Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Germany 29 January 1996 Lower Court Augsburg (Shoe case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960129g1.html]
Primary source(s) for case presentation: Case text
<http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?
not provided notice in that time, it provided notice one and one half years later;
therefore [Buyer]'s claim on lack of conformity with the contract is not relevant.
[Seller] has a claim against [Buyer] in the amount of DM 1,032. 96. The judgment by
default is maintained in this amount, when, as here [Seller] claims interest for delay in
payment.
II. In a claim for interest, the legal rate of interest, according to 288 BGB [*], is
determined by law.
III. The decision on costs follows from 92(1), 344 ZPO [*]. The decision on the
provisional enforceability of the judgment follows from 708(no. 11), 711(1), 713
ZPO.
FOOTNOTES
* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For
purposes of this translation, Plaintiff of Switzerland is referred to as [Seller];
Defendant of Germany is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the former German
currency (Deutsche Mark) are indicated as [DM].
Translator's note on other abbreviations: BGB = Brgerliches Gesetzbuch [German
Code Civil Law]; EGBGB = Einfhrungsgesetzbuch zum Brgerlichen
Gesetzbuch [German
Code
on
Private
International
Law]; ZPO = Zivilprozessordnung [German Code on Civil Procedure].
** Stella Heyken is a law student of the University of Osnabrck, Germany.
Go to Case Table of Contents