Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

Reproduced with permission of XII Levha Publishing Co., Istanbul (2012) pp. 43 et seq.

PIL and CISG: Friends or Foes?

Prof. Dr. Franco Ferrari [*]

  1. Introduction: Unification of Substantive Law v. Unification of Private International Law
  2. Express References to Private International Law in the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws and in the CISG
  3. The Concept of Private International Law under the CISG
  4. The CISG's Limited International Sphere of Application
  5. The CISG's Limited Substantive Sphere of Application
  6. The CISG's Applicability Requirements Stricto Sensu: Article 1(1)(b)
  7. The CISG's Applicability Requirements StrictoSensu: Article 1(1)(a)
  8. The CISG's Articles 92 and 93 Reservations as Reasons for the Need for Recourse to Private International Law
  9. The CISG's Limited Scope of Application: Internal Gaps
  10. The CISG's Limited Scope of Application: External Gaps
  11. The CISG's Limited Scope of Application and Article 4 CISG
  12. Personal Injury and Other Matters not Governed by the CISG
  13. CISG and Party Autonomy
  14. The Principle of Freedom from Form Reqirements and the Article 96 Reservation
  15. Conclusion

I. Introduction: Unification of Substantive Law v. Unification of Private International Law

It has often been stated that one of the main goals behind the drafting of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods [1] (the "CISG")[2] is the creation of certainty and predictability.[3] This is unsurprising, given that certainty and predictability constitute "the bedrock desiderata of [any] commercial [page 43] law",[4] and that the need for certainty and predictability is felt even more strongly where the commercial law, such the CISG,[5] deals with international situations.[6]

As far as the drafters of the CISG were concerned, they tried to achieve certainty and predictability by creating a uniform set of substantive rules, with the intention of overcoming the economic players' [page 44] supposedly worst enemy, i.e., national borders [7] and the differences between national legal systems,[8] which constituted (and still constitute)[9] "an obstacle to economic relationships which constantly increase among citizens of different countries; an obstacle above all for the enterprises that are involved in international commerce and that acquire primary resources or distribute goods in different countries which all have different law."[10]

However, the approach taken by the drafters of the CISG - creating a set of uniform substantive law rules - while certainly able to promote certainty and predictability in international commerce, is not the only approach that may result in predictability and certainty.[11] The drafting of [page 45] uniform rules of private international law, an approach that is even much older [12] than the aforementioned one - which is particularly associated with only the latter half of the last century[13] - also does the same.[14] Unlike uniform substantive law, which aims at guaranteeing that all parties from countries where the uniform substantive law is in force have equal access to the substantive law solutions,[15] uniform private international law, by making sure "that courts will apply the same legal rules no matter where the parties litigate the dispute",[16] "assures a business entering into a contract with a foreign enterprise that no matter what forum a dispute is brought before, the uniform choice-of-law rules will apply the same country's substantive law."[17]

The foregoing difference leads some commentators to - rightly - suggest that the unification of substantive law rules is, where at all possible, preferred over the unification of private international law rules, on the grounds that uniform substantive law rules are "of a higher level"[18] [page 46] or "superior"[19] vis-a-vis uniform private international law rules.[20] From a practical point of view, this means, inter alia, that whenever the court of a contracting State to a given uniform substantive law convention has to determine the substantive rules to apply to an international contract prima facie governed by that convention, it must resort to that convention rather than to its private international law rules. This result has been justified on two grounds: first, that the rules of a uniform substantive law convention, like the CISG, are more specific insofar as their sphere of application is more limited; and further, that they lead directly to a substantive solution, while resort to private international law requires a two-step approach, that is, the identification of the applicable law and the application thereof.[21]

It must be pointed out, however, that the prevalence of uniform substantive law vis-a-vis private international law (irrespective of whether it is uniform or not), does not necessarily lead to the conclusion, incorrectly drawn by some commentators, that resort to private international law is irreconcilable with the uniform substantive law approach.[22] This [page 47] statement, not unlike similar ones suggesting that uniform substantive law can do away with recourse to private international law,[23] is incorrect.

For certainty and predictability in international commercial transactions to be attained, it is necessary to recognize that there is an unavoidable interplay between private international law and the CISG, as the costs for wrongly relying on the view here criticized are much too high.[24] The coming of the CISG, in other words, cannot prevent resort to private international law altogether, as this paper will show. There are many instances, some more obvious than other, which require resort to private international law[.]

II. Express References to Private International Law in the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws and in the CISG

The CISG is not the only uniform substantive law instrument in relation to which statements to the effect that the uniform substantive law excludes resort to private international law have been made. Similar statements have been made, for instance, in relation to the CISG's predecessors, the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws.[25] Such statements were triggered by the text of the ULIS and the ULF, both of which contain provisions explicitly stating that for the purposes of their application private international law rules were to be excluded.[26] [page 48]

Still, despite the aforementioned provisions, even under the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws it was incorrect to state that resort to private international law rules was precluded.[27] As one commentator correctly pointed out, "[e]ven the adoption of the [1964 Hague] Uniform Law[s] everywhere in the world would not exclude the need for conflicts rules [...]: the Uniform Law[s] do not regulate all questions in the sales field [...]. In the end, the blackballed rules of private international law will have to be rediscovered and resorted to."[28]

Unfortunately, only few delegates participating in the 1964 Hague Diplomatic Conference seem to have understood this, which is why the aforementioned provisions, expressly excluding private international law rules from being relevant for the purposes of the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws were inserted in the first place.

The aforementioned provisions make it undoubtedly more difficult to depart from the more traditional way of seeing the relationship between uniform substantive law and private international law as an antagonistic one and, thus, to see that there is room for resort to private international law even where a uniform substantive law instrument is in force in the forum country. Thus, it does not really surprise that statements were made in respect of the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws according to which there is no room for recourse to private international law where uniform substantive law rules apply. What is surprising is that similar statements can also be found in discussions surrounding the CISG. One author, for instance, asserts that "[a]n important function of the CISG is to eliminate, or at least to reduce, the need to resort to conflict of laws rules";[29] another author claims that the CISG "should substantially reduce the [page 49] need for choice of law by [...] courts",[30] or, as yet another author puts it, "[p]arties will be forced to rely upon complicated conflict of law rules in fewer transactions if the Convention is widely applied."[31] Even more surprisingly, this view finds support in the UNCITRAL Secretariat's Commentary on the 1978 Draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, according to which one of the Convention's three principal goals is to "reduce the necessity of resorting to rules of private international law."[32]

Even a superficial reading of the CISG shows that these statements are misleading insofar as they make one believe that the CISG's uniform substantive rules preclude resort to private international law: the CISG itself expressly refers in two places (namely in Articles 1(1)(b) and 7(2)) to private international law.[33] Moreover, given the contexts in which reference to private international law is made, the importance of private international law for CISG-related transactions and problems becomes evident. In effect, Article 1(1)(b) lets even the applicability of the CISG [page 50] itself to depend (where the CISG is not "directly"[34] or "autonomously"[35] applicable due to the parties having their relevant places of business in different Contracting States to the CISG (Article 1(1)(a))) on a private international law analysis;[36] Article 1(1) indeed states that the CISG [page 51] "applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States: [...](b) when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State",[37] thus unambiguously making resort to private international law necessary even for the purpose of the CISG's own applicability (where the Article 1(1)(a) requirements are not met).

The importance of private international law for the CISG can also be derived from Article 7(2), the CISG's provision on gap-filling that refers to private international law as a means to determine rules on the basis of which to fill (some of) the CISG's gaps.[38] Aside from Articles [page 52] 1(1)(b) and 7(b), there are other instances as well, albeit less apparent ones, when resort to private international law cannot be foregone while.

III. The Concept of Private International Law under the CISG

Despite the aforementioned importance for the CISG of the concept "private international law",[39] expressly referred to, as already mentioned, in two places by the CISG text itself, the concept is not defined in the [page 53] CISG.[40] One has to wonder whether this means that the concept is to be interpreted, not unlike most other concepts used in the CISG, by having regard to the CISG's "international character and the need to promote uniformity in its application" - i.e. "autonomously",[41] that is, not in the [page 54] [page 55] light of domestic law [42] - or whether the concept is one of those exceptional concepts that have to be interpreted "domestically"?[43]

The importance of the answer to this question becomes evident if one considers the differences that exist between the rules of private international law of different countries. While, for instance, the parties' freedom to choose the law applicable to their contract has long been accepted in many countries,[44] as in all Member States of the European Union,[45] a similar choice does not necessarily produce any effect in other [page 56] countries.[46] Although this may appear to be the most significant difference, it is certainly not the only one. As far as private international law rules relating to contracts are concerned, many countries have, as have many international conventions [47] as well as the recent Rome I Regulation,[48] rejected the doctrine of renvoi; nevertheless, there are a few countries which still accept that doctrine.[49]

But are these differences really relevant? Obviously, such differences would be irrelevant if the concept at hand were to be interpreted autonomously. In this author's opinion, however, the concept at hand is one of the concepts which have to be construed in light of the applicable [page 57] domestic law,[50] as also expressly stated by various courts.[51] The CISG "merely" constitutes a substantive law convention [52] and does not set forth any private international law rules.[53] This leads one to conclude that where the CISG itself refers to "private international law", it refers to a domestic concept of "private international law";[54] more specifically, it refers to the private international law of the forum,[55] as confirmed by various courts.[56] This is why it is, for instance, incorrect to criticize, as some commentators do, an Austrian court's decision [57] for employing the doctrine of renvoi on the grounds that the CISG rejects the renvoi doctrine.[58] As the CISG does not set forth any rule of private international [page 58] law, it does not deal with the issue of renvoi either. Furthermore, at the time the Austrian decision was rendered, renvoi was a doctrine recognized by Austrian private international law, thus requiring the court to take into account the private international law rules of the Austrian private international law.

From what has just been said, it becomes apparent that whenever a court has to resort to private international law in the CISG context, it will have to resort to its own private international rules, irrespective of whether the matters in dispute relate to those in respect of which the CISG itself refers to the need for a private international law approach or to one of the many other ones that require resort to private international law.

IV. The CISG's Limited International Sphere of Application

The following parts of this paper will be devoted to identifying the many reasons why it is incorrect to state that the coming into force of the CISG in a given country prevents the courts of that country from having to resort to private international law. Some, albeit not all, of the reasons relate to the CISG's applicability being subject to various requirements, which makes it necessary to clearly distinguish between the CISG's coming into force and its applicability, a distinction that seems to be overlooked by those suggesting that the coming into force of the CISG prevents recourse to private international law. [page 59]

The first CISG requirement that comes to one's mind when examining the relationship between the CISG and private international law is the CISG's internationality requirement; after all, it is internationality that triggers recourse to private international law.

The CISG's international sphere of application, like its substantive sphere of application,[59] is also limited.[60] In effect, according to Article 1(1) of the CISG, the internationality of a contract depends solely [61] on the parties having their places of business (or, where the parties do not have a place of business, their habitual residence) [62] - at the time of the conclusion of the contract [63] - in different States.[64] [page 60]

Where this "subjective"[65] internationality requirement is not met, the CISG will not be applicable per se,[66] even if the contract's performance involves different States,[67] as emphasized both in legal writing [68] and case law.[69] This, however, does not necessarily signify that the contract for the sale of goods is not an international one; it merely means that it does not meet the CISG's internationality requirement. The importance of this [page 61] distinction becomes apparent if one considers the consequences of not meeting the CISG's internationality requirement. In this situation, the court will not have to further look into the CISG's applicability; instead, the court will have to turn to its rules of private international law to determine the domestic law applicable to the contract. This law will necessarily be different from that laid down by the CISG, even if the rules of private international law lead to the law of a contracting State. Ultimately, this goes to show that despite the entry into force of the CISG in a given country, there is still a great deal of room for a private international law approach by the courts of that country, even where the CISG substantive applicability requirements (to be dealt with below) are met.[70]

In light of Article 1(2) of the CISG, one can go even further and state that even where the contract also meets the internationality requirement, as set forth in Article 1(1) of the CISG, resort to private international law may be necessary even for internationality-related purposes.

Article 1(2) of the CISG requires, as emphasized by many courts,[71] that the internationality under Article 1(1) be disregarded whenever the fact that the parties have their places of business in different States does not appear either from the contract, or from any dealings between or from information disclosed by the parties, at any time before or at the conclusion of the contract.[72] By introducing Article 1(2), the drafters of the [page 62] CISG intended to protect the parties' reliance upon the domestic setting of their contract.[73] This intention of the drafters cannot be stressed often enough, given a recent decision by a U.S. court [74] that appears to have misunderstood this. The U.S. court interpreted Article 1(2) of the CISG to mean that it protects the parties' reliance upon the CISG's (in) applicability. This is incorrect; Article 1(2) CISG merely protects the parties' reliance upon the domestic setting in which their transaction is embedded.

To summarize, where the parties' reliance upon the domestic setting deserves protection, the CISG cannot apply, despite the contract's internationality under Article 1(1). This means that courts have to determine the applicable law by resorting to their rules of private international law, which necessarily will make applicable a set of rules different from those of the CISG, even where its rules of private international law lead to the law of a contracting State.

According to various commentators, the "essential application"[75] of Article 1(2) of the CISG arises in a case in which one party that has its place of business in one State concludes a contract with another party that has its place of business in that same State, without disclosing the fact that it is acting on behalf of someone else who has his place of business in a different State.[76] In such a case, the internationality of the transaction depends upon who is considered a "party" to the contract.

As pointed out both in legal writing [77] and in case law,[78] unlike most other [page 63] expressions used in the CISG, the concept of party is not one that has to be interpreted "autonomously", i.e., without having regard to concepts of a particular domestic law.[79] Rather, the question of who is a "party" to a contract is "to be solved on the basis of the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law of the forum".[80] This is in line with the view held both in legal writing and case law [81] stipulating that agency is a matter with which the CISG is not concerned.

Ultimately, what has just been said means that courts may at times have to resort to private international law even to determine the internationality of a contract under the CISG, at least when the exporter and the importer are not the only parties involved in the conclusion of the contract. [page 64]

V. The CISG's Limited Substantive Sphere of Application

Like all other uniform substantive law conventions,[82] the CISG's sphere of application ratione materiae [83] is limited,[84] too. This, of course, means that where a given international contract falls outside that - limited - substantive sphere of application, one has to determine which law applies by resorting to the private international law rules (of the forum).

What has just been said can best be exemplified by referring to Article 2 of the CISG, which restricts the CISG's substantive sphere of application [85] by expressly excluding a limited number of exhaustively listed [86] categories of contracts, thus laying down negative applicability [page 65] requirements in so far as Article 2 requires courts to determine that the contracts in dispute are not of the kind excluded.[87] These exclusions can be divided into three categories [88] based on the reasons for the exclusions [page 66] from the CISG's sphere of application.[89] In effect, the exclusions are based on either (1) the purpose of the acquisition of the goods (Article 2(a)), (2) the type of sales contract (Article 2(b) and (c)), or (3) the kind of goods sold (Article 2(d), (e) and (f)).[90]

As far as these exclusions go, it is commonly understood that they are farther reaching than those provided for by the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws.[91] This is evidenced, for example, by the exclusion of auction sales from the CISG's substantive sphere of application,[92] an exclusion that is not found in the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws.[93] [page 67]

In addition to this type of sale, Article 2 also excludes from the CISG's substantive sphere of application the sale of goods bought for personal use, so as to avoid a conflict between the CISG rules and domestic laws aimed at consumer protection.[94] Unfortunately, as pointed out by the German Supreme Court in a recent decision, there is still potential for conflict,[95] since domestic law may, and often does, define "consumer sales" differently, creating cases of potential overlap.[96] Indeed, for a contract to be a "consumer sale" contract under the CISG and, thus, to fall outside the CISG's sphere of application under Article 2(a), the contract must be one for the sale of goods bought exclusively for a noncommercial purpose,[97] i.e., for "personal" use,[98] as, for example, when the [page 68] buyer purchases a car [99] or a caravan [100] to use it for himself, and not for his business or profession. The fact that the goods are consumer goods is, generally speaking, irrelevant for the purposes of the Article 2(a) exclusion.[101]

Furthermore, Article 2(a) requires that the "consumer" purpose of the purchase be known (or ought to have been known) to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract.[102] Consequently, it is irrelevant whether the seller in effect knows of the non-commercial purpose of the purchase after the conclusion of the contract.[103]

It is worth mentioning that Article 2(a) compares family and household use to personal use. It is doubtful, however, whether the express contemplation of "family and household use" adds anything to the exclusion of the sale of goods bought for personal use,[104] since the former exclusions merely represent examples of "personal use".[105] [page 69]

As already pointed out,[106] the Article 2 exclusions are based not only upon the purpose of the acquisition of the goods or upon the type of sales contract (such as auction sales, sales on execution, or otherwise by authority of law mentioned in Article 2(c)), but also on the kind of goods sold (Article 2(d), (e) and (f)).[107] In this respect, it must be mentioned that Article 2(d) expressly excludes the sales of stocks, shares, investment securities, negotiable instruments, and money from the CISG's sphere of application,[108] in order to avoid a conflict between CISG rules and domestic rules that often are mandatory.[109]

The exclusions of the sale of ships,[110] vessels, hovercrafts, and aircrafts [111] provided for in Article 2(e) fall within the same category as the [page 70] exclusion of commercial papers and money,[112] that is, sales excluded on the basis of the nature of the goods sold.[113]

Finally, the exclusion from the CISG's sphere of application of sales contracts regarding electricity [114] deserves special mention. According to some authors, the exclusion de quo can be justified on the ground of electricity's "unique" nature [115] or "[...] on the ground that in many legal systems electricity is not considered to be a good".[116] Neither justification appears to be convincing.[117] Indeed, the former justification overlooks the fact that there are other goods, such as gas [118] and crude oil,[119] whose sale presents "unique" problems,[120] but which are governed by the [page 71] CISG, [121] as are the sales of other sources of energy.[122] The latter justification is not convincing either, "[...] because the Convention may create its own definition of good."[123] Indeed, the exclusion of electricity sales from the CISG's sphere of application cannot be justified.

