Treibacher公司诉阿勒格尼技术公司案（国际商法案例翻译）

Treibacher Industrie, A.G. v. Allegheny Technologies, Inc

Treibacher公司诉阿勒格尼技术公司案

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

TREIBACHER INDUSTRIE, A.G., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a

Pennsylvania corporation, et al., Defendants, TDY Industries, Inc., Defendant-Appellant

No. 05-13005. Sept. 12, 2006.

Background: Austrian seller of tantalum carbide sued American buyer for breach of contract. Following bench trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, No. 01-02872-CV-HS-NE,

Virginia Emerson Hopkins, J., awarded seller damages. Buyer appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Tjoflat, Circuit Judge, held that:

(1) trial court did not clearly err in finding that parties understood contracts to require buyer to use and pay for all of the tantalum carbide specified in each contract, and (2) trial court did not clearly err in finding that seller reasonably mitigated its damages.

Affirmed.

West Headnotes

[1] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

170B Federal Courts

170BVIII Courts of Appeals

170BVIII(K) Scope, Standards, and Extent

170BVIII(K)5 Questions of Fact, Verdicts and Findings

1

美国上诉法院 第十一巡回

原告：Treibacher公司

诉

被告：阿勒格尼技术公司，宾夕法尼亚集团，

TDY工业公司

No. 05-13005. Sept. 12, 2006.

背景：奥地利碳化钽卖方诉美国买方对合同违约。根据法官审判，阿拉巴马州北区的美国地方法院裁定卖方获得损害赔偿。买方上诉。

观点：上诉法院Tjoflat法官认为：

（1） 审判法庭判定双方理解合同为要求买方使

用和为所有合同中明确规定的碳化钽付费并未有明显错误。

（2） 审判法庭判定卖方有理由降低损害并未有

明显错误。

此证

西方批注

[1]keycite为此批注引用参考文献

170B联邦法庭

170BVIII上诉法庭

170BVIII（K）范围，标准和程度

170BVIII(K)5事实问题，裁决和判决 170Bk870特定议题和问题

170Bk870 Particular Issues and Questions

170Bk871 k. Damages and Extent of Relief. Most Cited Cases

District court's findings on mitigation of damages issue is reviewed for clear error.

[2] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

113 Customs and Usages

113k9 Application and Operation 113k15 Explanation of Contract

113k15(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

385 Treaties KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

385k8 k. Construction and Operation of Particular Provisions. Most Cited Cases Under United Nations Convention on

Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), parties' usage of term in their course of dealings controls that term's meaning in face of conflicting customary usage of the term.

[3] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

343 Sales

343II Construction of Contract 343k67 Subject-Matter

343k67.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases

385 Treaties KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

385k8 k. Construction and Operation of Particular Provisions. Most Cited Cases

Trial court did not clearly err in finding that, under United Nations Convention on

Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), parties to contracts for sale of

tantalum carbide, in their course of dealings, understood term “consignment” to require buyer to accept and pay for all of the

tantalum carbide specified in each contract. [4]

KeyCite Citing References for this

2

170Bk871 k.损害和救济程度。援引

最多的案例。

由于明显错误，地方法庭对降低损害的判决被重新审查。

[2] keycite为此批注引用参考文献

113惯例和对待方式 113k9应用和运行 113k15合同解释

113k15(1) k.总结。援引最多的案例。

385条约。keycite为此批注引用参考文献 385k8 k.对特定条约的解释和实施。在联合国国际货物销售合同公约下，面对相互冲突的条款使用惯例，各方在处理如何使用这些条款时，参考援引最多的案例。

[3] keycite为此批注引用参考文献

343货物买卖

343II 合同的订立

343k67.1 k.总结。援引最多的案例。

385条约。keycite为此批注引用参考文献 385k8 k.对特定条约的解释和实施。援引最多的案例。在联合国国际货物买卖合同公约下，审判法庭做出的如下判决并未明显出错，碳化钽销售合同订立双方，在他们交易的过程中，理解条款“托运”为要求买方接受和为合同中明确规定的所有碳化钽付款。

