The law firm GRP Rainer, specialised, inter alia, in the field of commercial law, enforced a claim of an Indian client for payment of the purchase price before the Landgericht Mannheim (Mannheim Regional Court).
GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart and London - www.grprainer.com/en conclude: GRP Rainer’s client, an Indian manufacturer of solar panels, had supplied a German firm with solar panels in July 2010.
The delivery included 660 units of one type of solar panel at a price of 316.50 euros per unit and 54 units of a different type of solar panel at a price of 411.60 euros per unit. The German firm accepted the goods, yet did not pay the purchase price. The Indian firm’s lawsuit was primarily concerned with compelling payment of the purchase price, which amounted to a total of approx. 231,000 euros.
The case ended up before the Landgericht Mannheim, a court that is also competent to hear international claims. Both parties had agreed to the application of German law. The LG Mannheim ordered the defendant to pay around 22,300 euros for the 54 solar panels. While the defendant did argue that the solar panels featured significant colour deviations, it failed to notify this defect, if it even existed, on time. It was not possible even with the accounts of witnesses to establish whether and when a complaint was made. The LG Mannheim held that the buyer was obliged to examine the goods and, where appropriate, report defects immediately after their delivery. In the absence of any such notice, the Court went on to say that the goods shall be deemed to have been approved.
The situation was more controversial with respect to the first category of 660 delivered solar panels, since these had not been certified as agreed. Solar panels cannot be sold in Germany without certification. Although a compliant was said to have been made on time here, the defendant was nevertheless obligated to pay the purchase price of almost 209,000 euros concurrently with the delivery of the solar panels which had been properly certified. Those that had not been certified must be returned to the plaintiff. The Court stated that the defendant explicitly objected to the non-fulfilment of the contract and in doing so signalled a continued interest in the performance of the contract, even though the prices for this kind of solar panel have since fallen considerably. If things had been any different it would not, according to the LG Mannheim, have been allowed to raise this objection and would instead have had to withdraw from the contract if necessary.
For more informations: http://www.grprainer.com/en/legal-advice/commercial-law.html