From all of the foregoing, one can easily derive that limitations to the CISG's substantive sphere of application constitute another reason for resorting to private international law: where a given contract for the itnernational sale of goods falls outside the CISG's limited substantive sphere of application, one has to determine which law applies by resorting to the private international law rules (of the forum).

VI. The CISG's Applicability Requirements Stricto Sensu: Article 1(1)(b)

Generally, internationality alone - except in very few cases, such as under the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws [124] - is not sufficient to make an international uniform contract law convention applicable. Most uniform contract law conventions also require the existence of a specific link between the contract, the parties,[125] or the places relevant with respect to a specific kind of contract (such as the place of taking over the goods, or the place designated for delivery, relevant for contracts for the carriage of goods [126]) and a contracting State or the law of such a State.[127] [page 72]

As a consequence, a contract falling within both the international and the substantive spheres of application of an international uniform substantive law convention is generally not governed by that convention, unless the aforementioned connection with a contracting State or the law of a contracting State also exists.[128]

What has just been said holds true with respect to the CISG as well.[129] Even where a contract is one for the international sale of goods as defined by the CISG, it is not necessarily governed by the CISG, as the CISG also requires either that the parties have their places of business in different contracting States (which leads to the "direct application"[130] of the CISG by virtue of Article 1(1)(a)) or that the private international [page 73] law rules of the forum [131] lead to the law of a contracting State [132] (which leads to the "indirect application"[133] by virtue of Article 1(1)(b)).

As pointed out by one scholar, by setting forth this further requirement, the drafters of the CISG created a distinction between two types of international contracts for the sale of goods: (1) those contracts to which the CISG applies, and (2) those contracts to which the CISG does not apply and which are therefore subject to the applicable domestic law.[134]

In other words, the drafters themselves created a distinction between contracts for the international sale of goods governed by the CISG and contracts for the international sale of goods governed by sources of law other than the CISG - to be identified, most certainly, on the basis of the rules of private international law.

By introducing the aforementioned requirement, the drafters of the CISG introduced one more reason why resort to private international law cannot necessarily be avoided under the CISG. Not only, due to that requirement, resort to private international law may well be necessary to even determine whether the CISG is applicable at all. As regards the CISG's "indirect applicability", this is evident from the wording of Article 1(1)(b) itself, which lets the applicability of the CISG depend, where one or even both parties do not have their place of business in Contracting [page 74] States,[135] on whether "the rule of private international lead to the law of a contracting State".[136]

In practice, this means, for instance, that where a dispute is brought before the court of a Contracting State in which the relevant rules of private international law are either those of the 1980 EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations [137] (the "Rome Convention") or those of the Rome I Regulation,[138] the CISG will generally be [page 75] applicable when the law chosen by the parties or, absent a choice of law, the law having the closest connection with the contract (Art. 4(1) of the Rome Convention) or the law of the seller (Art. 4(1)(a) of the Rome I Regulation), is the law of a Contracting State.[139]

As far as party autonomy under the Rome Convention is concerned [140] - and the same holds true for the Rome I Regulation [141] that [page 76] replaced the Rome Convention as regards contracts concluded on or after 18 December 2009 - this does not raise too many problems, it being a concept widely acknowledged throughout European private international law codifications long before even the coming into force of the foregoing European instruments.[142] This is why party autonomy does not cause too many difficulties with respect to contracts for the international sale of goods,[143] as evidenced by the fact that several courts [144] as well as arbitral tribunals [145] have already relied upon the parties' designation of the applicable law to make the CISG applicable under Article 1(1)(b). [page 77]

Absent a choice of law, the Rome Convention makes applicable the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected, as also pointed out by several court decisions rendered under the CISG.[146]

Since it is presumed that the contract is most closely connected with the country where the party who is to effect the contract's characteristic performance has its place of business [147] - and since the monetary obligation is generally not the characteristic one, as expressly stated by a German court [148] - the law applicable to international sales contracts is generally, where the presumption is not rebutted,[149] the law of the seller,[150] since [page 78] it is the seller who has to execute the characteristic performance [151] consisting of the transfer of ownership and the delivery of the goods,[152] as confirmed by both state courts [153] and arbitral tribunals.[154]

As regards the Rome I Regulation, the result is basically the same, since its Article 4(1)(a) states that "a contract for the sale of goods shall [page 79] be governed by the law of the country where the seller has his habitual residence."[155]

From what has just been said one can easily gather that the suggestion that the CISG prevents resort to private international law is obviously untenable, as the CISG's (indirect) applicability depends entirely on a private international law approach.

VII. The CISG's Applicability Requirements StrictoSensu: Article 1(1)(a)

While Article 1(1)(b) expressly requires resort to private international law to lead to the CISG's applicability, according to both courts [156] and commentators [157] Article 1(1)(a) leads to the CISG's "direct" applicability without the need for any such resort, as Article 1(1)(a) "merely" requires that the parties have, at the time of the conclusion of the contract,[158] their relevant place of business in different contracting States.

This, however, is not necessarily correct. There are instances where even [page 80] the CISG's "direct" applicability will depend on the outcome of a private international law analysis. This is true, for example, in respect of those instances where an agent is involved in the conclusion of the sales contract and the agent's place of business is located in a country other than that in which the principal's place of business is located. In these instances, the CISG's "direct" applicability, will depend on whether it is the agent or the principal who is party to the contract with the opposing party.[159] Since, however, the CISG does not deal with the issue of agency, as often stated both by courts [160] and commentators,[161] resort to private international law is necessary to determine the law applicable to the principal-agency relationship,[162] as it is on the basis of that applicable law that the issue of who is party to the contract will need to be decided.[163] Most domestic [page 81] laws will decide the issue on the basis of whether the agent disclosed the principal or not.[164] If the agent did not do so, it is generally the agent who will be bound rather than the principal. The opposite is true where the agent did disclose the principal.[165]

But even where no agent is involved and the parties to the contract have their relevant place of business in two different contracting States the CISG's applicability pursuant to Article 1(1)(a) may be doubtful – and resort to a private international law analysis necessary, since the CISG provides for the possibility for contracting States to declare certain reservations which have an impact on the CISG's direct applicability, i.e., even when both parties have their relevant place of business in a contracting State.

One such reservation is that provided in Article 94. Pursuant to this provision, "[t]wo or more Contracting States which have the same or closely related legal rules on matters governed by this Convention may at any time declare that the Convention is not to apply to contracts of sale or to their formation where the parties have their places of business in those States". The rationale behind this provision, introduced upon the request of the Scandinavian countries,[166] the only ones to declare this reservation,[167] is to make the CISG inapplicable to contractual relationships between parties that have their places of business in countries that have a sales law that is largely uniform,[168] thus allowing regional unification efforts not to become superfluous.[169] Consequently, the CISG will not [page 82] be applicable where both parties have their relevant place of business in contracting States that made an Article 94 declaration, thus once again making it necessary to resort to the private international law rules of the forum to determine the applicable law. If the applicable law is that of a contracting State (independently of whether it declared a reservation or not), the CISG will not apply; rather the applicable domestic law will apply.

This view appears to be shared by most authors, at least in respect to the line of cases in which the court is located in a State that made an Article 94 declaration. There is a dispute, however, as to whether the court of non-reservation contracting States as well have to take into consideration Article 94 declarations, i.e., whether judges from non-reservation contracting States will have to apply domestic law rather than the CISG to a contract concluded between two parties having their places of business in reservation contracting States. According to the preferable view,[170] the courts of non-reservation contracting State will not have to take into consideration that reservation, and, consequently, will have to apply the CISG in such cases pursuant to Article 1(1)(a), as the Article 94 does not have an impact on the status of contracting State of any contracting State declaring such reservation. Of course, if one were to adopt the opposing view, then recourse to a private international law analysis would also be necessary in similar cases to determine the applicable (domestic) law. [page 83]

VIII. The CISG's Articles 92 and 93 Reservations as Reasons for the Need for Recourse to Private International Law

Article 94 CISG is not the only CISG provision to have an impact on the CISG's direct applicability and, thus, to impose a private internationsal law analysis. Article 92 also does so; actually, the very purpose behind the introduction of this provision was to allow some countries, namely Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, to rely on a set of rules other than those of the CISG, namely their (regionally unified) own rules.[171] These countries proposed to allow contracting States to make a declaration pursuant to which they would not be bound by either Part II or Part III of the CISG, dealing with the "formation of contract" and "the rights and obligations of the parties" respectively. In doing so, they intended to make sure that their rules on formation of contract would not be replaced by the CISG's rules on formation.[172] This is why all the aforementioned Scandinavian countries made a declaration according towhich they would not be bound by Part II of the CISG (on "Formation of Contract"). Whether these countries were fully aware of the consequences of a similar declaration is doubtful. Given the rationale behind their proposal to introduce the possibility of declaring that reservation, it appears that these countries were convinced that a simple declaration would ensure the applicability of their own domestic law. This view is not [page 84] tenable. The effect of an Article 92 declaration is much more limited, as well as much more complicated. It is more limited insofar as there will be instances where the CISG will still prevail over the law of the reservation State;[173] it is more complicated insofar as the declaration of an Article 92 reservation obliges courts of contracting States to resort to a private international law analysis, thus showing once again that the CISG cannot do away with resort to private international law, and this even where both parties to the contract have their relevant place of business in a contracting State to the CISG.

The effect of this reservation is set forth in Article 92 CISG itself: a party that has its relevant place of business in an Article 92 reservation State is considered to have its place of business in a non-contracting State for the purposes of the Part excluded.[174] Thus, where one party has its place of business in such a State, the CISG can never be applicable by virtue of Art. 1(1)(a) CISG in its entirety.[175] Article 1(1)(a) will merely lead to the application of the Part by which both States in which the parties have their places of business are bound.[176] This does not necessarily [page 85] mean that the Part to which the reservation relates does not apply;[177] rather, that Part's applicability will depend, as will be shown later, on whether the rules of private international law of the forum lead to the law of a Contracting State that did not make such a declaration.[178] If they do, the Part excluded will apply by virtue of Article 1(1)(b),[179] as also stated in case law.[180] [page 86]

It should be noted, however, that according to both commentators [181] and courts,[182] the foregoing solution applies not only if a dispute is brought before the courts of a Contracting State that did not declare an Article 92 reservation, but also where the forum is located in a State that did declare such a reservation.

Where, on the contrary, the private international law rules lead to the law of a contracting State that had declared the Article 92 reservation, that State's domestic law will apply, a view held, among others, by a German court;[183] The court held that since both Germany and Denmark were contracting States at the moment of the conclusion of the contract, the CISG applied by virtue of Article 1(1)(a), except in so far as the formation of the contract was concerned. Since Denmark had made an Article 92 reservation by virtue of which it is not bound by Part II of the CISG, it cannot "be considered a contracting State within paragraph (1) of article 1 of [the] Convention."[184] The German court therefore correctly resorted to its private international law rules and applied Danish domestic non-uniform law to the formation of the contract.

What has just been said clearly shows that the very existence of Article 92 CISG suggests that is is incorrect to hold that the CISg prevents recourse to private international law.

A reasoning similar to the foregoing one applies in those cases where at least one of the parties to the contract has its place of business in a territorial unit of a contracting State that made an Article 93 declaration pursuant to which the CISG does not extend to that territorial unit: by virtue of Article 93(3) the CISG cannot apply (at all) by virtue of [page 87] Article 1(1)(a) CISG,[185] because the party that has its place in that territorial unit is considered to have its place of business in a non-contracting State.[186] Consequently, where the forum is located in a contracting State, the CISG can only be applicable to such a contract by virtue of Article 1(1)(b), provided that the rules of private international law lead to the law of a contracting State that did not declare an Article 93 reservation.[187]

Where the rules of private international law lead to either the law of the reservation State or that of a non-contracting State, rules other than those of the CISG will apply. Irrespective, however, of the law ultimately applicable, hat is important is that it must be determined by means of the private international law rules.

IX. The CISG's Limited Scope of Application: Internal Gaps

While the foregoing reasons for resort to private international law not becoming superfluous with the coming into force of the CISG all somehow relate to the CISG's applicability, those reasons are not the only ones. Recourse to a private international law analysis may be necessary even where the CISG is applicable. This can easily be derived from the CISG itself which, as mentioned earlier,[188] expressly refers to the need for resort to private international in relation to the issue of gap-filling.

Even though some commentators state that the CISG is "a comprehensive code governing international sales of goods"[189] and "addressing [page 88] contracting generally"[190] and, therefore, governs all international sales transactions [191] and "exhaustively deals with all problems",[192] the CISG is neither a comprehensive code nor does it constitute an exhaustive body of rules,[193] i.e., it does not provide solutions to all matters that may originate from an international sale.[194] From this one can easily gather how important the issue of gap filling is. And it is in relation to this issue as well that express reference is made in the CISG to the need to resort to the rules of private international law (of the forum).[195]

In effect, pursuant to Article 7(2), resort to private international is to be had for the purpose of solving "matters governed by [the CISG] which are not expressly settled in it", i.e., for filling the gaps praeter lege,[196] or [page 89] "internal"[197] or "hidden"[198] gaps, and which cannot be filled by resorting to the general principles the CISG is based on.[199] Thus, in relation to these matters the CISG expressly provides for resort to private international law to determine the applicable law, but solely as 'ultima ratio".[200] This [page 90] means that pursuant to Article 7(2) CISG, once it has been established that a matter is governed by the CISG, albeit not expressly settled by it, one has to first determine whether a general principle can be identified upon which the CISG is based and which allows one to settle the matter.[201]

To the extent that recourse to a general principle underlying the CISG cannot settle the matter, Article 7(2) does not just allow resort to the rules of private international law, it imposes such resort.[202] This does [page 91] not mean that recourse to the rules of private international law should be abused.[203] Rather, one has to always keep in mind that the drafters of the CISG wanted to close the types of gaps at hand as much as possible from within the CISG itself,[204] so as to promote the uniformity aimed at by the CISG. It is, however, worth pointing out that recourse to general principles constitutes merely one method of filling gaps from within.[205]

One has to wonder whether Article 7(2) of the CISG also covers other methods of legal reasoning, such as analogical application.[206] In this respect, this author shares the opinion of those commentators who assert not only that the CISG permits resort to analogy as a means to fill gaps, but also that "[i]n the case of a gap [praeter legem] in the Convention the first attempt to be made is to settle the unsolved question by means of an analogical application of specific provisions."[207] However, when the matters [page 92] settled in the CISG and the issue the internal gaps refers to are not so closely related that it would be justified to adopt a different solution,[208] one must resort to the general principles as contemplated in Article 7(2) CISG. This procedure differs from the analogical application in that it does not resolve the specific case solely by extending specific provisions dealing with analogous matters, "but on the basis of principles and rules which because of their general character may be applied on a much wider scale."[209]

Ultimately, what has been said thus far means that recourse to the rules of private international law "represents under the [...] uniform law a last resort to be used only if and to the extent that a solution cannot be found either by analogical application of specific provisions or by the application of 'general principles' underlying the uniform law as such",[210] which, it is worth pointing out, promotes uniformity as much as the autonomous interpretation of the CISG mentioned earlier.

X. The CISG's Limited Scope of Application: External Gaps

At this point, it is worth pointing out that a private international law analysis has not been resorted to often to fill the aforementioned (internal) gaps. Where courts and commentators have resorted to a general principle at all, they have generally settled the matter through the general principle, thus avoiding the need for a private international law analysis.