[4] keycite为此批注引用参考文献

Headnote

343 Sales

343VII Remedies of Seller

343VII(F) Actions for Damages 343k384 Damages

343k384(7) k. Resale of Goods by Seller. Most Cited Cases

385 Treaties KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote

385k8 k. Construction and Operation of Particular Provisions. Most Cited Cases

Trial court did not clearly err in finding that, under United Nations Convention on

Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), Austrian seller of tantalum carbide reasonably mitigated its damages from

American buyer's refusal to take delivery, by selling the goods to other buyers at lower prices beginning 17 days after buyer's refusal.

*1236 J.R. Brooks, Robert E. Ledyard, III, Jeffrey T. Kelly, Lanier, Ford, Shaver &

Payne, P.C., Huntsville, AL, David M. Aceto, Paul Berks, H. Woodruff Turner, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP,

Pittsburgh, PA, for TDY Industries, Inc.

R. Wayne Wolfe, Gary P. Wolfe, Wolfe,

Jones, Boswell, Wolfe & Hamner, Huntsville, AL, M. Christian King, Ivan B. Cooper, Nikaa Baugh Jordan, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before TJOFLAT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE,FN* District Judge.

FN* Honorable Lloyd D. George, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

343 货物买卖

343VII卖方救济

343VII(F)对损害采取的措施 343k384损害

343k384(7) k.卖方转售货物。援引最多的案例。

385条约。keycite为此批注引用参考文献 385k8 k.对特定条约的解释和实施。援引最多的案例。在联合国国际货物销售合同公约下，审判法庭在以下判决中并未明显出错，奥地利的碳化钽卖方有理由从美国买方的拒绝收货行为中降低损害，通过在买方拒绝收货17天后以更低的价格将货物出售给另外买家。

*1236 JR布鲁克斯，罗伯特·E.莱迪亚德，Jeffrey T.凯利，拉尼尔，福特，剃须刀和佩恩，PC，Huntsville，AL，大卫M.，保罗·伯克斯H.伍德拉夫特纳，高骆克尼科尔森格雷厄姆，LLP，匹兹堡，PA，TDY工业公司

原告：R.韦恩·沃尔夫，加里P. 沃尔夫，沃尔夫琼斯，博斯韦尔，沃尔夫哈姆纳，Huntsville，AL，M.基督教国王，伊万B.库珀，Nikaa鲍约旦，莱特富特，富兰克林与白，LLC，伯明翰，AL

从阿拉巴马州北区的美国地区法院提出上诉。 在巡回法官乔治TJOFLAT 和PRYOR和FN *地方法院法官之前。

FN *尊敬的劳埃德D.乔治，内华达州区的美国地方法院法官，坐在指定位置。 TJOFLAT，巡回法官：

I.

3

I.

A.

This lawsuit arises out of two contracts, executed in November and December of 2000, respectively, whereby Treibacher Industrie, AG (“Treibacher”), an Austrian

vendor of hard metal powders, agreed to sell specified quantities of tantalum carbide (“TaC”), a hard metal powder, to TDY

Industries, Inc. (“TDY”)FN1 for delivery to “consignment.” TDY planned to use the TaC in manufacturing tungsten-graded carbide powdersFN2 at its plant in Gurney, Alabama. After it had received some of the amount of TaC specified in the November 2000

contract, TDY refused to take delivery of the balance of the TaC specified in both contracts, and, in a letter to Treibacher

dated August 23, 2001, denied that it had a binding obligation to take delivery of or pay for any TaC that it did not wish to use. Unbeknownst to Treibacher, TDY had

purchased the TaC it needed from another vendor at lower prices than those specified in its contracts with Treibacher. Treibacher eventually sold the quantities of TaC of which TDY refused to take delivery, but at lower prices than those specified in its

contracts with TDY. Treibacher then filed suit against TDY, seeking to recover the balance of the amount Treibacher would have received had TDY paid for all of the TaC specified in the November and December 2000 contracts.FN3

FN1. TDY, a California corporation, is a

subsidiary of Allegheny Technologies, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, which produces various metals and metal-based products.

