Skip to main content

Shanghai Shenhe Import and Export Co., Ltd v Itochu Commercial Co., Ltd of Japan

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Selected Chinese Cases on the UN Sales Convention (CISG) Vol. 1

Part of the book series: Selected Chinese Cases on the CISG ((SCCCISG))

  • 196 Accesses

Abstract

In March 1996, the Nanjing Office of Itochu Corporation of Japan (hereinafter referred to as Nanjing Office) negotiated with Jiangyin Jiangcheng Chemical Raw Material Company of Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as Jiangcheng Company) for Jiangcheng Company to import styrene from Nanjing Office. Jiangcheng Company entrusted Shanghai Shenhe Trading Company (known as Shanghai Shenhe Import and Export Co., Ltd. after restructuring in 1998, hereinafter referred to as Shenhe Company) with the right to operate the import and export business. On April 2, 1996, Shenhe Company and Nanjing Office signed the JHI9605 purchase and sales contract. According to the contract, Nanjing Office will supply 1500 tons of styrene produced in Japan or South Korea to Shenhe Company; the unit price is US$650 per ton CFR Jiangyin (cost and freight, the port of destination is Jiangyin), and the total payment is US$975,000; payment shall be made by irrevocable usance letter of credit 90 days after the date of bill of lading; specification: polymer 10 ppm max, polymerization inhibitor 15–20 ppm, etc. The goods arrived at Jiangyin Port, China on April 24, 1996. On May 24, 1996, the content of polymerization inhibitor was inspected by the Commodity Inspection Bureau, and the evaluation conclusion was that the content of polymerization inhibitor of the goods did not meet the contract requirements. The Japanese commodity inspection report also made it clear on the quality of styrene supplied by Nanjing Office that “the commodity inspection sample is from shore tank, and the content of polymerisation inhibitor is 12.5 ppm.” In this regard, Jiangcheng Company sent letters to Nanjing Office on 15 May, 21 May, and 24 May of the same year, asking for negotiation. Nanjing Office replied to Jiangcheng Company on 17 May, 24 May, and 28 May, saying that the content of polymerization inhibitor meets the contract requirements and there is no quality problem. On 30 May, Jiangcheng Company added 11.8 kgkg of polymerization inhibitor to the storage tank at the request of Nanjing Office. On July 24, 1996, Shenhe Company paid Nanjing Office US$974,840.10 (equivalent to RMB 8,120,223.06 according to the foreign exchange rate on that day) on behalf of Jiangcheng Company, and paid import tariff and value-added tax of RMB 2,233,233.17. From June to September 1996, Jiangcheng Company and Nanjing Office negotiated on the risk transfer of goods, the quality of goods, and the amount of compensation, but no agreement was reached.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case law of UNCITRAL. Case 1112. June 24, 2006. United Nations Commission on international trade law.

  2. 2.

    Case law of UNCITRAL. Case 1371. October 18, 2007. United Nations Commission on international trade law.

  3. 3.

    3 F.R. 332,333, http://www.ca.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/02/02-20166-cv0pdf (2) Correction: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/02/02-20166-cv1.pdf.

  4. 4.

    Liu [1], pp. 100–108.

  5. 5.

    [1999] Oberlandesgerichts-Rechtsprechungsreport Celle, 360.

  6. 6.

    Internationale Jute Maatschappij BV v. Marin Palomares SL.

  7. 7.

    The buyer did not report the defects found after inspection to the seller, but asked for a price reduction according to the low-speed market situation of cowhide. The seller refused to reduce the price. The tribunal noted that even if the buyer had given notice in time, it had violated its obligation to mitigate losses under Article 77 CISG. In this regard, the tribunal noted that the buyer did not provide evidence that the cowhide was sold at loss due to its alleged defects.

  8. 8.

    UNCITRAL case law. Case 343. 9 May. 2000. United Nations Commission on international trade law. The German seller delivered 8000 video recorders and other electrical appliances to the Swiss buyer, the defendant. The buyer stated that the seller only delivered the instructions in German, but not in other languages commonly used in Switzerland. The court stated that if the buyer was entitled to these instructions, it would order them elsewhere rather than ask the seller to deliver them. The buyer's conduct violated his obligation to mitigate losses under Article 77 CISG.

  9. 9.

    [2000] transportrecht intermationales handelsrecht. The German seller (plaintiff) sold 12,600 kg of venison to the Belgian buyer (defendant). The contract provides for the shipment of meat to Antwerp. Shipment will be made after payment of invoice. Shortly after the conclusion of the contract, the seller informed the buyer that part of the venison would be transported to Brussels by air. The seller asked the buyer to receive the goods in Brussels and Antwerp and invoice for the two batches. The buyer refused to receive the goods in Brussels. The seller then offered to deliver all the goods to Antwerp within the time limit specified in the contract and stressed its demand for immediate payment. The buyer failed to pay, claiming that the seller had refused to perform the provisions of the contract on the place of performance. The seller then filed a complaint for liquidated damages. The court held that as long as the contract remained in force, Article 77 did not provide in principle that the party seeking to claim the other party's breach of contract was obliged to mitigate the loss caused by the non-performance of the sales contract through alternative sales.

  10. 10.

    http://witz.jura.uni-sb.de/ClSG/decisions/120601.htm. A judgment of the court of appeal of Paris, France, stated that the plaintiff was obliged to mitigate the loss in accordance with Article 77 CISG. The Court pointed out that if the inventory was resold and if the amount of the investment agreement could be amortized in different ways, the loss claimed by the plaintiff—the loss of profits and the cost of unusable raw materials—might not be so large.

  11. 11.

    [1994]0berlandesgerichtsrechusprechungs-ReportHamm27.The German buyer proposed to purchase ten batches of “encapsulated” bacon from the plaintiff's Italian seller. In reply to the buyer's offer, the seller mentioned “unpacked” Bacon. However, in its reply to the seller, the buyer did not object to the change of wording. After sending four shipments, the buyer refused to accept further shipments. Therefore, the seller declared the contract null and void and sold the remaining six batches at a price much lower than the market price and the agreed purchase price. The seller requires payment of loss fee, unpaid price and interest. In order to evaluate the loss, the calculation method must first be considered in accordance with Article 75 CISG. However, in order to reduce the loss, the seller is obliged to resell the goods for profit (Article 77 CISG). Since the seller could not resell the goods at a price higher than the market price, the market price at the place of shipment, rather than at the seller's place of business, was used in the calculation method provided for in Article 76 CISG.

  12. 12.

    Case law of UNCITRAL. Case 130. January 14, 1994. United Nations Commission on international trade law.

  13. 13.

    Case law of UNCITRAL. Case 1403. December 8, 2000. United Nations Commission on international trade law.

Reference

  1. Liu Y (2013) CISG derogation rules and their application in China. Presentday Law Sci 11(06):100–108

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mengsha Yang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yang, M. (2022). Shanghai Shenhe Import and Export Co., Ltd v Itochu Commercial Co., Ltd of Japan. In: Guo, P., Zuo, H., Zhang, S. (eds) Selected Chinese Cases on the UN Sales Convention (CISG) Vol. 1. Selected Chinese Cases on the CISG. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65250-3_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65250-3_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-65249-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-65250-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics