Abraj Games Ltd, a Kuwaiti buyer, and Arcade Co. an Australian seller concluded a contract for the sale of goods at Kuwait Port CIF terms. The Parties have not chosen the applicable law to govern their contract, so there is a conflict of law here. It is worth noting that Australia is a party to the CISG 1980, whereas Kuwait, is not. Once the goods arrive in Kuwait, the Authorities seize them. It appears that Abraj Games Ltd. contracted to buy gaming goods from Arcade Co. to supply local entertainment parks. Since gambling is illegal in the State of Kuwait, the Authorities suspect that the goods are for gambling purposes, which they are not. Arcade Co. argues that it has fulfilled its legal obligations to deliver the goods at the named port. As a seller, Arcade Co. feels it is not at fault for the goods being seized by the Kuwaiti Authorities, so Abraj Games Ltd. should bear the risk. Abraj Games Ltd. is questioning when property in the goods passed, as well as the validity of the contract. As a result, Abraj Games Ltd. wants to start legal proceedings against Arcade Co.

Can Abraj Games Ltd. use the CISG 1980 to resolve the issues it raises above, and do you think Arcade Co. should bear the risk for the goods?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer Yes Abraj Games ltd May use the CISG 1980 to resolve the as raised Above The United Nation Co... View the full answer