FN2. TaC is a component of tungsten-graded carbide powder, which is used to harden other metals.

FN3. Treibacher's complaint contains six counts. Count I is a claim for “Breach of Contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the

International Sale of Goods.” Count II is a claim for “Anticipatory Breach of Contract” under the same United Nations convention. Count III is a claim for “Breach of Contract” under Alabama law. Count IV is a claim for

4

A.

这份诉讼由2份合同引起，分别在2000年11月和12月执行，Treibacher（一个奥地利硬质金属粉末供应商）同意通过托运销售一定数量的碳化钽（一种硬质金属粉末）给TDYFN1。TDY原计划在阿拉巴马州的工厂生产分级钨硬质合金粉末FN2时使用碳化钽。当收到2000年11月合同中明确列出的碳化钽中的一部分数量后，TDY拒绝接受合同中列出的其它碳化钽，并且在2001年8月23号给Treibacher的一封信中否认了它有义务提货或为不愿使用的碳化钽付费。让Treibacher不知道的是，TDY已经以比之前同Treibacher签订的确定价格更低的价格从另外一个供应商手中买取了所需的碳化钽。Treibacher最终以低于原合同中的价格售出了TDY拒收数量的碳化钽。随后Treibacher对TDY提起诉讼，寻求对货物的补救只要TDY为所有合同中约定的碳化钽付费。FN3

FN1 TDY是一家加利福尼亚的公司，一家阿勒格尼技术公司的附属公司，在宾夕法尼亚州，主要生产各种金属和金属类产品。

FN2 TaC是钨梯度的碳化物粉末的一个组成部分，它是用来强化其他金属的。

FN3 Treibacher的投诉包括六项。第一项是在CISG下对合同违约的索赔。第二项是在同样的公约下对预期违约的索赔。第三项是在阿拉巴马法律下对合同违约的索赔。第四项是在阿拉巴马法律下对所欠款项和不当得利的索赔。第五项是

“Moneys Owed and Unjust Enrichment” under Alabama law. Count V is a claim for “Conversion” under Alabama law. Count VI is a claim for “Misrepresentation,” alleging that TDY misrepresented that it would accept and pay for the goods Treibacher shipped to it. Counts II through VI incorporate by reference the allegations of all previous counts.On TDY's motion for summary judgment, the district court isolated

Treibacher's claims from the complaint and granted the motion on all counts but Counts I and VI. The court, following a bench trial, gave Treibacher judgment on Counts I and VI, awarding Treibacher $5,327,042.85. Since we affirm the court's judgment on Count I, we need not review the court's disposition of Count VI.

The case proceeded to a bench trial, where TDY and Treibacher disputed the *1237 meaning of the term “consignment”-the delivery term contained in both

contracts. TDY introduced experts in the metal industry who testified that the term “consignment,” according to its common usage in the trade, meant that no sale

occurred unless and until TDY actually used the TaC. Treibacher introduced evidence of the parties' prior dealings to show that the parties, in their course of dealings

(extending over a seven-year period),

understood the term “consignment” to mean that TDY had a binding obligation to pay for all of the TaC specified in each contract but that Treibacher would delay billing TDY for the materials until TDY had actually used

them. The district court ruled that, under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”), opened for signature April 11, 1980, S.

