The Cold-Rolled Steel Coils Case: $1.38M Non-Delivery and Contract Avoidance

Tribunal	CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission)
Date of Award	1997-08-05
Docket No.	CISG/1997/25
Parties	Chinese Buyer (Claimant) v. German Seller (Respondent)
Goods/Sector	Cold rolled coils
Key Issues	Autonomy of parties; Usages and practices; Fundamental breach; Avoidance; Damages; Foreseeability of damages; Mitigation of loss
CISG Articles	Art. 6, Art. 9, Art. 25, Art. 49, Art. 74, Art. 76, Art. 77

Facts

In 1997, a Chinese buyer entered into Contract No. 6WFWF7209012IT with a German seller for the purchase of cold rolled coils. The contract established specific terms regarding delivery, pricing, and quality requirements.

The German seller failed to deliver the cold rolled coils within the agreed timeframe, and did not provide adequate justification for the non-delivery. As a result, the Chinese buyer was unable to fulfill its own downstream commercial commitments.

The aggrieved party submitted a written arbitration application to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), invoking the arbitration clause in the sales contract. The claimant sought $1.38 million in damages for the losses suffered as a result of the breach, including compensation for the commercial losses incurred.

Legal Issues

1. Did the breach constitute a "fundamental breach" under CISG Art. 25?

CISG Article 25 defines a fundamental breach as one that results in such detriment to the other party as substantially to deprive it of what it is entitled to expect under the contract. The key test is whether the non-breaching party's contractual expectations were substantially defeated. The question was whether the nature and extent of the breach deprived the aggrieved party of its essential contractual expectations. [1]

2. Was the buyer entitled to avoid the contract?

Under CISG Article 49(1)(a), the buyer may declare the contract avoided if the other party's failure to perform amounts to a fundamental breach. Because the breach was found to be fundamental, the right to avoid the contract was confirmed. [2]

3. How should damages be calculated?

CISG Article 74 establishes the general measure of damages: the sum equal to the loss suffered as a consequence of the breach, subject to the foreseeability limitation. Article 76 provides an alternative calculation based on the difference between the contract price and the current price at the time of avoidance. [3]

4. Were the claimed losses foreseeable at the time of contracting?

Under the foreseeability limitation of Article 74, damages may not exceed the loss that the breaching party foresaw or ought to have foreseen at the time of contracting as a possible consequence of the breach. The tribunal assessed whether the specific losses claimed fell within this foreseeability cap. [4]

5. Did the aggrieved party fulfill its duty to mitigate losses?

CISG Article 77 requires the party relying on the breach to take reasonable measures to mitigate the loss. Failure to do so may result in a reduction of damages by the amount that could have been mitigated. The tribunal examined whether the claimant took appropriate steps to minimize its losses. [5]

Tribunal Reasoning

The tribunal determined that the German seller's failure to perform its obligations under Contract No. 6WFWF7209012IT constituted a fundamental breach within the meaning of CISG Article 25. The breach was not a minor or technical shortfall — it went to the core of the contractual bargain and substantially deprived the Chinese buyer of its legitimate commercial expectations.

Having established fundamental breach, the tribunal confirmed the buyer's right to avoid the contract under Article 49(1)(a). The tribunal then turned to the assessment of damages. It considered both the concrete method under Article 75 and the abstract method under Article 76, applying the measure that best reflected the actual loss in the circumstances.

The tribunal assessed the damages suffered by the buyer and awarded compensation consistent with Article 74, taking into account the foreseeability limitation and the evidence presented regarding the actual losses incurred. The tribunal also examined whether the buyer had fulfilled its duty to mitigate under Article 77, and adjusted the damages award accordingly.

Practical Takeaways for International Businesses

1. Define breach thresholds and performance deadlines with precision. CIETAC applies the Article 25 "fundamental breach" standard rigorously. In borderline cases, the outcome depends on how the contract defines essential expectations. Include explicit provisions that specify which failures constitute grounds for avoidance, and set clear deadlines with consequences for non-performance.

2. Document your mitigation efforts from the moment a breach occurs. CISG Article 77 requires the aggrieved party to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss. CIETAC tribunals scrutinize whether the claimant acted promptly and reasonably. Keep records of all substitute purchases, communications with alternative suppliers, and decisions made to limit damage. Failure to mitigate can significantly reduce your award.

---

Footnotes

[1] CISG Art. 25 — fundamental breach. Paraphrased from the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980). Full text available at uncitral.un.org.

[2] CISG Art. 49 — buyer's right to avoid the contract. Paraphrased from the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980). Full text available at uncitral.un.org.

[3] CISG Art. 74 — damages (general measure); Art. 76 — damages based on current price. Paraphrased from the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980). Full text available at uncitral.un.org.

[4] CISG Art. 74 — foreseeability limitation on damages. Paraphrased from the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980). Full text available at uncitral.un.org.

[5] CISG Art. 77 — mitigation of loss. Paraphrased from the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980). Full text available at uncitral.un.org.

[6] CISG Art. 6 — party autonomy and derogation. Paraphrased from the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980). Full text available at uncitral.un.org.

[7] CISG Art. 9 — usages and practices. Paraphrased from the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980). Full text available at uncitral.un.org.

[*] Case data sourced from the Pace-IICL CISG Database (iicl.law.pace.edu).

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

This case insight is published by China Legal Hub (www.chinalegalhub.com) for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Source: Pace-IICL CISG Database | CISG/1997/25

© 2026 China Legal Hub. All rights reserved.

www.chinalegalhub.com

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

This case insight is published by China Legal Hub (www.chinalegalhub.com). China Legal Hub provides fixed-fee contract review services for international businesses dealing with China.