Existence alléguée d'un contrat de vente de chaussures entre un acheteur suisse et un vendeur américain

Convention des Nations unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises, Vienne (1980) / Application de la convention, oui, art. 1 / Application de la convention à la question de savoir si un contrat a été valablement conclu, oui, par référence au chapitre premier de la deuxième partie de la convention / Détermination par l'arbitre d'un droit national (droit de l'Etat de Californie) applicable à toute autre question de fond ne relevant pas du champ d'application de la convention.

La demanderesse est une société de droit suisse dont le siège social est en Suisse. La défenderesse est une société à responsabilité limitée constituée selon le droit de l'Etat de Californie et dont le siège social se trouve en Californie (USA).

Par un mémorandum du 18 avril 1991, un représentant de la défenderesse offrit à la demanderesse de lui vendre une certaine quantité de chaussures de sport au prix de 5,25 US$ la paire, « F.O.B. Caroline du Nord, (U.S.A.) ». Par lettre en date du 21 avril 1991, le représentant de la demanderesse proposa à la défenderesse d'acquérir la même quantité de chaussures pour le même prix, également F.O.B. Caroline du Nord. Les tailles et les couleurs figuraient en annexe et la période de livraison était prévue pour mai 1991. L'offre d'achat restait ouverte pour confirmation jusqu'au lendemain. Par une « facture pro forma » datée du 22 avril 1991, la défenderesse leva l'option d'achat de la quantité convenue au prix de 5,25 US$ la paire.

D'autres négociations suivirent cependant, et par lettre du 16 mai 1991, signée pour le compte des deux parties, une commande portant sur la vente de 22.789 paires de chaussures, au prix de 5,90 US$ la paire, C.A.F. Le Havre, fut conclue. L'embarquement devait avoir lieu vers le 15 juin.

Aucune chaussure ne fut livrée par la défenderesse à la demanderesse. Aussi cette dernière engagea-t-elle en conséquence une procédure d'arbitrage en vue d'obtenir des dommages-intérêts au motif que la défenderesse aurait contrevenu à ses obligations contractuelles.

'The parties are in dispute, inter alia, as to the existence of a binding contract, whether there has been a breach thereof and, if so, the nature and extent of any damages payable. By the Terms of Reference in the present arbitration, however, the first issue to be determined is that of which law should be held to be applicable to the merits of the dispute between the parties.

The Claimant maintains that the applicable law is that embodied in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980), to which both Switzerland and the United States of America are signatories and which entered into force as regards the United States on 1 January 1988 and, as regards Switzerland, on 1 March 1991. The Respondent maintains that the applicable law is the law of California.

In my opinion the applicable law for the purposes of deciding whether or not a valid and binding contract was entered into between the parties, whether or not one party has been in breach of such a contract and, if what damages are recoverable, is that embodied in the Convention. The Convention was in force at the time of the transactions between the parties. By Article 1 of the Convention it is provided that the Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different Contracting States. That condition is here fulfilled. That the Convention applies not only to completed contracts but also to the question whether or not a contract has been validly made is apparent from the fact that the Convention contains a section (Chapter 1, Part II) entitled "Formation of the Contract". The contract also includes rules relating to the obligations of, respectively, the seller and the buyer, the remedies for breach of contract and the extent of damages, including the duty of an aggrieved party to mitigate loss. That is to say, the majority of the problems in the present arbitration which arise for decision, as defined by the Terms of Reference, are included within the scope of the Convention. For the sake of completeness, however, I should add that I am of the opinion that any other substantive matter relating to the issues to be determined as contained in the Terms of Reference which falls outside the ambit of the Convention is governed by the law of the State of California. This in my opinion is the legal system with which the putative contract has the closest connection. The goods were to be furnished by a company carrying on business in the State of California; payment of the purchase price was to be made in US dollars in the State of California; the language of negotiation was English.

Accordingly, as sole Arbitrator, I decide:

That for the purposes of the present arbitration the questions of whether or not the parties entered into a valid and binding contract, whether or not there has been a breach of such a contract and, if so, the extent of any damages to be paid are governed by the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Any other substantive matter covered by the Terms of Reference is governed by the law of the State of California.'