Treaty Doc. No. 9, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 22 (1983), 19 I.L.M. 671, reprinted at 15 U.S.C. app. (1997), evidence of the parties'

interpretation of the term in their course of dealings trumped evidence of the term's customary usage in the industry, and found that Treibacher and TDY, in their course of dealings, understood the term to mean “that a sale had occurred, but that invoices would be delayed until the materials were

withdrawn.”FN4 The court therefore entered

5

在阿拉巴马法律下对转变的索赔。第六项是对失实陈述的索赔，指控道TDY2失实陈述它们将会接受并且为Treibacher运往的货物付款。第二至六条参考的指控包括之前的所有条。在TDY的即决审判的提案中，地方法庭孤立了Treibacher投诉中的索赔并且准予了除第一和第六项的投诉提案。法庭根据法官审判，给予Treibacher针对第一和第六项的审判，判给Treibacher

$5,327,042.85的赔偿费。既然我们确认了法庭

对第一条的审判，我们就无需审查法庭对第六条的意向。

这个案件由法官进行审理，TDY和Treibacher对合同中包含的托运的意思持有争议。TDY采用金属制造业的专家的论断，他根据贸易中普遍的使用，证实了托运就是没有买卖发生除非直到TDY的确使用了碳化钽。Treibacher采用了双方先前交易的证据来表明双方，在他们交易的过程中（延长到超过7年），理解托运的含义就是TDY有义务为合同中明确的所有碳化钽付费但Treibacher可以延迟向TDY索取账单直到TDY的确使用了这些材料。地方法庭判定，在CISG下，双方在交易过程中对条款的解释证明与产业中惯例使用的条款证明相抵触，而且判定Treibacher 和 TDY在他们的交易过程中理解条款为买卖已达成，但发票将会被延迟直到货物被撤回。FN4 法庭因此实施对TDY的审判，判给Treibacher $5,327,042.85的损害补偿（包括利息）。

judgment against TDY, awarding Treibacher $5,327,042.85 in compensatory damages (including interest).

FN4. Although the parties presented

conflicting evidence regarding the customary usage in the industry of the term

“consignment,” the district court did not make a finding regarding the customary usage of the term because it found that the parties had established a meaning for the term in their course of dealings, thus rendering customary usage irrelevant.

FN4. 尽管双方给出了有关产业中惯例使用的托运

的相抵触的证明，地方法庭并未对条款的惯例使用作出判决因为它认为双方已经在交易中成立了这项条款的意思，因此判定惯例使用非相关。

B.

TDY now appeals. TDY contends that, under the CISG, a contract term should be construed according to its customary usage in the industry unless the parties have expressly agreed to another usage. TDY argues, in the alternative, that the district court erred in finding that, in their course of dealings, Treibacher and TDY understood the term “consignment” to require TDY to use and pay for all of the TaC specified in each contract. Finally, TDY contends that, if we uphold the district court's ruling that TDY breached its contracts with Treibacher, we should remand the case for a new trial on damages on the ground that the district court erroneously found that Treibacher reasonably mitigated its damages.

[1] Reviewing the district court's legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, Newell v. Prudential Ins. Co., 904 F.2d 644, 649 (11th Cir.1990), we hold that the district court properly construed the contract under the CISG-according to the parties' course of dealings-and did not

commit clear error in finding that the parties understood the contracts to require TDY to use all of the TaC specified in the contracts. As to the mitigation of damages issue, which we review for clear error, Bunge Corp. v. Freeport Marine Repair, Inc., 240 F.3d 919, 923 (11th Cir.2001), we find that the

evidence before the district court supported

6

B.

现在TDY上诉。TDY声称在CISG下，一项合同条款应当根据产业中的惯例使用被加以解释除非双方已表明同意另外的使用。TDY表示，在替代方案中，地方法庭在作出如下判定中出错，在交易过程中，Treibacher 和 TDY理解托运条款为要求TDY使用和为合同中明确的所有碳化钽付费。最后，TDY声称如果我们支持地方法庭作出的TDY对Treibacher的合同违约的判决，我们就应当基于地方法庭错误地判定Treibacher有理由减少损害而还押案件对损害重新审判。

