan International Corporation v Salzgitter Handel GmbH, where the court held that when the CISG enable a party to claim specific performance, Article 28 will allows the seized court to look for alternative reliefs under its own substantive law in a like case. Also, in the same case, the court held that if the national law would grant specific performance and it is no conflict with the CISG, this means that there is no problem arises. If the national law disallow to grant specific performance, then the alternative relief is to award damages. This is shown in the case of Zurich Chamber of Commerce which heard on 31 May 1996, where the Arbitral Tribunal pointed out that Russian law rejected to grant specific performance. Thus, pursuant to CISG, a judgment for specific performance cannot be entered if the national Court rejected such claim. The Arbitral Tribunal then awarded the buyers damages for their actual loss.…show more content…
This means that the creditor may resort to both options at the same time. This has been provided under the case of ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 2004 where the Arbitral Tribunal held that the claim for liquidated damages does not exclude a simultaneous claim for specific performance. Thus, in the final decision, the Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the claims for specific performance under the specific performance provision of CISG could co-exist with the claims for liquidated damages under liquidated damages

More about Magellan International Corporation V. Salzgitter Handel Gmbh

Open Document