The aforementioned matters have, however, to be distinguished from the matters that are excluded from the CISG's limited scope of [page 93] application.[211] These matters – labelled either "external gaps"[212] or gaps "intra legem"[213] – must, despite the lack of a specific provision to that effect, directly be solved in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law [214] (or, where applicable, with other uniform substantive law conventions),[215] as also pointed out in case law.[216] [page 94]

This approach is completely different from the one relating to the one to be adopted in respect of the internal gaps. From this, one can easily derive not only how important the exact distinction between the aforementioned types of gaps is, but also how the attitude towards resort to private international law may shape how certain matters are dealt with. In effect, whereas some commentators will have resort to private international law only rarely, because they are convinced that the CISG displaces the need for such resort and feel more comfortable with recourse to general principles, and, therefore, will have no problem interpreting the CISG's scope broadly, other commentators will be inclined to favor the private international law approach.[217]

This problem is not limited to commentators; courts also have difficulties in determining whether a matter has to be settled by resorting to the CISG's general principles rather than by having recourse to private international law to determine the substantive rules to apply. This is evidenced, for instance, by the contradictory case law in respect of the determination of the place of performance of montary obligations other than that of the payment of price.[218]

When determining the place of payment of compensation due for non-conformity of the goods one court, for instance, stated that "if the purchase price is payable at the place of business of the seller" under Article 57,[219] then "this indicates a general principle valid for other monetary [page 95] claims as well".[220] In a comparable situation, another court, considering an action for restitution of an excess in the price received by the seller, stated that there was a general principle under which "payment is to be made at the creditor's domicile".[221] The Austrian Supreme Court, which had previously adopted the reverse principle, decided that the gap of the CISG in respect of the legal consequences of avoidance, particularly with regard to the performance of restitution obligations, was to be filled by means of a general principle of the CISG, according to which "the place for performance of restitution obligations should be determined by transposing the primary obligations - through a mirror effect - into restitution obligations".[222]

Whereas all the foregoing decisions assume that the matter is governed by, albeit not expressly settled in, the CISG, there is one decision which, in this author's opinion correctly, denies the existence of a general principle under the CISG to be used to determine the place of performance for all monetary obligations [223] and determines the place of performance more correctly by resorting to the law applicable by virtue of its private international law rules.[224]

XI. The CISG's Limited Scope of Application and Article 4 CISG

From the foregoing, it becomes apparent how important the distinction between the various tpyes of gaps and their identification really are. Unfortuantely, however, the CISG does not set forth specific criteria on how to make the distinction. Article 4 CISG provides, however, some [page 96] help, as it contains a (non-exhaustive [225]) list of matters the CISG is not concerned with, namely the validity of the contract or of any of its provisions or of any usage as well as the effect which the contract may have on the property in the goods sold.

At first sight, the aforementioned part of Article 4 does not seem to cause any problems (one author even stated that the provision at hand was superfluous since it only stated the obvious [226]). Quite the contrary is true. The insertion, for instance, of the introductory wording to Article 4(a) and (b) "except as otherwise expressly provided in this Convention", leads to the conclusion that even where a dispute concerns a matter listed either in Article 4(a) or Article 4(b) and, thus, apparently excluded from the CISG's scope of application and therefore left (mostly) to the applicable law to be determined by resorting to the rule sof private international law of forum, one cannot simply disregard the CISG. Rather, one has to first examine whether the CISG provides a solution for the specific problem.[227] With reference to the validity, for instance, which according to Article 4(a) is a matter excluded from the CISG's scope of application.[228] this means that one has to first look into whether the validity [page 97] issue in dispute is expressly dealt with by the CISG before resorting to the law applicable by virtue of the private international law rules. This is why, for instance, one cannot automatically resort to private international law rules to solve problems relating to the formal validity of the contract, since the CISG is ("expressly") concerned with it: Article 11 provides that a contract governed by the CISG need not be concluded in or evidenced by writing and is not subject to any other requirement of form, thus dealing with an issue that in many legal systems is considered to be an issue of validity.[229]

The aforementioned problem is not the only one that arises from the exclusion of validity from the CISG's scope of application. Another (rather important) one is that of defining "validity" for the purposes of the CISG. The importance of that definition becomes evident when one considers how different the definitions found in the various legal systems actually are.[230] Various attempts at defining the concept were made by US courts;[231] according to those courts' decisions, a validity issue is "any issue by which the domestic law would render the contract void, voidable, or unenforceable."[232] Whether this definition will prevail remains to be seen. What can be said, however, is that even in applying that definition the outcome of those decisions that had to deal, for instance, with the [page 98] issue of whether a contract was validly concluded by a third person acting on behalf of one of the parties would not have been different: that issue would still be considered one left to the applicable national law to be determined on the basis of the rules of private international law, since agency, as mentioned on several occasions already, is not governed by the CISG; neither is the validity of standard contract terms, as correctly pointed out in case law;[233] that issue is also left to the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law.

However, Article 4(a) does not only exclude from its scope the validity of the contract or of its provisions, such as the retention of title clauses inserted into the contract,[234] but also the validity of usages, which is why this issue as well is left to the domestic law to be identified by means of the relevant private international law rules.[235] This validity issue must, however, be distinguished from that of how usages are to be defined, under which circumstances they are binding for the parties and what their relationship is with the rules set forth in the CISG, as these issues are dealt with in Article 9.[236]

Article 4 also makes clear that the CISG does not govern the passing of property of the goods sold,[237] thus making it necessary, once again, to resort to private international law rules to determine the applicable law. [page 99]

XII. Personal Injury and Other Matters not Governed by the CISG

Article 4 CISG is, however, not the only provsion that expressly lists matters not governed by the CISG. According to its Article 5, the CISG is not concerned with the liability for death or personal injury caused by the goods to any person either, as also pointed out in case law.[238] Not unlike Article 4, at first sight Article 5 seems not to raise any problems; unfortunately, this is not true at all. One problem relates, for instance,[239] to whether the exclusion really is a general one, i.e., whether it really covers the liability for death or personal injury caused by the goods to "any person". In this respect is has been correctly pointed out that the exclusion covers "both injury to the buyer or others persons participating at least indirectly in the contract and also injury to non-participating third parties".[240] As a consequence of the liability for death or personal injury "to any person" being excluded from the CISG's scope of application, the [page 100] buyer's claims for pecuniary loss resulting from a claim against the buyer itself for personal injury caused by the goods the buyer sold in a sub-sale is also excluded from the CISG's scope of application [241] and, therefore, has to be decided in conformity with the domestic law to be identified by means of the relevant rules of private international law.

Whereas liability for personal injury is excluded from the CISG's scope, liability for damage caused to property is not.[242] This, of course, may cause a conflict between contractual claims based on the CISG and tort claims based on domestic law.[243] The issue is whether the damaged party can also bring a tort claim or whether the CISG pre-empts that possibility, even though the CISG, as correctly pointed out in case law, is not concerned with tort law.[244] In this author's opinion,[245] the view according to which the CISG is exclusively applicable,[246] i.e., that it also prevails [page 101] over all domestic tort law,[247] is to be rejected.[248] The reason for this can be summarized as follows: "If the goods are defective – non-conforming to the contract or not – and cause bodily injury, we are outside the scope of the CISG, Article 5. But even if only property damages were caused, [...] we are outside the principal domain of interests created by contracts and protected by contractual remedies, and would have entered the field of genuinely extra-contractual remedies. Therefore, a tort action for property damages caused by defective and non-conforming goods should not be barred by an omission to give notice within reasonable time under Article 30 of CISG."[249] Furthermore, the solution advocated here is also more compatible with the CISG's dispositive nature: if the CISG were to deal exclusively with all the claims – whether contractual or extra-contractual – arising from personal injury and the CISG were to be excluded (or the relevant provisions were derogated from), the damaged party would not able to claim damages for the personal injury at all. This cannot be. If this is true, then, however, one may have to have recourse to private international law to determine, for instance, the applicable tort law.

The aforementioned matters expressly listed as falling outside the CISG's scope of application are not the only ones the CISG is not concerned with. There are many other matters that do fall outside the [page 102] CISG's scope of application [250] and are left to the applicable law which, where no other uniform law convention applies, such as the Uncitral Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods, is to be determined by means of the private international law rules of the forum. Among the matters identified by courts and commentators as not being at all governed by the CISG are, among others, the validity of a choice of forum clause,[251] the validity of a penalty clause,[252] the validity [page 103] of a settlement agreement,[253] the assignment of receivables,[254] the assignment of contract,[255] statute of limitations,[256] the issue of whether a court [page 104] has jurisdiction,[257] and generally, any other issue of procedural law,[258] the assumption of debts,[259] the acknowledgement of debts,[260] the effects of the contract on third parties [261] as well as the issue of whether one is jointly liable.[262] One court ruled that the question of who has priority [page 105] rights in the goods as between the seller and the third party creditor was also beyond the scope of the CISG and had therefore to be governed by the applicable domestic law.[263]

Whereas there is not too much dispute as to whether the foregoing matters are excluded from the CISG's scope of application, there are matters in respect of which case law is contradictory. This is true, to just give one example, in respect of set-off. Although the majority of cases rightly exclude it from the matters the CISG is concerned with,[264] there [page 106] are some instances [265] in which courts stated that set-off was governed by the CISG provided that the receivables all arose from contract governed by the CISG.

From the foregoing remarks it becomes evident that the very nature of the CISG – it being a non-exhaustive uniform substantive law convention – makes it impossible for it to exclude all resort to private international law.

XIII. CISG and Party Autonomy

Even where all of the CISG's positive applicability requirements (the international one, the substantive one, the temporal one, the personal/territorial one) are met and the issues to be dealt with by the court are governed by the CISG, resort to private international law may be necessary. The most obvious reason for this is Article 6 of the CISG, which allows the parties to "exclude the application of this Convention or, subject to Article 12, derogate from or vary the effect of any of its provisions". By providing for this possibility, which business apparently takes advantage of rather often [266] for fear of the unknown,[267] the drafters of the CISG reaffirmed, despite some reservations,[268] one of the general [page 107] principles already embodied in the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws,[269] that is, the principle according to which the primary source of the rules governing international sales contracts [270] is party autonomy.[271] By stating that the CISG can be excluded, the drafters clearly acknowledged [page 108] the CISG dispositive nature [272] - emphasized also in case law [273] - and the "central role which party autonomy plays in international commerce and, particularly, in international sales."[274] [page 109]

As far as party autonomy is concerned, it must be pointed out that Article 6 CISG refers to two different lines of cases:[275] one where the CISG's application is excluded, the other where the parties derogate from - or modify the effects of - the provisions of the CISG on a substantive level.[276] These two situations differ from each other in that the former does, according to the CISG, per se not encounter any restrictions,[277] whereas the latter is limited, since there are provisions the parties are not allowed to derogate from.[278] [page 110]

For the purpose of this paper, this distinction is important insofar as the rules to be applied in case of exclusion of the CISG are different from those to be applied in case the parties derogate from (or modify the effect of) the provisions of the CISG.

In the former case, the courts will have to resort to their rules of private international [279] to determine the applicable law (which, whenever they lead to the law a contracting State, make applicable that State's domestic sales law [280]). Thus, where the parties do not choose the applicable law when excluding the CISG, the courts will have to determine the applicable law by means of objective connecting factors; since these factors, at least in Europe,[281] lead to the application of the "law of a country",[282] courts will not be able to apply non-binding rules, such as the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (hereinafter: UNIDROIT Principles).[283] Where, on the other hand, the parties choose the applicable law, it is on the basis of their rules of private international that courts have to determine whether the choice is to be taken into account, which is it, at least in those countries the rules of private international law of which are laid down by either the Rome Conventio nor the Rome I Regulation.

Where, on the contrary, the parties modify the effect of provisions of the CISG through the contract, the rules to be resorted to are basically those laid down in the contract itself. This does not mean, however, that resort to private international is completely superfluous in this line of [page 111] cases either. The courts will in any case have to determine whether the various contract clauses violate the mandatory rules of the law applicable to be determined once again on the basis of the ruels of private international law.

This goes to show that resort to private international law may also be relevant even if the contract meets all of the CISG's applicability requirements and the issue to be dealt with is one governed by the CISG, given the parties' possibility to exclude the CISG or derogate from its provisions.

XIV. The Principle of Freedom from Form Reqirements and the Article 96 Reservation

Resort to private internatonal may, however, be necessary even where all applicability requirements are met, the issue to be dealt with falls into the CISG's scope of application and the parties have not excluded the CISG or derogated from its provisions. This is true as regards the issue of formal validity of contracts governed by Article 11 of the CISG which, according to both commentators [284] and courts,[285] sets forth the [page 112] principle of freedom from form requirements. Thus, a contract for the international sale of goods does generally not need to be concluded in writing and is not subject to any other specific requirement as to form.[286]

This means, inter alia,[287] that a contract can, as already confirmed by various court decisions, also be concluded orally [288] as well as through the conduct of the parties.[289]

Still, pursuant to Article 12 of the CISG, which the parties are not allowed to derogate from,[290] the foregoing principle does not necessarily apply where at least one of the parties to the contract governed by the CISG has its place of business in a State that has declared a reservation under Article 96 of the CISG.[291] In this line of cases, any provision "that [page 113] allows a contract of sale or its modification or termination by agreement or any offer, acceptance or other indication of intention to be made in any form other than in writing does not apply."[292] This means, in other words, that Article 12 leads to the principle of freedom from writing requirements set forth in Article 11 CISG not being applicable per se when one party has its relevant place of business in a State that declared an Article 96 reservation.[293] What consequences this has on the applicable writing requirements is subject to dispute. According to one view, the sole fact that one party has its place of business in a State that declared an Article 96 reservation does not necessarily mean that the writing requirements of that State will apply.[294] In this author's opinion, this view is to be preferred over the view that where one party has its relevant place of business in a State that declared an Article 96 reservation, the contract must necessarily be concluded or evidenced or modified in writing.[295]

The law to be applied (and, thus, whether a given writing requirement must be met) will depend on the law to which the rules of private international of the forum lead.[296] Thus, where the private international law of the forum leads to the law of a Contracting State that has declared an [page 114] Article 96 reservation, that State's writing requirements will have to be applied. Where, however, the rules of private international law lead to the law of a Contracting State that has not declared an Article 96 reservation, the contract will not need to meet any writing requirement, a view also held in case law.[297]

This shows how important resort to private international law is despite the CISG being applicable, the issue being one of those governed by the CISG and the parties not having exluced the CISG.

XV. Conclusion

The preceding remarks show that the CISG's coming into force has not made recourse to private international law superfluous. This is due, among others, to the fact that the CISG does not govern all international contracts for the sale of goods: some contracts are not "international" enough to meet the CISG's internationality requirement set forth its Article 1(1).[298] Some other contracts are not governed by the CIS due the CISG's limited substantive sphere of application, which is owed to the fact that the drafters of the CISG themselves recognized that their unification effort could not fit all contracts [299] and therefore expressly excluded some contracts from its substantive sphere of application.[300] Other contracts involve parties that are linked to countries that simply do not want the CISG to apply to certain issues or to contracts with certain parties and therefore have declared reservations that make the CISG either totally or partially inapplicable.[301] Also, even where the CISG is applicable, it does not necessarily solve a given issue, since, as pointed out, the CISG [page 115] does not constitute an exhaustive body of rules.[302] Furthermore, the parties' possibility to exclude the CISG or derogate from (most of) its provisions [303] shows that recourse to private international law is not preempted even where all of the CISG applicability requirements are met and the issue falls into the CISG's scope of application. But even where the parties have not opted-out of the CISG and the CISG governs a given issue, resort to private international law may be required.[304]

From this is clearly follows that it is an oversimplification to state that the CISG makes resort to private international law superfluous. By creating a (false) sense of certainty as to the rules applicable to a contract for the international sale of goods,[305] namely those of the CISG, this oversimplification may be more dangerous for one's interests, and, ultimately, more costly than the awareness of the CISG constituting an incomplete [306] set of default rules [307] with a litimted applicability.

Only when there is awareness as to the the CISG's limitations and, thus, to its non-autarkic character,[308] can one really understand the relationship between the CISG and private international law which is not an antagonistic one; the CISG and the rules of private international law necessarily co-exist. For the elaboration of future unification efforts this should be taken into account, since only if the elaboration of uniform sunstantive law rules goes hand in hand with the elaboration of uniform private international law rules can one really reach uniform solutions. [page 116]


FOOTNOTES

* Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Transnational Litigation and Commercial Law, New York University School of Law; former Legal Officer, United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, International Trade Law Branch.

1. For the text of the Convention, see I.L.M. 668 (1980).

2. For the various abbreviations suggested, see Axel Flessner and Thomas Kadner, CISG? Zur Suche nach einer Abkurzung fur das Wiener Ubereinkommen uber Vertrage uber den Internationalen Warenkauf, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 347 (1995).

3. See, e.g., Iulia Dolganova and Marcelo Boff Lorenzen, A Case for Brazil's Adhesion to the 1980 UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 351, 366 (2009); Lisa M. Ryan, The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Divergent Interpretations, 4 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 99, 101 (1995).