[1] 因明显错误审查地方法庭的司法判决和事实认定，我们认为地方法庭在CISG下根据双方交易过程合理解释了合同因此在作出的双方理解合同为要求TDY使用合同中明确规定的所有碳化钽的判定并未构成明显错误。至于减少损害的议题，出于明显错误我们作出审查后，认为地方法庭支持它所作出的Treibacher在此类情况下有理由作出减少损害的努力的判决有足够证据，因此

its finding that Treibacher's mitigation efforts were reasonable under the circumstances. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

我们确认地方政府的判决。

II. A.

We begin our analysis by discussing the CISG, which governs the formation of and rights and obligations under contracts for *1238 the international sale of goods. CISG, arts. 1, 4.FN5 Article 9 of the CISG provides the rules for interpreting the terms of

contracts. Article 9(1) states that, “parties are bound by any usage to which they have agreed and by any practices which they have established between themselves.” Article 9(2) then states that, “parties are

considered, unless otherwise agreed, to have impliedly made applicable to their

contract ... a usage of which the parties knew or ought to have known and which in international trade is widely known to ... parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade concerned.” Article 8 of the CISG governs the interpretation of the parties' statements and conduct. A party's statements and conduct are interpreted according to that party's actual intent

“where the other party knew ... what that intent was,” CISG, art. 8(1), but, if the other party was unaware of that party's actual

intent, then “according to the understanding that a reasonable person ... would have had in the same circumstances,” CISG, art. 8(2). To determine a party's actual intent, or a reasonable interpretation thereof, “due consideration is to be given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the

negotiations, any practices which the parties have established between themselves,

usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.” CISG, art. 8(3).

FN5. The parties do not dispute that the CISG governs their dispute. Article 1 of the CISG provides, in relevant part, that it “applies to contracts of sale of goods

between parties whose places of business

II. A.

我们通过讨论管理国际货物买卖合同的订立和合同下买卖双方的权利义务的CISG来开始我们的分析。CISG, arts. 1, 4.FN5 CISG第9条提供了解释合同条款的法则。第9条（1）这样说，双方受任何互相已同意的使用方式和互相之间已建立的实施办法约束。第9条（2）这样说，双方被认为，除非另行约定，理应对合同适用双方已知或应当知晓的和国际贸易中涉及此类情况的合同缔约方普遍知晓的使用方式。CISG第8条规定了双方的陈述和实施的解释。一方的陈述和实施是根据此方实际的且为另一方知晓的意图来解释的。CISG, art. 8(1)，但如果另一方不知晓此方的意图，那么根据一个正常人在类似情况中的合理理解来决定一方的实际意图，或一个根据对所有相关情况包括协商、双方已建立的实施办法和随后的实施所考虑的合理的解释来决定一方的实际意图。CISG, art. 8(3).

FN5. 双方对CISG管理各方争议并无异议。CISG

第1条表明公约适用于交易场所在不同国家的双

7

are in different States ... when the States are Contracting States.” The United States and Austria are contracting states. Article 4 of the CISG provides, in relevant part, that it “governs ... the formation of the contract and the rights and obligations of the seller and buyer arising from such a contract.” The parties dispute their respective “rights and obligations” under the contracts at issue in this case.

In arguing that a term's customary usage takes precedence over the parties'

understanding of that term in their course of dealings, TDY seizes upon the language of article 9(2), which states that, “parties are considered, unless otherwise agreed, to have made applicable to their contract” customary trade usages. TDY contends that article 9(2) should be read to mean that, unless parties to a contract expressly agree to the meaning of a term, the customary trade usage applies. In support of its argument, TDY points to the language of article (9)(1), which binds parties to “any usage to which they have agreed and by any practices which they have established between themselves.” According to TDY, the drafters of the CISG, by separating the phrase “usages to which they have agreed” from the phrase “practices which they have established between themselves,” intended the word “agreed,” in article 9, to mean express

agreement, as opposed to tacit agreement by course of conduct. Applying this definition to the language of article 9(2), TDY contends that contract terms should, in the absence of express agreement to their usage, be

interpreted according to customary usage, instead of the usage established between the parties through their course of conduct.

