Cour de cassation:

In view of articles 1 and 4 of the Vienna Convention [on the International Sale of Goods] of 11 April 1980;

Given that under these texts the Convention applies to international sales of goods and covers only the rights and obligations to which such a sale gives rise between seller and buyer;

Given that in this case a refrigeration unit manufactured by Thermo King, an American company, was installed in a truck belonging to Transports Norbert Dentressangle, a French company, which had procured it from another French company, Frappa, which had itself obtained it from the Société Sorhofroid, the French concessionaire of Thermo King, and that the courts below applied this treaty to the relations between Thermo King and Dentressangle, holding that as Thermo-King had given a guarantee to the end-user it had entered into a contractual relation with such end-user who therefore had an action against the manufacturer in respect of the defect in the thing sold;

But given that in so deciding without holding that there was a contract of sale, subject to the Convention, between Thermo King and Dentressangle, the court of appeal misapplied the texts cited above;

On the sole ground of application for review by … Transports Norbert Dentressangle;

Given that in confirming the decision of the tribunal, which dismissed the claims against Frappa and Sorhofroid based on the guarantee against latent defects, the court of appeal gave no reason compatible with its decision to apply the Vienna Convention of 11 April 1980, thereby mistaking the requirements of the texts cited above;

For these reasons

QUASHES and ANNULS the decision of the Court of Appeal of Grenoble of 15 May 1996 and remands the matter to the Court of Appeal of Lyons.

This note on subsequent developments reflects the legal situation as of October 2004.

Civ 1, 5 January 1999. The manufacturer who grants a guarantee to an ultimate purchaser does not thereby enter into a contract of sale subject to the Vienna Convention. Cf Com 26 June 2001, pourvoi no 98-21.231, which confirms this case law by quashing, in view of articles 1 and 4 of the Vienna Convention, a judgment based on the existence of a contract of sale in the sense of this Convention in a case in which a purchaser was facing not the seller but the transporter of the subject matter of the purchase. More generally, all the judgments applying this treaty have led to quashing after finding there were several intermediaries between the parties to the litigation and no contract of sale between them.

Translation by Raymond Youngs

Back to top

This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.