4. Robert E. Scott, The Uniformity Norm in Commercial Law: A Comparative Analysis of Common Law and Code Methodologies, in The Jurisprudential Foundations of Corporate and Commercial Law 149, 149, 176 n.3 ( Jody S. Kraus and Steven D. Walt eds., 2000); see also Joshua D.H. Karton and Lorraine de Germiny, Has the CISG Advisory Council Come of Age?, 27 Berkeley Journal of International Law 448, 448-449 (2009) ("well-functioning commercial system requires a high degree of legal certainty; businesses will hesitate to enter into contractual relationships if they are unable to forecast the risks associated with breakdowns in those relationships").

5. See, e.g., Marcus G. Larson, Applying the Uniform Sales Law to International Software Transactions: The Use of the CISG, its Shortcomings, and a Comparative Look at how the Proposed UCC Article 2B Would Remedy them, 5 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 445, 448 (1997) (stating that "[f]or the international practitioner, the Vienna Convention can be a useful and reliable resource in drafting international sales transactions because it provides for greater predictability of the law than would the observation of the respective domestic laws of the home countries of individual contracting parties").

6. See also Robert Bejesky, The Evolution in and International Convergence of the Doctrine of Specific Performance in Three Types of States, 13 Indiana International and Comparative Law Review 353, 398 (2003) ("private sector actors desire enhanced certainty in transnational business dealings"; James J. Callaghan, U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Examining the Gap-Filling Role of CISG in Two French Decisions, 14 Journal of Law and Commerce 183, 185 (1995) ("[e]nhancing certainty in the realm of international sales will greatly facilitate the flow of international trade and serve the interests of all parties engaged in commerce"); Hannu Honka, Harmonization of Contract Law Through International Trade: A Nordic Perspective, 11 Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 111, 117 (1996) ("[f]ree international trade functions better in a legally harmonized environment than in the opposite situation.

Also, harmonization of contract law is presumed to save costs as the "legal picture" is simplified"); Brooke Overby, Contract, in the Age of Sustainable Consumption, 27 Journal of Corporation Law 603, 623 (2002) (according to whom "the development of international business and consumer markets creates needs for uniformity and predictability of law"); in case law see Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 639-40 (1985), where the U.S. Supreme Court expressly referred to "the need of the international commercial system for predictability in the resolution of disputes.

7. See for a similar statement, Errol P. Mendes, The U.N. Sales Convention & U.S.-Canada Transactions; Enticing the World's Largest Trading Bloc to Do Business under a Global Sales Law, 8 Journal of Law and commerce 109, 112 (1988), stating that "time has shown that in fact, national laws are the international merchants' and traders' worst enemy." (footnote omitted)

8. See Friedrich Enderlein and Dietrich Maskow, International Sales Law 1 (1992), stating that "[i]t is generally acknowledged that the existence of different national legal systems impedes the development of international economic relations with complicated problems arising from the conflict of laws"); see also Eleanor M. Fox, Harmonization of Law and Procedures in a Globalized World: Why, What, and How?, 60 Antitrust Law Journal 593, 593 (1991-1992).

9. See Willem Calkoen, Globalization and the Future of International Practice of Law from a European Perspective, European Journal of Law Reform 491, 492 and 498 (2000).

10. Francesco Galgano, Il diritto uniforme: la vendita internazionale, in Atlante di diritto privato comparato 245, 245 (Francesco Galgano et als. eds., 5th ed, 2011).

For similar statements, see Nayiri Bogossian, A Comparative Study of Specific Performance Provisions in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 3, 7 (1999-2000); Roy Goode, Reflections on the Harmonization of Commercial Law, in Commercial Law and Consumer Law. National and International Dimensions 3, 3 (Roy Cranston and Roy Goode eds., 1993); Albert H. Kritzer, The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Scope, Interpretation and Resources, Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 147, 147 (1995); Petar Sarcevic, Foreword, in International Contracts and Conflicts of Laws. A Collection of Essays VII, VII (Petar Sarcevic ed., 1990).

11. See also Peter Winship, Private International Law and the U.N. Sales Convention, Cornell International Law Journal 487, 487 (1988).

12. This is evidenced by the fact that the celebration of the Hague Conference on Private International Law's 100th anniversary occurered in 1993; in this respect, see, e.g., Kurt Lipstein, One Hundred Years of Hague Conferences on Private International Law, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 553 (1993); Peter Pfund, The Hague Conference Celebrates its 100th Anniversary, Texas International Law Journal 531 (1993); Haimo Schack, Hundert Jahre Haager Konferenz fur IPR, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 224 (1993).

13. See Uwe Blaurock, The Law of Transnational Commerce, in The Unification of International Commercial Law. Tilburg Lectures 14 (Franco Ferrari ed., 1998); Uwe Blaurock, Ubernationales Recht des internationalen Handels, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 247, 252 (1993); Alina Kaczorowska, International Trade Conventions and Their Effectiveness. Present and Future 1 (1995).

14. See René David, The International Unification of Private Law, in 2/5 International encyclopedia of Comparative Law 1, 73 (1972).

15. See Franco Ferrari, Einheitsrecht, in 1 Handbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts 376, 377 ( Jürgen Basedow et als. eds., 2009).

16. Winship, supra note 11, at 487.

17. Winship, supra note 11, at 487; see also Ferrari, supra note 15, at 377.

18. G.Eörsi, The Hague Conventions of 1964 and the International Sale of Goods, Acta Juridica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 324 (1969).

19. David, supra note 14, at 54, stating that the unification of substantive law rules "is clearly superior: relieving lawyers of the necessity of finding out the provisions, often difficult to discover, of a great diversity of foreign systems, and requiring the judge in every case to apply a system of law which may well be called 'uniform law'."

20. See also Covey T. Oliver, Standardization of Choice-of-Law Rules for International Contracts: Should There be a New Beginning?, American Journal of International Law 385, 386 (1959) (referring to the unification of private international law as "a 'second best' solution"); for a very recent criticism of the view referred to in the text, see John F. Coyle, Rethinking The Commercial Law Treaty, Georgia Law Review 343 (2011).

21. Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; for similar, if not identicial wording, see also Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=823&step=FullText>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 31 March 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050111i3.html>; Tribunale di Forli, 11 December 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081211i3.html>; Tribunale di Forli, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090216i3.html>.

22. Kenneth C. Randall and John E. Norris, A New Paradigm for International Business Transactions, Washington University Law Quarterly 599, 612 (1993).

23. See Ryan, supra note 3, at 101, stating that the CISG as a set of substantive uniform rules "provide[s] more certainty in international sales contracts by eliminating costly choice of law disputes".

24. See also Franco Ferrari, What sources of law for contracts for the international sale of goods? Why one has to look beyond the CISG, Internationales Handelsrecht 1, 19 f. (2006).

25. See Harold J.Berman, The Uniform Law on International Sale of Goods: A Constructive Critique, Law and Contempprary Problems 354, 357 (1965).

26. See Article 2 of the Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, reprinted in 834 U.NT.S. 107 ff. (1972): "Rules of private international law shall be excluded for the purposes of the present Law, subject to any provision to the contrary in the said Law". Note that Article 1(9) of the Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 834 U.N.T.S. 169 ff. (1972), is nearly identical.

27. For a paper examining the depth why the private international law was not irrelevant under the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws, see Jan Kropholler, Der "Ausschlus" des Internationalen Privatsrechts im einheitlichen Kaufgesetz, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 372 (1974).

28. Kurt Nadelman, The Conflicts Problems of the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, Americna Journal of Comparative Law 236, 239-240 (1965).

29. Helen E. Hartnell, Rousing the Sleeping Dog: The Validity Exception to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Yale Int'l L. J. 1, 6 (1993).

30. Henry Mather, Choice of Law for International Sales Issues not resolved by the CISG, 20 Journal of Law and Commerce 155, 155 (2001). It should be pointed out that the author later makes a statement that is in contrast with the one cited in the text: "difficult choice-of-law problems will arise when the CISG applies to a transaction but does not resolve all the legal issues before the tribunal." Id.

31. Karen B. Giannuzzi, The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Temporarily Out of "Service"?, Law and Policy of International Business 991, 1014 (1997).

32. Secretariat's Commentary on the Draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, in United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 10 March - 11 April 1980, Official Records, Documents of the Conference and Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Main Committee 15 (1981) (hereinafter: Offical Records of the United Nations Conference).

33. This has often been pointed out; see, e.g., Franco Ferrari, Vor Artt. 1-6, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht – CISG 37, 43 f. (Peter Schlechtriem and Ingeborg Schwenzer eds., 5th ed., 2008); Franco Ferrari, La Convention de Vienne sur la vente itnernationale et le droit international prive, Journal du droit international 27, 31 (2006).

34. In legal writing, it has often been pointed out that Article 1(1)(a) CISG leads to the CISG's "direct" - or "immediate" - application. See, e.g., Franco Ferrari, The Sphere of Application of the Vienna Sales Convention 10 (1995); Ulrich Magnus, Zum raumlich-internationalen Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts und zur Mangelruge, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 390, 390 (1993); Gert Reinhart, UN-Kaufrecht. Kommentar zum Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom 11. April 1980 über den internationalen Warenkauf 13 (1991); Ingo Saenger, Art. 1 CISG, in Internationales Vertragsrecht 395, 403 (Franco Ferrari et als. eds., 2nd ed., 2012).

For a reference in case law to the CISG's "direct" application pursuant to Article 1(1)(a), see Amtgericht Sursee, 12 September 2008, available at <http://globalsaleslaw.com/content/api/cisg/urteile/1728.pdf>; Handelsgericht Aargau, 19 June 2007, available at <http://globalsaleslaw.com/content/api/cisg/urteile/1741.pdf>; Swiss Supreme Court, 11 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000711s1.html>.

35. For the use of this expression by commentators, see Christpoh Brunner, UNKaufrecht– CISG. Kommentar zum Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf von 1980 unter Berücksichtigung der Schnittstellen zum internen Schweizer Recht 14 (2004); Franco Ferrari, Art. 1, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht – CISG, supra note 33, 54, 75; Ulrich Magnus, Wiener UN-Kaufrecht – CISG 83 (2005); Willibald Posch and Ulfried Terlitza, Entscheidungen des osterreichischen Obersten Gerichtshofs zur UN-Kaufrechtskonvention (CISG), Internationales Handelsrecht 47, 49 (2001); Peter Schlechtriem and Claude Witz, Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale marchandises 15 (2008); in case law, see AG Sursee, 12 September 2008, available at <http://globalsaleslaw.com/content/api/cisg/urteile/1728.pdf>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 20 March 1997, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970320a3.html>; Tribunal Cantonal Valais, 29 June 1994, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=177&step=FullText>.

36. For papers on the CISG's applicability by virtue of Article 1(1)(b), see, e.g., Frank Diedrich, Anwendung der "Vorschaltlosung" im Internationalen Kaufrecht, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 758 (1993); Franco Ferrari, Diritto uniforme della vendita internazionale: Questioni di applicabilita e diritto internazionale privato, Rivista di diritto civile 669 (1995); Franco Ferrari, CISG Article 1(1)(b) and Related Matters, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 317 (1995); Hermann Pünder, Das Einheitliche UN-Kaufrecht - Anwendung kraft kollisionsrechtlicher Verweisung nach Art. 1 Abs. 1 lit. b UN-Kaufrecht, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 869 (1990).

37. For recent applications of the CISG by virtue of its Article 1(1)(b), see Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, 7 October 2010, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/2156.pdf>; LG Potsdam, 7 April 2009, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/090407german.pdf>; Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Arbitral award No. T-8/08, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090128sb.html>; OLG Düsseldorf, 21 April 2004, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/913.pdf>; OLG Karlsruhe, 10 December 2003, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/031210g1.html>; AG Basel-Stadt, 22 August 2003, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030822s1.html>; HG St. Gallen, 3 December 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021203s1.html>; LG Braunschweig, 30 July 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010730g1.html>; French Supreme Court, 26 June 2001, available at <http://witz.jura.uni-sb.de/CISG/decisions/2606012v.htm>; Downs Investment Pty Ltd. v. Perwaja Stell SDN BHD, Supreme Court of Queensland, 17 November 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001117a2.html>; Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial, 24 April 2000, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/000424a1.html>; Tribunale di Pavia, 29 December 1999, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>; OLG Hamburg, 26 November 1999, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991126g1.html>.

38. For papers on gap-filling under the CISG, see, e.g., Callaghan, supra note 6, 183 ff.; Anukarshan Chandrasenan, UNIDROIT Principles to Interpret and Supplement the CISG: An Analysis of the Gap-Filling Role of the UNIDROIT Principles, Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 65 (2007); Frank Diedrich, Luckenfullung im Internationalen Einheitsrecht -Moglichkeiten und Grenzen richterlicher Rechtsfortbildung im Wiener Kaufrecht, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 353 (1995); Franco Ferrari, Gap-filling and Interpretation of the CISG: Overview of International Case Law, Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 63 (2003); Bettina Frigge, Externe Lücken und Internationales Privatrecht nach dem UN-Kaufrecht (Art. 7(2)) (1994); Diego Ricardo Galan Barrera, La integracion de lagunas en la Convencion de las Naciones Unidas sobre los contratos de compraventa internacional de mercaderias, in Obligaciones y Contratos en el Derecho Contemporaneo 311 ( Jorge Oviedo Alban ed., 2010); Alejandro Garro, The Gap-Filling Role of the UNIDROIT Principles in International Sales Law, Tulane aw Review 1149 (1995); John Y. Gotanda, Using the UNDROIT Principles to fill Gaps in the CISG, in Contract Damages: Domestic and International Perspectives 109 (Djakhongir Saidov and Ralph Cunnington eds., 2008); Jan Hellner, Gap-Filling by Analogy: Art. 7 of the U.N. Sales Convention in Its Historical Context, in Studies in International Law: Festskrift till Lars Hjerner 219 ( Jan Ramberg ed., 1990); Tatjana Himmen, Die Lückenfüllung anhand allgemeiner Grundsätze im UN-Kaufrecht (2007); Karin L. Kizer, Minding the Gap: Determining Interest Rates under the U.N. Convention for the International Sale of Goods, 65 University of Chicago Law Review 1279 (1998); Juraj Kotrusz, Gap-Filling of the CISG by the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, Uniform Law Review 119 (2009); Pilar M. Perales Viscasillas, The Role of the UNIDROIT Principles and the PECL in the Interpretation and Gap-filling of CISG, in CISG Methodology 287 (André Janssen and Olaf Meyer eds., 2009); Mark N. Rosenberg, The Vienna Convention: Uniformity in Interpretation for Gap-Filling - An Analysis and Application, Australian Business Law Review 442 (1992); Peter Schlechtriem, Interpretation, Gap filling and Further Development of the UN Sales Convention, 16 Pace Internatonal Law Review 279 (2004); Lucia Carvalhal Sica, Gap-filling in the CISG: May the UNIDROIT Principles supplement the gaps in the Convention?, Nordic Journal of Commercial Law 1 (2006/1); Hans Stoll, Regelungslucken im Einheitlichen Kaufrecht und IPR, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 75 (1993); Ulrike Teichert, Lückenfüllung im CISG mittels UNIDROIT -Prinzipien - Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Wählbarkeit nichtstaatlichen Rechts (2007); Alvaro Rodrigo Vidal Olivares, La function integradora de los principios generales en la compraventa internacional de mercaderias y los principios de la UNIDROIT sobra contraltos comerciales internacionales, Anuario de Derecho Civil 993 (2003).

39. For a detailed analysis of the concept of "private international law" under the CISG, see Franco Ferrari, Der Begriff des "internationalen Privatrechts" nach Art. 1 Abs. 1 lit. b) des UN-Kaufrechts, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 162 (1998).

40. See Ferrari, La Convention de Vienne, supra note 33, at 32.

41. For a reference in legal writing to the need to interpret the CISG "autonomously", see, e.g., Wilhelm-Albrecht Achilles, Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrechtsübereinkommen (CISG) 28 f. (2000); Camilla B. Andersen, The Global Jurisconsultorium of the CISG Revisited, Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 43, 47 (2009); Bernard Audit, La vente internationale de merchandises 47 (1990); Wayne R. Barnes, Contemplating a Civil Law Paradigm for a Future International Commercial Code, La L. Rev. 677, 754 (2005); Giovanni Bisazza, Auslegung des Wiener UN-Kaufrechts unter Berucksichtigung auslandischer Rechtsprechung: ein amerikansiches Beispiel, European Legal Forum 380, 381 (2004); Allen Blair, Hard Cases under the Convention on the International Sale of Goods: A Proposed Taxonomy of Interpretive Challenges, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 269, 292 (2011); Michael J. Bonell, Commento all'art. 7 della Convenzione di Vienna, Nuove Leggi civili commentate 20, 21 (1989); Michael J. Bonell, La nouvelle Convention des Nations-Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises, Droit et pratiquie du commerce international 7, 14 (1981); Michael Bridge, A commentary on Articles 1-13 and 78, in The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond 235, 249 (Franco Ferrari et als. eds., 2004); Michael Bridge, The Bifocal World of International Sales: Vienna and Non-Vienna, in Making Commercial Law: Essays in Honour of Roy Goode 277, 288 (Roy Cranston ed., 1997); Brunner, supra note 35, at 76; Stefan Dejaco, Das UN-Kaufrecht. Untersuchung der Anwendung und Auslegung in der deutschen, italienischen und österreichischen Rechtsprechungspraxis 42 (2010); Frank Diedrich, Maintaining Uniformity in International Uniform Law Via Autonomous Interpretation: Software Contracts and the CISG, 8 Pace International Law Review 303 (1996); Larry A. DiMatteo and Daniel T. Ostas, Comparative Efficiency in International Sales Law, 26 American University International Law Review 371, 376 (2011); John Felemegas, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Article 7 and Uniform Interpretation, Review of the CISG 115, 235 (2000-2001); Franco Ferrari, Interpretation uniforme de la Convention de Vienne de 1980 sur la vente international, Revue internationale de droit compare 813, 827 (1996); Martin Gebauer, Uniform Law, general principles and autonomous interpretation, Uniform Law Review 683, 686 (2000); Leonardo Graffi, L'interpretazione autonoma della Convenzione di Vienna: rilevanza del precedente straniero e disciplina della lacune, Giurisprudenza di merito 873, 874 f. (2004); Leonardo Graffi, Spunti in tema di vendita internazionale e forum shopping, Diritto del commercio internazionale 807, 809 f. (2003); Günther Hager, Zur Auslegung des UN-Kaufrechts: Grundsatze und Methoden, in Festschrift für Ulrich Huber zum siebzigsten Geburtstag 319, 320 (Theodro Baums et als. eds., 2006); Peter Huber, Standard Terms under the CISG, Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 123, 124 (2009); Peter Huber and Alastair Mullis, The CISG: A new textbook for students and practitioners 7 (2007); Monique Jametti Greiner, Der Vertragsabschlus, in Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht. Neues Recht für den internationalen Warenkauf 43, 43 (Hans Hoyer ed., 1992); Benjamin Hayward, The CISG in Australia -- The Jigsaw Puzzle Missing A Piece, Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 193, 211 (2010); Nathalie Hofmann, Interpretation Rules and Good Faith as Obstacles to the UK's Ratification of the CISG and to the Harmonization of Contract Law in Europe, Pace International Law Review 145, 166 (2010); André Janssen, Die Einbeziehung von allgemeinen Geschaftsbedingungen in internationale Kaufvertrage und die Bedeutung der UNIDROIT- und der Lando-Principles, Internationales Handeslrecht 194, 199 (2004); Martin Karollus, UN-Kaufrecht. Eine systematische Darstellung für stadium und Praxis 11 (1991); Joshua D. H. Karton and Lorraine de Germiny, Has the CISG Advisory Council Come of Age?, Berkeley Journal of Intyernational Law 448, 458 (2009); Alexander Komarov, Internationality, Uniformity and Observance of Good Faith as Criteria in Interpretation of CISG: Some Remarks on Article 7(1), 25 Journal of Law and Commerce 75, 78 (2005); Joseph M. Lookofsky, In Dubio Pro Conventione? Some Thoughts About Opt-Outs, Computer Programs and Preemption under the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention (CISG), Duke Journal of Comperative and International Law 263, 275 (2003); Ulrich Magnus, Konventionsubergreifende Interpretation internationaler Staatsvertrage privatrechtlichen Inhalts, in Aufbruch nach Europa. 75 Jahre Max-Planck-Institut für Privatrecht 571, 572 ( Jürgen Basedow et als. eds., 2011); Ulrich Magnus, Tracing Methodology in the CISG: Dogmatic Foundations, in CISG Methodology, supra note 38, 33, 40; Asa Markel, American, English and Japanese Warranty Law Compared: Should the U.S. Reconsider Her Article 95 Declaration to the CISG?, Pace International Law Review 163, 196 (2009); Francesco G. Mazzotta, Why Do Some American Courts Fail to Get it Right?, Loyola of Chicago International Law Review 85, 101 (2005); Anselmo Martinez Canellas, La Interpretación y la Integración de la Convención de Viena. Sobre la Compraventa International de Mercaderías de 11 de Abril de 1980 119 f. (2004); Anthony J. McMahon, Differentiating between Internal and External Gaps in the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Proposed Method for Determining "Governed by" in the Context of Article 7(2), Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 992, 1000 (2006); Patrick Melin, Gesetzesauslegung in den USA und in Deutschland 355 (2005); Tobias Müller and Federica Togo, Die Berucksichtigung der Uberzeugungskraft auslandischer Prazedenzfalle bei der Auslegung des CISG - Die neuere italienische Rechtsprechung als Vorreiter und Vorbild, Internationales Handelsrecht 102, 102 (2005); Eike Nikolai Najork, Treu und Glauben im CISG 53 (2000); Hanno Naumann, Der Regelungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts im Spannungsfeld zwischen Einheitsrecht und Kollisionsrecht 166 (2000); Vladimir Pavić and Milena Djordjević, Application of the CISG Before the Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce – Looking Back at the Latest 100 Cases, 28 Journal of Law and Commerce 1, 24 (2009); Pilar M. Perales Viscasillas, Art. 7, in The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods. Commentary 109, 113 (Stefan Kröll et als. eds., 2011); Ingo Saenger, Art. 7 CISG, in Internationales Vertragsrecht, supra note 34, 436, 438; Djakhongir Saidov, Cases on CISG Decided in the Russian Federation, Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 1, 14 (2003); Peter Schlechtriem, Requirements of Application and Sphere of Applicability of the CISG, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 781, 789 (2005); Gudrun Schmid, Einheitliche Anwendung von internationalem Einheitsrecht 42 (2004); Marius Sollund, The U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Article 7(1) - The Interpretation of the Convention and the Norwegian Approach, Nordic Journal of Commercial Law 1, 6 (2007/1); Marco Torsello, Common Features of Uniform Commercial Law Conventions. A Comparative Study Beyond the 1980 Uniform Sales Law 18 (2004); Thomas Vazquez-Lepinette, Ihe interpretation of the 1980 Vienna Convention on International Sales, Diritto del commercio internazionale 377, 387 f. (1995); Tamo Zwinge, The United Nations Sales Convention: Delimitation, Influences, and Concurrent Application of Domestic Law, Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business 227, 230 (2011).

42. See similarly John O. Honnold, The Sales Convention in Action - Uniform International Words: Uniform Applications?, 8 Journal of Law and Commerce 207, 208 (1988), where the author states that "one threat to international uniformity in interpretation is a natural tendency to read the international text through the lenses of domestic law." See also Andrew Babiak, Defining "Fundamental Breach" under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 113, 117 (1992).

43. For a reference to concepts that should not be interpreted autonomously, see, e.g., Franco Ferrari, La jurisprudence sur la CVIM: un nouveau defi pour les interpretes?, International Business Law Journal 495, 495 ff. (1998).

44. See also Patrick R. Williams, The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1, 11 (1986).

45. For this statement, see most recently Jürgen Basedow, Theorie der Rechtswahl oder Parteiautonomie als Grundlage des Internationalen Privatrechts, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 32, 33 f. (2011); Franco Ferrari, Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Applicability and Applications of the 1980 United Nations Sales Convention 74 f. (2nd ed., 2012).

46. For a reference to countries that do not acknowledge party autonomy as connecting factor, see Basedow, previous note, at 34 ff.; Jochen Schröder and Christian Wenner, Internationales Vertragsrecht 9 ff. (2nd ed., 1998).

47. In this respect, see, e.g., Article 15 of the EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (reprinted in I.L.M. 1492 (1980)): "The application of the law of any country specified by this convention means the application of the rules in force in that country other than its rules of private international law" (Id. at 1496) See also Article 15 of the 1986 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to International Sale of Goods (reprinted in I.L.M. 1573 (1986)): "In the Convention, 'law' means the law in force in a State other than its choice of law rules" (Id. at 1577).

More recently, see Article 17 of the Intern-Americna Convention on the Law Applicable to International contracts (reprinted in I.L.M. 733 (1994)): "For the purposes of this Convention, 'law' shall be understood to mean the law current in a State, excluding rules concerning conflict ofl laws" (Id. at 736).

48. See Art. 20 of the Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), Official Journal L 177 of 4 July 2008, p. 6: "The application of the law of any country specified by this Regulation means the application of the rules of law in force in that country other than its rules of private international law, unless provided otherwise in this Regulation."

49. For new support of renvoi, see Adrian Briggs, In Praise and Defence of Renvoi, International and Compartative Law Quarterly 877 (1998); Andrew Dickinson, Renvoi: The Comeback Kid?, Law Quarterly Review 183 (2006).

50. For this statement, see also Franco Ferrari, CISG Case Law: A New Challenge for Interpreters?, 17 Journal of Law and Commerce 245, 252-253 (1998).

51. See Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050111i3.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.

52. In this respect see, most recently, Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>, expressly stating that the CISG "is a uniform convention on substantive law and not one on private international law as sometimes erroneously stated"; see also Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/021126i3.html>, stating that the CISG is a "uniform substantive law convention"; Austrian Supreme Court, 29 June 1999, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/990629a3.html> (stating the same).

53. For this statement see Enderlein and Maskow, supra note 8, at 370.

54. See also Ferrari, supra note 35, at 78 f.; Ferrari, supra note 45, at 76.

55. For this conclusion, see Ferrari, supra note 35, at 78; Arnd Lohmann, Parteiautonomie und UN-Kaufrecht 139 (2005); Christoph Niemann, Einheitliche Anwendung des UN-Kaufrechts in italienischer und deutscher Rechtssprechung und Lehre 73 (2006); Helga Rudolph, Kaufrecht der Export- und Importverträgs - Kommentierung des UN-übereinkommens über international Warenkaufverträge mit Hinweisen für die Vertragspraxis 105 (1996); Schlechtriem and Witz, supra note 35, at 16; Schmid, supra note 41, at 54 (2004).

56. See Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>.

57. See BG Handelssachen Wien, 20 February 1992, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920220a3.html>.

58. According to some commentators, the CISG's legislative history clearly shows that the CISG rejected the renvoi doctrine. Indeed, according to the Official Records of the United Nations Conference, supra note 32, at 15, it appears that the "law" to which the rules of private international law have to refer in order to make the CISG applicable by virtue of Article 1(1)(b) is the "substantive law" of a Contracting State. See also Peter Winship, The Scope of the Vienna Convention on International Sale Contracts, in International Sales. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 1.1, 1.18 (Nina Galston and Hans Smit eds., 1984), stating that the "law" referred to in Article 1(1)(b) is "substantive law" on the grounds that "there is a general reluctance to inquire into the conflict of laws rules recognized by another jurisdiction, as suggested, for example, by the general disapproval of the doctrine of renvoi." (Id.)

59. See infra the text accompanying notes 82 ff.

60. For a paper on the CISG's international sphere of application, see Kurt Siehr, Der international Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 587 (1988).

61. See Saenger, supra note 34, at 401; Schlechtriem and Witz, supra note 35, at 12; note, however, that this view has been opposed; according to Peter Jen-Huong Wang, Das Wiener Ubereinkommen uber internationale Warenkaufvertrage vom 11. April 1980, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 184, 187 (1988), the CISG should be applicable, not unlike the 1964 Hague Conventions, only where the sales contract is also characterized by an objective element such as those provided for by the ULIS and ULF.

62. See Article 10(b): "[...] if a party does not have a place of business, reference is to be made to hid habitual residence."

63. For this requirement, see Tribunale di Forli, 11 December 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081211i3.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; OLG Dresden, 27 December 1999, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/511.htm>.

64. For court decisions expressly referring to this "internationality" requirement, see Polimeles Protodikio Athinon, docket No. 4505/2009 (no date indicated), available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/094505gr.html#ii2>; Tribunale di Padova, 31 March 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/040331i3.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/021126i3.html>; OLG Rostock, 10 October 2001, available in English at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011010g1.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/000712i3.html>; OLG Köln, 21 May 1996, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/960521g1.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 10 November 1994, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/941110a3.html>; OLG Köln, August 26, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/940826g1.html>.

65. Rolf Herber, Art. 1, in Commentary on the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 19, 21 (Peter Schlechtriem ed., 1998).

66. For this conclusion, see also Systems, Inc. v. EMC Corporation, Superior Court of Massachusetts, 28 February 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050228u1.html>; for the parties' possibility of making the CISG applicable where it does not apply per se, see Ferrari, supra note 45, at 179 ff.

67. On the other hand, where the internationality requirement is met, the contract can be considered international even if goods do not cross any border (see, e.g., Peter Schlechtriem, From the Hague to Vienna – Progress in Unification of the Law of International Sales Contracts?, in 2 The Transnational Law of International Commercial Transactions 125, 127 (Norbert Horn and Clive Schmitthoff eds., 1982)).

68. See Rolf Herber and Beate Czerwenka, Internationales Kaufrecht 18 (1991).

69. Compare Kliff et al. v. Grace Label, Inc., U.S. District Court (S.D. Iowa, Central Division), 24 January 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050125u1.html>: "Kliff suggests that because the contract in question calls for the manufacture of goods in the United States for delivery in Mexico it may be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ("CISG"). The Court does not believe CISG is applicable. It expressly 'applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States.' Referring to different countries. 15 U.S.C.App., Art. 1(1). See Asante Technologies, Inc. v. PMC-Sierra, Inc., 164 F.Supp.2d 1142, 1147 & n.4 (N.D.Cal.2001). The contract was solely between two United States concerns with places of business in the United States. It provided for the shipment of the goods to Barcel in Mexico, but Barcel was not a party to the contract."

See also OLG Köln, 27 November 1991, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/911127g1.html>: the German court refused to apply the CISG to a case where a German buyer had acquired tickets from a German seller for the 1990 Soccer World Cup final to be handed over in Rome, among others, on the grounds that the contract was not an international one.

70. See infra the text accompanying notes 82 ff.

71. For references to Article 1(2) in case law, see LG Stuttgart, 29 October 2009, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/091029g1.html>; Tribunale di Forli, 16 February 2009, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090216i3.html>; Polimeles Protodikio Athinon, docket No. 4505/2009 (no date indicated), available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/094505gr.html#ii2>; High Commercial Court of Belgrade, 22 April 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080422sb.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050111i3.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 21 March 2000, available at <http://www.cisg.at/10_34499g.htm>; ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award n. 9781, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/009781i1.html>.

72. According to Audit, supra note 41, at 19, the apparent internationality does not suffice; the parties must know that they have concluded a contract which is to be considered an international one under the CISG.

73. Franco Ferrari, The CISG's sphere of application: Articles 1-3 and 10, in The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond, supra note 41, 21, 31; see also Winship, supra note 11, at 518, stating that "Article 1(2) protects parties from surprise by requiring that both parties be on notice that their businesses are in different countries".

74. Impuls I.D. Internacional, S.L., Impuls I.D. Systems, Inc., and PSIAR, S.A., Plaintiffs, vs. Psion-Teklogix Inc., U.S. District Court (S.D. Florida), 22 November 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/021122u1.html>.

75. Enderlein and Maskow, supra note 8, at 31.

76. See also Official Records of the United Nations Conference, supra note 32, at 15.

77. See Ferrari, supra note 73, at 25-26.

78. See Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/040225i3.html>.

79. The need to interpret the CISG "autonomously" has often been referred to; see supra note 41.

80. Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available on the Internet at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/040225i3.html >.

81. For court decisions stating that issues of agency and related matters are not dealt with by the Convention, see OLG Köln, 13 November 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/001113g1.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/000712i3.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 20 March 1997, Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung 204 (1997); AG Tessin, 12 February 1996, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/960212s1.html>; OG Kanton Thurgau, 19 December 1995, Schweizersche Zeitschrift für europäisches und internationales Recht 118 (2000); LG Kassel, 22 June 1995, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/370.htm>; AG Alsfeld, 12 May 1995, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report 120 (1996); KG Berlin, 24 January 1994, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/940124g1.html>; ZG Kanton Basel-Stadt, 21 December 1992, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/921221s1.html>; LG Hamburg, 26 September 1990, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/900926g1.html>.

82. See Franco Ferrari, International Sales Law and the Inevitability of Forum shopping: A Comment on Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, 23 Journal of Law and Commerce 169, 179 (2004); Elbi Janse van Vuuren, The Termination of International Commercial Contracts for Breach of Contract: The Provisions of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, 15 Arizona Journal of International Law 583, 585 (1998).

83. For papers on the CISG's substantive sphere of application, see, e.g. Giorgio De Nova, L'ambito di applicazione "ratione materiae" della convenzione di Vienna, Rivista di trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 749 (1990); Stefan Höss, Der gegenständliche Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts (1995).