[2] TDY's construction of article 9 would, however, render article 8(3) superfluous and the latter portion of article 9(1) a nullity. The inclusion in article 8(3) of “any practices which the parties have established between themselves,” as a factor in interpreting the parties' statements and conduct, would be meaningless if a term's customary usage

controlled that term's meaning in the face of

方所订立的销售合同，同时交易地所属国也是公约缔约方。美国和奥地利是公约的缔约方。CISG第4条表明它管理合同的订立和合同涉及的买卖双方的权利义务。现在双方对在合同下的相关权利和义务产生争议。

在争辩一项条款的习惯性用法先于双方交易过程中对条款的理解时，TDY依据第9（2）中条文所述的，双方被认为，除非另行约定，对合同适用传统贸易使用方式。TDY表明第9（2）条应当被解读为除非合同订立双方特别表明同意一项条款的含义，那么传统的贸易方式就应当被适用。为了支持他们的论断，TDY指出第9（1）条规定双方受任何已同意的使用方式和已实际建立的实施方案约束。根据TDY所说，CISG的起草者，通过分离“双方已同意的使用方式”和“他们间实际已建立起来的实施方案”，强调“同意的”，来表明是表达的同意，而不是在实施过程中默许的同意。根据对地9（2）条的定义，TDY表明合同条款，在缺少对使用的表明同意时，应当根据传统使用方式而不是在实施过程中双方所建立的使用方式被解释。

[2]然而TDY对第9条的理解将会使第8（3）条显得多余和第9（1）条后半部分失去效力。第8（3）条包括的“双方间互相已建立的实施方案”作为解释双方陈述和实施的一项因素将会变得毫无意义如果一项条款的传统使用方式在双方交易

8

a conflicting usage in the parties' course of dealings. The latter portion of article 9(1) would be void because the parties would no longer be “bound by any practices which they have established between themselves.” Instead, in the absence of an express

agreement*1239 as to a term's meaning, the parties would be bound by that term's customary usage, even if they had

established a contrary usage in their course of dealings. We therefore reject TDY's

interpretation of article 9(2), and, like the district court, adopt a reading that gives force to articles 8(3) and 9(1), namely, that the parties' usage of a term in their course of dealings controls that term's meaning in the face of a conflicting customary usage of the term. Cf. Gonzalez v. McNary, 980 F.2d 1418, 1420 (11th Cir.1993) (“A statute

should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part of it will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.”).

过程中出现冲突使用时控制了此项条款的含义。第9（1）条后半部分将会变得无效因为双方将再也不会受任何他们间已已建立的实方案约束。反而因缺少对合同条款的表述的同意，双方将会受条款的传统使用约束，尽管他们在交易过程中已建立了一个与之相抵触的使用方式。因此我们否绝了TDY对第9（2）条的解释，并且同地方法庭一样采纳了赋予第8（3）和9（1）条效力的解释，也就是说双方在交易过程中对条款的使用在遇到与传统使用所冲突时是可以控制条款的意义的。（一项法令应当使它所含的所有条款都有效，没有任何部分应当是不可实行的或多余的，无效的或无意义的）

B.

[3] The district court did not commit clear error in finding that, in their course of dealings, TDY and Treibacher defined the term “consignment” to require TDY to accept and pay for all of the TaC specified in each contract. The parties do not dispute that they executed, between 1993 and 2000, a series of contracts in which Treibacher

agreed to sell certain hard metal powders, such as TaC, to TDY. In each instance, TDY discussed its needs with Treibacher, after which Treibacher and TDY executed a

contract whereby Treibacher agreed to sell a fixed quantity of materials at a fixed price for delivery to “consignment.” Treibacher then delivered to TDY the specified quantity of materials-sometimes in installments,

depending upon TDY's needs. FN6 TDY kept the materials it received from Treibacher in a “consignment store,” where the materials were labeled as being from Treibacher and segregated from other vendors' materials. As it withdrew the materials from the

consignment store for use, TDY published “usage reports,” which documented the amounts of materials withdrawn. TDY sent

9

B.

