Logicom Case [France, Court of Cassation (First Civil Chamber)]
| Jurisdiction | France |
| Docket Number | (Case No 04–17.726) |
| Date | 02 avril 2008 |
| Court | Court of Cassation (France) |
France, Court of Cassation (First Civil Chamber)
(Bargue, President; Pluyette, Rapporteur; Domingo, Advocate-General)
(Case No 0417.726)
Treaties Application Territory subject to sovereignty of State but possessing own legal system Hong Kong Application of treaties to Hong Kong by the People's Republic of China Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980 The law of France
Summary:1The facts:Logicom, a French company, contracted with CCT Marketing Limited, a Hong Kong company, for certain telephonic products. Upon delivery of these products, the parties agreed that the products did not work and subsequently agreed on terms for their repair. However, Logicom alleged that these terms were not met by CCT. The lower court found that the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980 (CISG) was not applicable, because the People's Republic of China (PRC) had not applied it to Hong Kong, a territory which, since 1997, had been a Special Administrative Region of the PRC, as provided for in Article 93 of the CISG.2 As a result, the lower court applied Hong Kong law to the case and limited Logicom's compensation to 7,995 US dollars.
Logicom appealed, arguing that the CISG was applicable.
Held:The appeal was dismissed. When Hong Kong had reverted to the PRC in 1997, the PRC had deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations a list of those treaties to which the PRC was party which would be applicable to Hong Kong. The CISG was not included on that list and must, therefore, be held to be inapplicable to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The following is the text of the judgment of the Court:
According to the facts of the challenged judgment (Aix-en-Provence, 1 April 2004), Logicom, a company organized under French law, ordered telephonic products from CCT Marketing Ltd (CCT), based in Hong Kong. After it had been noted that the units delivered did not work, the parties agreed that the units would be returned to the manufacturer and then sent back to the buyer, paid for by the latter for 30% of the FOB price before repairs were undertaken. It is alleged that CCT did not carry out the agreed repairs and Logicom brought an action for compensation for its damages.
On the first ground of appeal Logicom made two arguments challenging the decision to limit compensation for its damages to the sum of 7,995 USD and dismiss all...
Pour continuer la lecture
SOLLICITEZ VOTRE ESSAI