84. For this statement, see, among other authors, Kevin Bell, The Sphere of Application of the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 8 Pace International Law Review 237, 249 (1996); Giannuzzi, supra note 31, at 992; Torsello, supra note 18, at 15; Timothy N. Tuggey, The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Will a Homeward Trend Emerge?, 21 Texas International Law Journal 540, 542 (1986).

85 For similar statements, see Nerina Boschiero, Le Convenzioni di diritto materiale uniforme, in 21 Trattato di diritto privato 231, 276 (Pietro Rescigno ed., 1987); Sergio M. Carbone and Marco Lopez de Gonzalo, Commento all'art. 2 della Convenzione di Vienna, Nuove Leggi civili commentate 6, 7 (1989); Ferrari, supra note 45, at 129; Magnus, supra note 35, at 95; Peter Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law. The UN-Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 28 (1986).

86. Commentators have often been pointed out that the list of contracts for the sale of goods excluded from the CISG's sphere of application is exhaustive; see, e.g., Achilles, supra note 41, at 10; Beate Czerwenka, Rechtsanwendungsprobleme im internationalen Kaufrecht. Das Kollisionsrecht bei grenzüberschreitenden Kaufverträgen und der Anwendungsbereich der Internationalen aufrechtsübereinkommen 155 (1988); Ferrari, supra note 45, at 129; Magnus, supra note 35, at 96. For an express reference in recent case law to the list being exhaustive, see OLG Schleswig-Holstein, 29 October 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021029g1.html>.

87. For court decisions referring to the lack of applicability of any of the exclusions listed in Article 2 as a requirement for the CISG to apply, see Doolim Corp. v. R Doll, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.), 29 May 2009, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090529u1.html>; OLG München, 14 January 2009, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090114g1.html>; LG Landshut, 12 June 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080612g2.html>; TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.), 23 August 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>; LG Gera, 29 June 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060629g1.html>; Tribunal Cantonal de Vaud, 11 April 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020411s1.html>; OLG Hamm, 12 November 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011112g1.html>; Cour d'appel de Colmar, 12 June 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010612f1.html>; LG Landshut, 5 April 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950405g1.html>; AG Cloppenburg, 14 April 1993, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930414g1.html>.

For a similar reasoning, albeit relating solely to the exclusion provided for in Article 2(a), see OLG Hamm, 2 April 2009, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.com/content/api/cisg/urteile/1978.pdf>; OG Aargau, 3 March 2009, available at <http://globalsaleslaw.com/content/api/cisg/urteile/2013.pdf>; Polimeles Protodikio Athinon, docket No. 4505/2009 (no date indicated), available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/094505gr.html>; Swiss Supreme Court, 16 December 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081216s1.html>; LG Bamberg, 23 October 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/061023g1.html>; RB Arnhem, 1 March 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060301n1.html>; LG Neubrandenburg, 3 August 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050803g1.html>; LG Kiel, 27 July 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040727g1.html>; LG Saarbrücken, 1 June 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040601g1.html>; Audiencia Provincial de Valencia, 7 June 2003, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030607s4.html>; LG Saarbrücken, 25 November 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021125g1.html>; LG Saarbrücken, 2 July 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020702g1.html>; LG München, 20 February 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020220g1.html>.

88 For this tripartite, see Friedrich Enderlein et als., Internationales Kaufrecht 45 (1991); Martin Karollus, Der Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts im Uberblick, Juristische Schulung 378, 380 (1993); Claude Samson, La Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises: Etude comparative des dispositions de la Convention et des regles de droit quebecois en la matiere, 23 Cahiers de droit 919, 928 (1982).

89. According to Magnus, supra note 35, at 96, it does not appear that the exclusions are based upon very logical criteria; see also Jorge Caffarena Laporta, Art. 2, in La compraventa internacional de mercaderias 59, 59 (Luis Díez-Picazo y Ponce de León ed., 1998).

90. For a similar tripartite, see also Enderlein and Maskow, supra note 8, at 32 (stating that „[t]here are three types of restrictions in this article [Article 2]; - those based upon the purpose for which the goods were purchased (subpara. (a)), - those based on the type of sales contract (subparas. [b] and [c]), - those based on the kinds of goods sold, (subparas. (d), (e) and (f)"); Warren Khoo, Art. 2, in Commentary on the International Sales Law 34, 37 (Massimo C. Bianca and Michael J. Bonell eds., 1987) (stating the same); Paul Volken, The Vienna Convention: Scope, Interpretation, and Gap-Filling, in International Sale of Goods. Dubrovnik Lectures 19, 34 (Petar Sarcevic and Paul Volken eds., 1986) (stating the same).

91. See, for a similar affirmation, Rolf Herber, Art. 2, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht – CISG 59, 59 (Peter Schlechtriem ed., 2nd ed., 1995).

92. Even though auction sales are not subject to the CISG, this does not mean that sales at commodity exchanges are excluded from the CISG's sphere of application. Indeed, the sales at commodity exchanges being "[...] rather rapidfire communication of offers and acceptances" (John O. Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nations Convention 48 note 3 (3rd ed., 1999)), they cannot be considered as auction sales; for a similar argument, see Audit, supra note 41, at 29; Mark Kantor, The Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods: An International Sales Law, 1 International Legal Practice 8, 10 (1988).

93. It has often been stated that the exclusion of auction sales constitutes one of the innovative characteristics of the CISG; see, e.g., Carbone and Lopez de Gonzalo, supra note 85,at 7; Khoo, supra note 90, at 36.

94. For a similar justification of the Article 2(a) exclusion, see, e.g., Honnold, supra note 92, at 47; Maureen T. Murphy, Note, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Creating Uniformity on International Sales Law, 12 Fordham Internatonal Law Journal 727, 746 (1989); Official Records of the United Nations Conference, supra note 32, at 16.

95. German Supreme Court, 31 October 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/011031g1.html>.

96. German Supreme Court, 31 October 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011031g1.html>, stating that "[to] the extent that the appeal argues that a "consumer purchase" under Art. 2(a) CISG is excluded from the application of the Convention, this argument cannot be followed. The purchase referred to in Art. 2(a) CISG requires that the seller know or should have known the purpose before or at the time of the conclusion of the contract, whereas, if the buyer is a consumer within the meaning of § 13 BGB, it does not require such knowledge of the seller. This can, therefore, lead to an overlap, where sales contracts are subject to binding national consumer protection laws and, at the same time, to the CISG."

97. See, e.g., Enderlein and Maskow, supra note 8, at 33; in case law see German Supreme Court, 31 October 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/011031g1.html>.

98. Various commentators have stressed the fact that the commercial nature of the goods is irrelevant, what matters is the commercial purpose of the sale contract; see Carbone and Lopez de Gonzalo, supra note 85, at 7; Albert H. Kritzer, Guide to Practical Applications of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 71 (1989).

99. See Austrian Supreme Court, 11 February 1997, available at <http://www.cisg.at/10_150694.htm>; KG Nidwalden, 5 January 1996, Transportrecht-Internationales Handelsrecht 10 (1999).

See also LG Düsseldorf, 11 October 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/951011g1.html>, where the court did, however, not realize that the sale should have been excluded from the CISG's sphere of application by virtue of Article 2(a), since the good, a generator, was to be installed to provide for the cooling system on the buyer's yacht, used merely for pleasure trips.

100. RB Arnhem, 27 May 1993, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 327 (1994).

101. See Carbone and Lopez de Gonzalo, supra note 85, at 7; Johan Erauw, Waneer is het Weens koopverdrag van toepassing?, in Het Weens Koopverdrag 21, 40 (Hans van Houtte et als. eds., 1997); Karollus, supra note 88, at 380; Burghard Piltz, Internationales Kaufrecht. Das UN-Kaufrecht (Wiener Übereinkommen von 1980) in praxisorientierter Darstellung 34 (1993).

102. For this conclusion, see also Enderlein et als., supra note 88, at 34; Khoo, supra note 90, at 37; Daniela Memmo, Il contratto di vendita internazionale nel diritto uniforme, Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 180, 197 (1983).

103 For a similar statement in legal writing see, e.g., Enderlein and Maskow, supra note 8, at 34; Herber and Czerwenka, supra note 68, at 25; see also Official Records of the United Nations Conference, supra note 32, at 16.

104. See also Czerwenka, supra note 86, at 152; Ulrich Huber, Der UNCITRAL- Entwurf eines Ubereinkommens uber internationale Warenkaufvertrage, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 413, 422 (1979).

105. For this conclusion, Memmo, supra note 102, at 196.

106. See supra the text accompanying notes 88 f.

107. See Alejandro Garro and Alberto Zuppi, Compraventa internacional de mercaderías 79 (1990), expressly stating that the exclusion of some sales is based upon the goods sold.

108. See Piltz, supra note 101, at 31.

109. For this rationale of the Article 2(d) exclusion, see also Schlechtriem, supra note 66,at 30, stating that the exclusion de quo "[...] takes into consideration that international securities and currency transactions are governed by their own rules and laws which are often compulsory."

See also Enderlein et als., supra note 88, at 47, stating that the Article 2(d) exclusion "[...] can be explained by the existence of mandatory domestic rules."

110. For a case of inapplicability of the CISG to a contract for the sale of a ship, see Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award No. 236/1997, summarized at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980406r1.html>.

111. For the inapplicability of the CISG to a contract for the sale of an aircraft, see Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award, No. 255/1996, summarized at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970902r1.html>.

112. See also Vincent Heuzé, La vente internationale de merchandises. Droit uniforme 76-77 (1992).

113. For a similar affirmation, see Kritzer, supra note 98, at 72.

114. This exclusion could be found in Article 5 of the ULIS.

115. For a similar justification of the exclusion of sales of electricity from the Convention's sphere of application, see, e.g., Heuzé, supra note 112, at 77 (stating that the exclusion of sales of electricity can be explained on the ground of its nature); Official Records of the United Nations Conference, supra note 32, at 16 (stating that the exclusion of electricity is justified because its sale presents unique problems that are different from those presented by the usual international sale of goods).

116. Official Records of the United Nations Conference, supra note 32, at 16; for a similar justification of the Article 2(f) exclusion, see Samson, supra note 88, at 928.

117. For a detailed summary of the different justifications suggested for the exclusion at hand, compare N.R.Merchor, La regulacion internacional de las operaciones mercantiles enfrentada a un caso extremo: el trafico transfronterizo de energia electrica, Derecho de los Negocios 9 (1995).

118. For this conclusion, see also Honnold, supra note 92, at 51 (arguing that the sale of gas is within the Convention); Huber, supra note 104, at 419 (stating the same and criticizing the exclusion of the sale of electricity).

119. See also Herber, supra note 91, at 64.

For a detailed discussion of the problems of oil trade and the CISG, see James W. Skelton, CISG and Crude Oil Traders, 9 Houston Journal of International Law 95 (1986).

120. For this argument, see also Winship, supra note 58, at 1-25, stating that „[...] any suggestion that the problems raised by the excluded items are "unique" overlooks other items, such as oil and gas supply contracts of livestock transactions, which also raise unique problems."

121. For a case applying the CISG to the sale of gas, see Austrian Supreme Court, 6 February 1996, available at at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/960206a3.html>.

122. For a discussion of the issues relating to the sale of energy under the CISG, see Peter Winship, Energy Contracts and the United Nations Sales Convention, 25 Texas International Law Journal 365 (1990).

123. Enderlein and Maskow, supra note 8, at 35.

124. For an analysis of the approach taken by the 1964 Hague Uniform Sales Laws, see, e.g., Franco Ferrari, Specific Topics of the CISG in the Light of Judicial Application and Scholarly Writing, 15 Journal of Law and Commcerce 1, 20-22 (1995)

125. See, .g., Article 2 of the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring; Article 3 of the UNIDROIT Convention on International Financial Leasing.

126. See, e.g., Article 1 of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, 399 U.N.T.S. 189.

127. See Marco Torsello, The CISG's Impact on Legislators: The Drafting of International Con tract Conventions, in The 1980 Uniform Sales Law. Old issues revisited in the light of recent experiences 199, 227 f. (Franco Ferrari ed., 2003).

128. Franco Ferrari, "Forum shopping" et droit materiel uniforme, Journal du droit international 383, 394-396 (2002).

129. In legal writing, see Cristina Chiomenti, Does the choice of a-national rules entail an implicit exclusion of the CISG?, European Legal Forum 141, 143 ( 2005); Franco Ferrari, Nuove e vecchie questioni in materia di vendita internazionale tra interpretazione autonoma e ricorso alla giurisprudenza straniera, Giurisprudenza italiana 1405, 1414 (2004); Burghard Piltz, Internationales Kaufrecht 46 (2nd ed., 2008); Schlechtriem and Witz, supra note 35, at 11; Noah Vardi, Vendita internazionale di beni mobili e saggio degli interessi: la disciplina uniforme convenzionale e legge nazionale, Nuova giurisprudenza civile commentata 174, 176 (2005); in case law see Tribunale di Forli, 11 December 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081211i3.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.

See, apart from the decisions cited in the previous note, Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>.

130. See Magnus, supra note 34, at 390; Peter Schlechtriem, Internationales UNKaufrecht 9-10 (2nd ed., 2003); Wolfgang Witz et als., International Einheitliches Kaufrecht 40 (2000).

131. See Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/021126i3.html>.

132. For papers on the criterion of applicability referred to in the text, see Christophe Bernasconi, The Personal and Territorial Scope of the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Article 1), Netherlands International Law Review 137 (1999); Franco Ferrari, CISG Article 1 (1) (b) and Related Matters: Brief Remarks on Occasion of a Recent Dutch Court Decision, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 317 (1995); Franco Ferrari, Diritto uniforme della Vendita Internazionale: Questioni di applicabilita e diritto internazionale privato, Rivista di diritto civile 669 (1995/II); Winship, supra note 11, 487 ff.

133. Ferrari, supra note 45, at 72.

134. Paul Volken, Das Wiener Ubereinkommen uber den internationalen Warenkauf; Anwendungsvoraussetzungen und Anwendungsbereich, in Einheitliches Kaufrecht und nationals Obligationenrecht 81, 93 (Peter Schlechtriem ed., 1987).

135. See Schlechtriem, supra note 85, at 45, where the author asserts that the CISG can be applicable even if both parties do not have their place of business in Contracting States:

"In cases where both parties do not have their places of business in Contracting States, Article 1(1)(b) leads to the application of CISG not only by the courts of Contracting States but also by the courts of non-Contracting States, provided the private international law of the non-Contracting State makes applicable the sales law of a Contracting State [...]."

See also Enderlein and Maskow, supra note 8, at 29 , according to whom the solution provided for by Article 1(1)(b) CISG "enables the Convention to be applied also to contracts between the parties of whom one, or in exceptional cases even two, does not have his place of business in a Contracting State." (emphasis in original); see also Piltz, supra note 101, at 52.

136. For recent applications of the CISG by virtue of its Article 1(1)(b), see Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, 7 October 2010, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/2156.pdf>; LG Potsdam, 7 April 2009, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/090407german.pdf>; Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Arbitral award No. T-8/08, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090128sb.html>; OLG Düsseldorf, 21 April 2004, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/913.pdf>; OLG Karlsruhe, 10 December 2003, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/031210g1.html>; AG Basel-Stadt, 22 August 2003, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030822s1.html>; HG St. Gallen, 3 December 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021203s1.html>; LG Braunschweig, 30 July 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010730g1.html>; French Supreme Court, 26 June 2001, available at <http://witz.jura.uni-sb.de/CISG/decisions/2606012v.htm>; Downs Investment Pty Ltd. v. Perwaja Stell SDN BHD, Supreme Court of Queensland, 17 November 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001117a2.html>; Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial, 24 April 2000, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/000424a1.html>.

137. See EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, reprinted in I.L.M. 1492 (1980).

138. See Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), O.J. of 4 July 2008, l 177/6.

139. For this conclusion, see Ferrari, supra note 45, at 76 f.

140. For recent papers on the "choice of law" under the Rome Convention, see, e.g., Simon Atrill, Choice of Law in Contract: The Missing Pieces of the Article 4 Jigsaw?, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 549 (2004); Adrian Briggs, On drafting agreements on choice of law, Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 389 (2003); Eleonora Finazzi Agro, Autonomia privata e scelta di regole non statuali quail diritto applicabile, Diritto del commercio internazionale 604 (2005); Jonathan Hill, Choice of Law in Contract under the Rome Convention: The Approach of the UK Courts, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 325 (2004); Jaspers Michael Bo, Nachträgliche Rechtswahl im internationalen Schuldvertragsrecht (2002); Erik Jayme, L´autonomie de la volonte des parties dans les contrats internationaux entre personnes privees, Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit international 14 (1991); Peter Mankowski, Stillschweigende Rechtswahl und wahlbares Recht, in Das Grünbuch zum Internationalen Privatrecht 63 (Stefan Leible ed., 2004); Peter Mankowski, Uberlegungen zur sach- und interessengerechten Rechtswahl fur Vertrage des internationalen Wirtschaftsverkehrs, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 2 (2003); Peter Nygh, Autonomy in International Contracts (1999); Christiane Rühl, Rechtswahlfreiheit und Rechtswahlklauseln in Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen (1999).