[3]地方法庭在作出如下判定时并未构成明显错误，在他们交易过程中，TDY和Treibacher定义条款“托运”为要求TDY接受和为合同中明确规定的所有碳化钽付费。双方并未就他们在1993和2000年间实施的一系列Treibacher同意售出一定数量的硬质金属粉末例如碳化钽给TDY的合同产生争议。在每一种情况中，TDY 都在

Treibacher和TDY实施了这一项Treibacher同

意以一定托运送货价格销售一定数量是货物的合同之后，和Treibacher讨论它的需求。随后

Treibacher根据TDY的需要发送给TDY具体数

量的原材料，有时是分期发送。FN6 TDY将从

Treibacher那里接受的货物储存在一个托运仓库

中，这些货物被标记为来自Treibacher并且与来自其他供应商的货物隔开。当它从托运仓库中提

the usage reports to Treibacher, and

Treibacher, in turn, sent TDY invoices for the amounts of materials withdrawn at the price specified in the relevant contract. TDY then paid the invoices when they came due. In each instance, TDY ultimately withdrew and paid for the full quantity of materials specified in each contract.

FN6. TDY would notify Treibacher as to when it wanted to take delivery of portions of the quantity of materials provided for in each contract.

A particularly telling interaction, the existence of which the parties do not

dispute, occurred in February 2000, when a TDY employee, Conrad Atchley, sent an e-mail to his counterpart at Treibacher, Peter Hinterhofer, expressing TDY's desire to return unused portions of a hard metal powder, titanium carbonitride (“TiCN”),

which Treibacher had delivered. Hinterhofer telephoned Atchley in response and

explained that TDY could not return the TiCN because TDY was contractually obligated to purchase the materials; Treibacher had delivered the TiCN as part of a quantity of TiCN that it was obligated to provide TDY under a contract executed in December 1999. Atchley told Hinterhofer that TDY

would keep the TiCN. TDY subsequently used the TiCN and sent a usage report to

Treibacher, for which Treibacher sent TDY an invoice, which TDY paid. This interaction-evidencing TDY's acquiescence in

Treibacher's interpretation of the contract-along with TDY's practice, between 1993 and 2000, of using and paying for all of the TaC specified in each contract amply support the district court's finding that the parties, in their course of dealings, construed their contracts to require TDY to use and pay for all of the TaC specified in each contract.

取货物以供使用时，TDY公布包含具体数量的使用报告。TDY将使用报告发送给Treibacher并且Treibacher同时将提取的相同数量的货物以合同中规定的价格计算的发票发送给TDY。随后TDY为发票付费。在每一种情况中，TDY最终提取完并为所有数量的货物付款。

FN6. 当它想提取合同中提供的部分数量的货物

时，TDY 会通知Treibacher。

一个真实的交流，双方并未就其存在性产生争议，发生在2000年2月，当TDY 的一个雇员

Conrad Atchley向Treibacher公司的Peter Hinterhofer发送了一份邮件，表明TDY需要退

还Treibacher已经送达的未被使用的部分硬质金属粉末碳化钽。Hinterhofer 致电Atchley 回应并解释TDY不能退还这部分碳化钽，因为TDY依合同有义务购买这些货物。Treibacher已经运送了依1999年12月签订的合同应中应当提供给TDY的碳化钽中的部分。Atchley 告诉

HinterhoferTDY将会接受这部分碳化钽。TDY

随后也使用了这部分碳化钽并发送了使用证明给

Treibacher，Treibacher也据此向TDY发送了

发票，TDY也已付费。这份交流-证明了TDY同意了Treibacher对合同的解释和，以及1993年和2000年间TDY的确使用和为所有合同中明确规定的碳化钽付费的行动-充分支持了地方法庭的判定：双方在交易过程中，理解合同为 要求TDY使用和为所有合同中明确规定的碳化钽付费。

C.

10

[4] With respect to damages, the district court did not commit clear error in *1240 finding that Treibacher reasonably mitigated its damages. Article 77 of the CISG requires a party claiming breach of contract to “take such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances to mitigate the loss.” Article 77, however, places the burden on the

breaching party to “claim a reduction in the damages in the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated.” Treibacher's Commercial Director, Ulf Strumberger, and Hinterhofer testified that Treibacher sought to mitigate damages as soon as possible and ultimately obtained the highest prices possible for the quantity of TaC that TDY refused; their first sale in mitigation

occurred on September 9, 2001, seventeen days after the date of TDY's letter denying its obligation to purchase all of the TaC. TDY, the party carrying the burden of proving

Treibacher's failure to mitigate, presented no evidence showing that Treibacher did not act reasonably. The district court therefore had no basis upon which to find that Treibacher did not take reasonable steps to mitigate its losses.

C.

关于损害方面，地方法庭在作出如下判定时并未构成明显错误，Treibacher有理由减少损害。CISG第77条要求合同违约方采取依当时情况中合理的措施来减少损失。但是77条也规定违约方有责任宣称损失本应减少的损害减少量。

Treibacher的贸易顾问Ulf Strumberger和Hinterhofer证实了Treibacher寻求尽快减少损

失并且最终获得了TDY拒绝的碳化钽数量的可能的最高价格；他们减少的第一份交易发生在2001年9月9号，在TDY表明其拒绝购买所有的碳化钽义务信件的17天后。TDY，有责任证明Treibacher没能减少损害的一方，并没有拿出证据表明Treibacher没有合理化行动。因此地方法庭没有根据判定Treibacher没有采取合理化措施来减少损失。

III.

In sum, the district court properly determined that, under the CISG, the

meaning the parties ascribe to a contractual term in their course of dealings establishes the meaning of that term in the face of a conflicting customary usage of the term. The district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Treibacher and TDY understood their contracts to require TDY to purchase all of the TaC specified in each contract and

that Treibacher took reasonable measures to mitigate its losses after TDY breached. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

C.A.11 (Ala.),2006.

Treibacher Industrie, A.G. v. Allegheny Technologies, Inc.

464 F.3d 1235, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C

III.

综上，地方法庭合理地作出如下决定，根据CISG，双方在交易过程中归因于的合同条款的含义在遇到与之相冲突的传统使用时条款意思是可以成立的。地方法庭在作出如下判定时并未明显出错，Treibacher和TDY理解合同为要求TDY购买合同中明确规定的所有碳化钽，并且

Treibacher在TDY违约后也采取合理措施减少损

失。因此地方法庭作出的判定是认可的。

11

1046

Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)

? 2005 WL 4720507 (Appellate Brief) Appellant's Reply Brief (Sep. 1, 2005)

? 2005 WL 4720506 (Appellate Brief) Brief of Appellee Treibacher Industrie, AG (Aug. 8, 2005)

? 2005 WL 4720505 (Appellate Brief) Appellant's Opening Brief (Jul. 6, 2005) ? 05-13005 (Docket) (May 27, 2005)

Judges and Attorneys (Back to top) Judges | Attorneys Judges

United States District Court, Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Litigation History Report | Judicial Motion Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report | Profiler

United States District Court, Northern Alabama

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Litigation History Report | Judicial Motion Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report | Profiler

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Litigation History Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report | Profiler

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Litigation History Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report | Profiler

Attorneys

Attorneys for Defendant

12

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Litigation History Report | Profiler

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Litigation History Report | Profiler

Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Litigation History Report | Profiler

Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Litigation History Report | Profiler

Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Litigation History Report | Profiler

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Litigation History Report | Profiler

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Litigation History Report | Profiler

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Litigation History Report | Profiler

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Litigation History Report | Profiler

Huntsville, Alabama 35801

Litigation History Report | Profiler

Huntsville, Alabama 35801

Litigation History Report | Profiler

END OF DOCUMENT

13

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/b2pv.html