141. For papers on the "choice of law" under the Rome I Regulation, see Michael Bogdan, The Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and the Choice of Law by the Parties, Nederlands internationaal privaatrecht 407 (2009); Claudia Hahn, La liberté de choix dans les instruments communautaires récents Rome I et Rome II: l'autonomie de la volonté entre intérêt privé et intérêt géneral, in Droit international privé : travaux du Comité français de Droit international privé 187 (2010); Helmut Heiss, Party Autonomy, in Rome I Regulation. The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations in Europe 1 (Franco Ferrari and Stefan Leible eds., 2009); Stefan Leible, Choice of the Applicable Law, in Le nouveau règlement européen "Rome I" relatif à la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles 61 (Eleanor Cashin Ritaine and Andrea Bonomi eds., 2008); Rolf Wagner, Der Grundsatz der Rechtswahl und das mangels Rechtswahl anwendbare Recht (Rom I-Verordnung): ein Bericht über die Entstehungsgeschichte und den Inhalt der Artikel 3 und 4 Rom I-Verordnung, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 377 (2008).

142. See Ferrari, supra note 45, at 78.

143. See, however, the decision by the Tribunale di Monza, 14 January 1993, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930114i3.html>, which expressly stated that the rules of private international law to which Article 1(1)(b) refers cannot be applied when the parties have expressly chosen the law applicable to their contractual relationship. For strong criticism, see Franco Ferrari, Diritto uniforme della vendita internazionale: questioni di applicabilita e diritto internazionale privato, rivista di diritto civile 669 (1995); Franco Ferrari, Uniform Law of International Sales: Issues of Applicability and Private International Law, Journal of Law and COmmerce 159 (1995); for critical remarks regarding the foregoing decision, albeit for reasons that do not relate to the interpretation of Article 1(1)(b), see also Giorgio De Nova, Risoluzione per eccessiva oneroita e Convenzione di Vienna, Contratti 580 (1993).

144. See German Supreme Court, 11 May 2010, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.com/content/api/cisg/urteile/2125.pdf> (choice of German law); Hof Beroep Gent, 17 May 2002, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/tradelaw/WK/2002-05-17.htm> (applying the CISG due to the choice of French law as the applicable law); French Supreme Court, 17 December 1996, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961217f1.html> (annulling the appellate's court decision not to apply the CISG to a contract concluded between a French seller and an Irish buyer which contained a choice of law clause leading to the law of a Contracting State); LG Kassel, 15 February 1996, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960215g1.html> (chocie of German law led to the CISG's application); RB s'Gravenhage, 7 June 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950607n1.html> (applying the CISG due to the choice of Dutch law as the law applicable to the contract); OLG Köln, 22 February 1994, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940222g1.html> (applying the CISG to a contract concluded between a Dutch seller and a German buyer by virtue of the parties' choice of German law as the applicable law and, thus, the law of a Contracting State); OLG Düsseldorf, 8 January 1993, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930108g1.html> (applying the CISG - by virtue of the choice of German law – to a contract concluded between a Turkish seller and a German buyer at a date at which Germany was a Contracting State but not Turkey).

145. See, e.g., Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Hamburg, 21 March 1996, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960321g1.html> (applying the CISG to a contract concluded between a German buyer and a Hong Kong seller by virtue of the [hypothetical] choice of German law as the law applicable to the contract); ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award n. 8324, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958324i1.html> (applying the CISG to a sales contract by virtue of the choice of French law, the law of a Contracting State, as the applicable law).

146. For cases referring to the "closest connection", see RB Amsterdam, 5 October 1994, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=124&step=FullText>; LG Düsseldorf, Germany, 25 August 1994, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=150&step=FullText>; OLG Düsseldorf, 10 February 1994, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/116.htm>; RB Arnhem, 30 December 1993, summary available at <http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/clout/abstracts/A_CN.9_SER.C_ABSTRACTS_7.pdf>; RB Roermond, 6 May 1993, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=94&step=FullText>; OLG Karlsruhe, 20 November 1992, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/54.htm>; OLG Koblenz, 27 September 1991, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/30.htm>; OLG Frankfurt, 13 June 1991, RIW 591 f. (1991).

147. See Article 4(2) EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, supra note 47.

148. For this statement in case law, see OLG Koblenz, 16 January 1992, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/47.htm>, expressly stating that "the payment of money does never constitute the characteristic performance".

149. For a case in which the presumption contained in Article 4(2) EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations was rebutted and the law of the buyer was applied rather than the law of the seller, see LG Kassel, 22 June 1995, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/370.htm>.

150. See, e.g., AG Geldern, 17 August 2011, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/2302.pdf>; OLG Saarbrücken, 30 May 2011, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/display.cfm?test=2225>; LG Bielefeld, 9 November 2010, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/2204.pdf>; OLG Saarbrücken, 12 May 2010, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/2155.pdf>; RB Harleem, 3 December 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081203n1.html>; Hof van Beroep Antwerpen, 22 January 2007, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070122b1.html>; Finnish Supreme Court, 14 October 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051014f4.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 8 November 2005, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1156.pdf>; OLG Stuttgart, 20 December 2004, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/997.pdf>; OLG Frankfurt, 6 October 2004, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/996.pdf>; LG Düsseldorf, 28 May 2004, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/850.pdf>; LG Möchengladbach, 15 July 2003, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/813.pdf>; Hof Beroep Gent, 15 May 2002, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.be/ipr/eng/cases/2002-05-15.html>.

151. See, e.g., Achim Kampf, UN-Kaufrecht und Kollisionsrecht, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 297, 298 (2009); Susana Navas Navarro, UN-Kaufrecht: Anwendungsbereich und Vertragsschluss in der spanischen Rechtsprechung, Internationales Handelsrecht 74, 75 (2006); Burghard Piltz, Neue Entwicklungen im UN-Kaufrecht, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 553, 555 (2000); Claire Reifner, Stillschweigender Ausschluss des UN-Kaufrechts im Prozess?, Internationales Handelsrecht 52, 54 (2002); Franz-Josef Schillo, UN-Kaufrecht oder BGB? - Die Qual der Wahl beim Internationalen Warenkaufvertrag - Vergleichende Hinweise zur Rechtswahl beim Abschluss von Vertragen, Internationales Handelsrecht 257, 259 (2003).

152. See Ferrari, supra note 45, at 80; Morten Fogt, Rechtzeitige Ruge und Vertragsaufhebung bei Waren mit raschem Wertverlust nach UN-Kaufrecht, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 580, 584 (2002).

153. See, e.g., LG Berlin, 24 March 1998, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=440&step=FullText>; LG München, 6 May 1997, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/341.htm>; LG Siegen, 5 December 1995, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/287.htm>; Rechtbank Amsterdam, 5 October 1994, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=124&step=FullText>; Rechtbank Zwolle, 1 March 1995, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=152&step=FullText>.

154. See, e.g., ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award No. 8611, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=229&step=FullText>; ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award No. 7197, Journal du droit international 1030 (1993).

155. For papers on the law applicable absent a choice under the Rome I Regulation, see, most recently, Franco Ferrari, The Applicable Law in the Absence of Choice: Some Remarks on Article 4 of the Rome I Regulation (and Where it Comes From), in Studi in onore di Aldo Frignani 217 (Gianmaria Ajani et als., 2011); Ulrich Magnus, Article 4 Rome I Regulation: The Applicable Law in the Absence of Choice, in Rome I Regulation. The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations in Europe, supra note 141, 27 ff.

156. See AG Sursee, 12 September 2008, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1728.pdf>; Italian Supreme Court, 20 September 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040920i3.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 10 September. 1998, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/646.pdf>; German Supreme Court, 11 December 1996, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961211g1.html>.

157. For similar statements, see Herber and Czerwenka, supra note 68, at 19; Magnus,supra note 35, at 83; Lohmann, supra note 55, at 37.

158. See Tribunale di Forli, 11 December 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081211i3.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; OLG Dresden, 27 December 1999, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991227g1.html>.

159. See also the text accomanying notes 75 ff.

160. For court decisions stating that issues of agency and related matters are not dealt with by the Convention, see, apart from the decisions cited supra in note 81, OLG Schleswig, 24 October 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081024g1.html>; LG Landshut, 12 June 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080612g2.html>; CIETAC, Arbitral award of 10 December 2007, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/071210c1.html>; Tribunal cantonal du Valais, 27 April 2007, availableat <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070427s1.html>; Cour d'Appel Versailles, 13 October 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051013f1.html>; CIETAC, Arbitral award of 1 October 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051000c1.html>; Tribunal cantonal du Valais, 27 May 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050527s1.html>; CIETAC, Arbitral award CISG/2005/22 (no date indicated), available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050400c1.html>; CIETAC, Arbitral award of 28 Feburary 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050228c1.html>; CIETAC, Arbitral award of 1 September 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040900c1.html>; Shanghai No. I. Intermediate People's Court, 23 March 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040323c1.html>; CIETAC, Arbitral award of 12 March 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040312c1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 Feburary 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.

161. See Saenger, supra note 34, at 402-403; Kurt Siehr, Art. 1, in Kommentar zum UNKaufrecht 9, 13 (Heinrich Honsell ed., 2nd ed., 2010).

162. See Milena Djordjevic, Art. 4, in UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 62, 70 (Stefan Kröll et als. eds., 2011); in case law see AG Sursee, 12 September 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080912s1.html>; LG Kassel, 22 June 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950622g1.html>.

163. See Ferrari, supra note 43, at 496-497.

164. See, e.g., OLG Köln, 13 November 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001113g1.html>.

165. See Ferrari, supra note 35, at 68.

166. See Official Records of the United Nations Conference, supra note 32, at 436.

167. See the updated list of contracting States that also includes the reservations declared by those States to be found on the Internet at <http://www.uncitral.org>.

168. See Joseph Lookofsky, Alive and Well in Scandinavia: CISG Part II, 18 Journal of Law and Commerce 289, 290 (1999).

169. For papers on the relationship between the CISG and regional unification efforts, see, e.g., Luca Castellani, Assurer l'harmonisation du droit des contrats aux niveaux regional et mondial: la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de merchandises et le role de la CNUDCI, Uniform Law Review 101 (2008); Juan Coetzee and Mustaqeem de Gama, Harmonisation of Sales Law: An International and Regional Perspective, Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 15 (2006); Franco Ferrari, El papel de la unificacion regional en la unificacion del derecho de compraventa, in Como se codifica hoy el derecho commercial internacional? 227 ( Jürgen Basedow et als. eds., 2010); Franco Ferrari, Universal and Regional Sales Law: Can they coexist?, Uniform Law Review 177 (2003); Petar Sarcevic, The CISG and regional unification, in The 1980 Uniform Sales Law, supra note 127, 3 ff.

170. So etwa Achilles, supra note 41, at 266; Brunner, supra note 35, at 541; Enderlein et als., supra note 88, at 293; Harry M. Flechtner, 17 Journal of Law and Commerce 187, 194 (1998); Ingeborg Schwenzer and Pascal Hachem, Art. 94, in Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 1186, 1188 (Ingeborg Schwenzer ed., 3rd ed., 2010); Ulrich Schroeter, UN-Kaufrecht und Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht 365 (2005); Marco Torsello, Reservations to international uniform commercial law conventions, Uniform Law Review 85, 97 (2000); Witz et als., supra note 130, at 579.

171. For this, see also Winship, supra note 58, at 1-45.

172. It should be noted that no domestic rule is per se replaced by the CISG, as the CISG solely applies to "international" contract for the sale of goods. Thus, the CISG does not impact on domestic law, in the sense that it does not per se modify the domestic rules which already exist. In effect, due to its persuasiveness, the CISG has constituted the model of recent revisions of domestic law. In this respect, see, e.g., Evelyn Nau, Das Gewährleistungsrecht in BGB, UN-Kaufrecht und den Reformvorschlägen der Schuldrechtskommission: ein Vergleich unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Richtlinie (1999/44/EG) über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf (2003); Peter Schlechtriem, 10 Jahr CISG - Der Einflus des UN-Kaufrechts auf die Entricklung des deutschen und des internationalen Schuldrechts, Internationales Handelsrecht 12 (2001); Peter Schlechtriem, International Einheitliches Kaufrecht und neues Schuldrecht, in Das neue Schuldrecht in der Praxis 71 (Karsten Schmidt et als. eds., 2003); Karin Sein and Irene Kull, Die Bedeutung des UN-Kaufrechts im estnischen Recht, Internationales Handelsrecht 138 (2005).

173. See the text accompanying notes 177 ff.

174. See Achilles, supra note 41, at 264; Herber and Czerwenka, supra note 68, at 394; Piltz, supra note 101, at 51; Ilaria Sannini, L'applicazione della Convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale negli Stati Uniti 69 (2006); Torsello, supra note 170, at 96.

In case law, see OLG Hamm, 2 April 2009, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.com/content/api/cisg/urteile/1978.pdf>; Valero Marketing v. Greeni Oy, U.S. District Court, New Jersey, 15 June 2005, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/050615u1.html>; Standard Bent Glass Corp. v. Glassrobots Oy, U.S. Court of Appeals (3d Circuit), 20 June 2003, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/030620u1.html>; Turku Court of Appeal, 12 April 2002, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/020412f5.html>; Corte d'appello di Milano, 23 January 2001, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/010123i3.html>.

175. See Lookofsky, supra note 168, at 292; Peter Mankowski, Art. 92 CISG, in Internationales Vertragsrecht, supra note 34, 953, 955; Torsello, supra note 174, at 98.

176. For this conclusion, see also Ferrari, supra note 45, at 68. In light of what has just been said, the decision rendered by OLG Naumburg, 27 April 1999, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990427g1.html>, is incorrect, as it makes applicable the CISG in its entirety by virtue of Article 1(1)(a), even though one of the parties to the contract had its place of business in Denmark, one of the Contract ing States that declared an Article 92 reservation; incorrect also is OLG Frankfurt, 4 March 1994, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940304g1.html>, applying the CISG pursuant to its Article 1(1)(a), even though at the moment of the conclusion of the contract one of the parties had its place of business in Sweden, a Contracting State that had declared an Article 92 reservation.

For a critique of these decisions, see also Morten Fogt, Rechtzeitige Ruge und Vertragsaufhebung bei Waren mit raschem Wertverlust nach UN-Kaufrecht, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 580, 587 note 22 (2002).

177. For this conclusion, see also Herber and Czerwenka, supra note 68, at 393; Lookofsky, supra note 168, at 294-295; contra Piltz, supra note 101, at 51 f.

178. See Achilles, supra note 41, at 264; Enderlein et als., supra note 88, at 290; Harry M. Flechtner, The Several Texts of the CISG in a Decentralized System: Observations on Translations, Reservations and other Challenges to the Uniformity Principle in Article 7(1), 17 Journal of Law and Commerce 187, 193 (1998); Joseph Lookofsky, The Scandinavian Experience, in The 1980 Uniform Sales Law, supra note 127, 95, 107.

179. For this conclusion, Magnus, supra note 35, at 441; Mankowski, supra note 175, at 955; Witz et als., supra note 130, at 576.

180. See OLG München, 8 March 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950308g1.html>: The court held that the CISG was applicable to the rights and obligations of the parties by virtue of Article 1(1)(a), but that the issue of the contract's formation could not be governed by Part II (Formation of Contracts) of the CISG, at least not by virtue of Article 1(1)(a), since Finland had declared an Article 92 reservation and therefore could not be considered a Contracting State in respect to that Part. Nevertheless, the court held that by virtue of Article 1(1)(b) the CISG had to govern the formation as well, since the German private international law rules made German law applicable to that issue; contra, without any valid reason, LG Bielefeld, 12 December 2003, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/031212g1.html> (applying German domestic law rather than Articles 14-24 CISG which the court should have applied due to the rules of private international law leading to the law of Germany, a Contracting State that had not declared an Article 92 reservation).

181. See Achilles, supra note 41, at 264; Herber and Czerwenka, supra note 68, at 394; Lookofsky, supra note 168, at 297.

182. See Ostre Landsret, 23 April 1998, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980423d1.html>.

183. Compare OLG Rostock, 27 July 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950727g1.html>; see also Turku Court of Appeal, 12 April 2002, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/020412f5.html>; Metropolitan Court of Budapest, 21 May 1996, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960521h1.html>

184. Article 92(2) CISG.

185. See Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca, Art. 93, in La compraventa internacional de mercaderias, supra note 89, 713, 715; Malcolm Evans, Art. 93, in Commentary on the International Sales Law, supra note 90, 645, 648; Franco Ferrari, Art. 93, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht – CISG, supra note 33, 999, 1000; Herber and Czerwenka, supra note 68, at 396.

186. See Magnus, supra note 35, at 861; Piltz, supra note 101, at 51.

187. If the rules of private international law were to lead to the law of a contracting State that declared an Article 92 reservation, the CISG would not be applicable to the contract but for the Part of the CISG that that State had decided to be bound by.

188. See the text accompanying note 38.

189. Overby, supra note 6, at 606; see also Michael Bradley et als., The Purposes and Accountability of the Corporation in Contemporary Society: Corporate Governance at a Crossroads, 62 Law and contemporary Problems 9, 82 (2000), stating that the CISG "presents a comprehensive code governing contracts for the international sale of goods". [

190. Lorne Clark and Jeffrey Wool, Entry into Force of Transactional Private Law Treaties Affecting Aviation: Case Study – Proposed UNIDROIT/ICAO Convention as Applied to Aircraft Equipment, 66 Journal of Air Law and COmmerce 1403, 1411 note 30 (2001).

191. See, e.g., Tom McNamara, U.N. Sale of Goods Convention: Finally Coming of Age?, 32-Feb. Colorado Lawyer 11, 16 (2003), stating that "the Convention presumptively and automatically governs all international trade transactions within the CISG's scope (an international sales contract)"; see also Gary Friedman et als., Issues in Marketing and Sales Activities for Biotech Companies Around the World, 66 PLI/Pat 953, 964 (2001), "The UN's Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ("CISG") is contract law worldwide for those countries that have ratified it". In case law see Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, 21 July 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/020721a1.html>, stating that "the Convention becomes the common law of the international sale of goods in the countries that adopt it".

192. Swiss Supreme Court, 19 February 2004, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=979&step=FullText>.

193. See Giuseppe Benedetti, Commento all'art. 4 della Convenzione di Vienna, Nuove Leggi civili commentate 9, 9 (1989).

194. See also Franco Ferrari, What sources of law for contracts for the international sale of goods, Internationales Hansdelsrecht 1, 2 (2006).

195. See the text accompanying note 38.

196. For this expression, see, e.g., Arthur B. Colligan, Applying the General Principles of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods to Fill the Article 78 Interest Rate Gap in Zapata Hermanos, S.A. v. Hearthside Baking Co. Inc. (2001), Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 40, 48 (2002); Felemegas, supra note 41, at 276 f.; Ferrari, supra note 41, at 842 f.; Graffi, L'interpretazione autonoma, supra note 41, at 879; Philip Hackney, Is the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods Achieving Uniformity?, 61 Louisiana Law Review 473, 478 (2001); McMahon, supra note 41, at 1002; Perales Viscasillas, supra note 41, at 112; for the use of the expression in case law, see Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.

197. Bawar Bammarny, Treu und Glauben und UN-Kaufrecht (CISG) 160 (2011); Jürgen Basedow, Uniform Law Conventions and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, Uniform Law Review 129, 135 (2000); Brunner, supra note 35, at 77; Dejaco, supra note 41, at 43; McMahon, supra note 41, at 1003; Boris Paal, Methoden der Luckenfullung im Vergleich: UN-Kaufrecht und BGB, Zeitschrift für verlgeichende Rechtswissenschaft 64, 79 (2011); Ingeborg Schwenzer and Pascal Hachem, Art. 7, in Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods, supra note 170, 120, 134; Schmid, supra note 41, at 173; Claude Witz, Trois questions recurrentes de la vente internationale de marchandises au sein du meme arret, Dalloz Chronique 2796, 2798 (2002); in case law, see AG Sursee, 12 September 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080912s1.html>; OLG Frankfurt, 6 October 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/041006g1.html>.

198. Bammarny, previous note, at 160; Diedrich, supra note 38, at 353.

199. For papers concerning the CISG's general principles, see, e.g., Camilla B. Andersen, General Principles of the CISG - Generally Impenetrable?, in Sharing International Commercial Law across National Boundaries: Festschrift for Albert H. Kritzer on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday 13 (Camilla B. Andersen and Ulrich Schroeter eds., 2008); Franco Ferrari, Principi generali inseriti nelle convenzioni internazionali di diritto uniforme: l'esempio della vendita, del "factoring" e del "leasing" internazionali, Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 651 (1997); Franco Ferrari, General principles and international uniform commercial law conventions: a study of the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention and the 1988 UNIDROIT Conventions on International Factoring and Leasing and the UNIDROIT Principles, 1 European Journal of Law Reform 217 (1998); Phanesh Koneru, The International Interpretation of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: An Approach Based on General Principles, 6 Minnesota Journal Global Trade 105 (1997); Ulrich Magnus, Die allgemeinen Grundsatze im UN-Kaufrecht, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 469 (1995); Ulrich Magnus, General Principles of UN Sales Law, International Trade and Business Law Annual 33 (1997); Alvaro Rodrigo Vidal Olivares, La function integradora de los principios generales en la compraventa internacional de mercaderias y los principios de la UNIDROIT sobra contratos comerciales internacionales, Anuario de Derecho Civil 993 (2003).

200. For this statement, see also Klaus Bacher, Landesspezifische Auslegung von Einheitsrecht?, in Festschrift für Peter Schlechtriem zum 70. Geburtstag 155, 162 (Ingeborg Schwenzer and Günther Hager eds., 2002); Michael J. Bonell, Commento all'art. 7 della Convenzione di Vienna, supra note 41, at 25; Brunner, supra note 35, at 77; Fabian Burkart, Interpretatives Zusammenwirken von CISG und UNIDROIT Principles 202 (2000); Franco Ferrari, Art. 7, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht – CISG, supra note 33, 156, 184; Frigge, supra note 38, at 306; Urs Peter Gruber, Methoden des internationalen Einheitsrechts 306 (2004); Melin, supra note 41, at 407; Tobias Malte Müller, Ausgewählte Fragen der Beweislastverteilung im UN-Kaufrecht im Lichte der aktuellen Rechtsprechung 13 (2005); Niemann, supra note 55, at 27; Sannini, supra note 174, at 52; Schmid, supra note 41, at 53; Christian Thiele, Anmerkung zu OLG Koblenz, 18.11. 1999, Internationales Handelsrecht 111, 112 (2001); in case law see, e.g., American Arbitration Association, Arbitral award of 23 October 2007, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/071023a5.html>; Federal Arbitration Court for the Moscow Region, Arbitral award of 25 June 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010625r1.html>; ICCC International Court of Arbitration, Arbitral award no. 8611/HV/JK, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/978611i1.html>.

201. For recent case law expressly referring to this gap-filling approach, see RB Arnhem, 29 July 2009, docket No. 172927/HA ZA 08-1230, unpublished; Belgian Supreme Court, 19 June 2009, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090619b1.html>; RB Amsterdam, 3 June 2009, docket No. 403763/HA ZA 08-2073, unpublished; Hilaturas Miel, S.L. v. Republic of Iraq, US District Court (S.D.N.Y.), 20 August 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080820u1.html>; Economic Court of the City of Minsk, 10 April 2008, abtract available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080410b5.html>; RB Breda, 27 February 2008, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=1339&step=FullText>; District Court in Bardejov, 29 October 2007, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/071029k1.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral award of 29 December 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/061229r1.html>.

202. For a similar conclusion, see Michael J. Bonell, Art. 7, in Commentary on the International Sales Law, supra note 90, 65, 83, stating that the "recourse to domestic law for the purpose of filling gaps under certain circumstances is not only admissible, but even obligatory."

203. The danger of an abuse of the recourse to the rules of private international law is considerable: "It is enough to state that no general principles can be found and therefore the only way out it to resort to private international law." Gyula Eorsi, General Provisions, in International Sales. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, supra note 58, 2-1, 2-12.

204. Enderlein and Maskow, supra note 8, at 58, point out that Article 7(2)'s major concern is to make sure that the gaps are "closed [...]from within the Convention. This is in line with the aspiration to unify the law which [...]is established in the Convention itself."

205. For the following, see also Franco Ferrari, Uniform Interpretation of the 1980 Uniform Sales Law, 24 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 183, 217 f. (1994).

206. See also Jorge Adame Goddard, El contrato de compraventa internacional 77 1994); for a clear distinction between analogical application and the recourse to general principles, see Jan Kropholler, Internationales Einheitsrecht 292 (1974).

207. Bonell, supra note 202, at 78. The analogical application as a method of gap-filling has been admitted by other authors as well; see, for example, Enderlein and Maskow, supra note 8, at 58, where the authors state that "gap-filling can be done, as we believe, by applying such interpretation methods as extensive interpretation and analogy. The admissibility of analogy is directly addressed in the wording contained in the CISG because it is aimed at obtaining, from several comparable rules, one rule for a not expressly covered fact and/or a general rule under which the fact can be subsumed."

See also Felemegas, supra note 41, at 280 ff.; Frigge, supra note 38, at 292; Hackney, supra note 196, at 478; Herber and Czerwenka, supra note 68, at 50; Roland Loewe Internationales Kaufrecht 33 (1989); Paal, supra note 197, at 88; Schwenzer and Hachem, supra note 197, at 136; contra Harm Peter Westermann, Art. 7 CISG, in 3 Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch 2038, 2044 (6th ed., 2012).

208. For a similar criterion employed in order to distinguish the analogical approach from recourse to general principles, see Bonell, supra note 202, at 79 (stating that if cases expressly settled by specific provisions and the case in question are so analogous "that it would be inherently unjust not to adopt the same solution", the gap should be closed by resorting to the general principles); for a critique of this criterion, see Rosenberg, supra note 38, at 451 (affirming that "[t]here are inherent problems with an 'inherently unjust' test"). See also Adame Goddard, supra note 206, at 77

209. Bonell, supra note 202, at 80.

210. Bonell, supra note 202, at 83.

211. See Franco Ferrari, Das Verhaltnis zwischen den Unidroit-Grundsatzen und den allgemeinen Grundsatzen internationaler Einheitsprivatrechtskonventionen. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Luckenfullung in staatlichen Gerichten, JuristenZeitung 9, 10 (1998); McMahon, supra note 41, at 992; Paal, supra note 197, at 65 f. (2011); in case law, see American Arbitration Association, Arbitral Award of 23 October 2007, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/071023a5.html>.

212. For the use of this expression, see, e.g., Basedow, supra note 197, at 135; Frigg e, supra note 38, passim; Aldo Frignani and Marco Torsello, Il contratto internazionale 444 (2nd ed., 2010); André Janssen and Sörren Claas Kiene, The CISG and Its General Principles, in CISG Methodology, supra note 38, 261, 264 f.; Perales Viscasillas, supra note 41, at 112; Paal, supra note 197, at 80; Ingeborg Schwenzer and Pascal Hachem, supra note 197, at 134; in case law see AG Sursee, 12 September 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080912s1.html>; for remarks criticizing the use of the expression mentioned in the text, see Ernst A. Kramer, Uniforme Interpretation von Einheitsprivatrecht - mit besonderer Berucksichtigung von Art. 7 UNKR, österreichische Juristische Blätter 137, 147 note 90 (1996).

213. Colligan, supra note 196, at 48; Dejaco, supra note 41, at 43; Felemegas, supra note 41, at 277; Graffi, supra note 41, at 879; Hackney, supra note 196, at 478; McMahon, supra note 41, at 1002; in case law, see Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.

214. Janssen and Kiene, supra note 212, at 261; Magnus, supra note 35, at 124; Thomas Pfeiffer, Die Entwicklung des Internationalen Vertrags-, Schuld- und Sachenrechts in den Jahren 1995/1996, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1207, 1212 (1997).

215. Bonell, supra note 202, at 75, also stresses that "[a] first condition for the existence of a gap in the sense of Article 7(2) is that the case at hand relates to 'matters governed by [the] Convention.'' Issues which are not within the scope of the Convention have been deliberately left to the competence of the existing non-unified national laws."

216. See Tribunale di Padova, 31 March 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>: "The missing criteria on the base of which the rate of interest is to be determined has generated a dispute in doctrine among those who sustain that the question is dealt with by the Convention, even if not expressly (internal gap), and those who, on the other hand, believe that the determination of the rate of interest is a subject excluded from the scope of application of the Convention (external gap). In the first hypothesis, it is possible to make reference to the general principles of the Convention; meanwhile, in the second, it is necessary to make reference to the rules of private international law, in order to identify the applicable substantive law."

217. One must wonder however, whether it is true, as stated by Winship, supra note 11, at 529, that "[a] reader trained in the civil law will feel more confortable with this [general principles] approach than a common lawyer".

218. For a detailed analysis of the place of performance of the monetary obligations and its effects, see, e.g., Dominik K.Lehner, Erfüllungsort und Gerichtsstand für Geldschulden im nationalen Recht und im internationalen Einheitsrecht (1991).

219. See the text of Article 57 CISG:

"(1) If the buyer is not bound to pay the price at any other particular place, he must pay it to the seller:
(a) at the seller's place of business; or
(b) if the payment is to be made against the handing over of the goods or of documents, at the place where the handing over takes place.
(2) The seller must bear any increase in the expenses incidental to payment which is caused by a change in his place of business subsequent to the conclusion of the contract."

220. OLG Düsseldorf, 2 July 1993, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930702g1.html>.

221. Cour d'appel Grenoble, 23 October 1993, Revue critique de droit international privé 756 (1997).

222. Austrian Supreme Court, 29 June 1999, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990629a3.html>.

223. Cour d'appel Paris, 14 January 1998, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980114f1.html>.

224. See Ferrari, supra note 38, at 228.

225. Peter Huber, Some Introductory Remarks on the CISG, Internationales Handelsrecht 228, 231 (2006); Anne-Kathrin Schluchter, Die Gültigkeit von Kaufverträgen unter dem UN-Kaufrecht: Wie gestaltet sich die Ergänzung des Einheitsrechts mit deutschen und französischen Nichtigkeitsnormen? 26 (1996).

226. Warren Khoo, Art 4, in Commentary on the International Sales Law, supra note 90, at 45.

227. See Franco Ferrari, Jurisprudence concernant les questions non abordees par la CVIM, International Business Law Journal 835, 836 (1998).

228. For a similar affirmation is case law, see MSS, Inc. v. Maser Corporation, U.S. District Court (Maryland), 18 July 2011, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/110718u1.html>; HG Aargau, 10 March 2010, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/2176.pdf>; Tribunal cantonal du Valais, 28 January 2009, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/2025.pdf>; Barbara Berry, S.A. de C.V. v. Ken M. Spooner Farms, Inc., U.S. District Court (W.D. Wash.), 13 April 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060413u1.html>; CIETAC, 1. 6. 2005, CISG-online 1909; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitrla Award of 3 Feburary 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040203r1.html>; Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.), 10 May 2002, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/020510u1.html#svia>; Asante Technologies, Inc. v. PMC-Sierra, Inc., U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal., San Jose Division), 21 July 2001, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/010727u1.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 7 September 2000, available at <http://www.cisg.at/8_2200v.htm>; Hof van Bereop Antwerpen, 18 June 1996, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/tradelaw/WK/1996-06-18.htm>.

229. Peter Schlechtriem and Martin Schmidt-Kessel, Art. 11, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht – CISG, supra note 33, at 236, 237.

230. For a comparative overview of the existing concepts of validity, see Ernst A. Kramer, Der Irrtum beim Vertragsschluss: Eine weltweit rechtsvergleichende Bestandsaufnahme (1998).

231. Barbara Berry, S. A. de C. V. v. Ken M. Spooner Farms, Inc., U. S. Dist. Ct. (W. D. Wash.), 13 April 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060413u1.html>; Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (S.D.N.Y.), 10 May 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html>.

232. The definition cited in the decision referred to in the text was borrowed from Hartnell, supra note 29, at 45, to which the courts expressly refer.

233. See Austrian Supreme Court, 7 September 2000, available at <http://www.cisg.at/8_2200v.htm>; RB Zutphen, 29 May 1997, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=353&step=FullText>; AG Nordhorn, 14 June 1994, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/259.htm>.

234. See Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Arbitral Award of 15 July 2008, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1795.pdf>; Usinor Industeel, v. Leeco Steel Products, Inc., U.S. District Court (North. Dist. Illinois), 28 March 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020328u1.html>; Roder Zelt- und Hallenkonstruktionen GmbH v. Rosedown Park Pty Ltd and Reginald R Eustace, Federal Court, South Australian District, Adelaide, April 28, 1995, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=197&step=FullText>; OLG Koblenz, 16 January 1992, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/47.htm>.

235 See Austrian Supreme Court, 21 March 2000, available at <http://www.cisg.at/10_34499g.htm>.

236. See Austrian Supreme Court, 15 October 1998, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981015a3.html>;.

237. See also OLG München, 5 March 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080305g1.html>; China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Arbitral Award of 18 April 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080418c1.html>; Usinor Industeel, v. Leeco Steel Products, Inc., U.S. District Court (North. Dist. Illinois), 28 March 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020328u1.html>; St. Paul Insurance Company et al. v. Neuromed Medical Systems & Support et al., U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) 26 March 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020326u1.html>.

238. See HG Kanton Zürich, 26 April 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426s1.html>.

239. For papers dealing with Article 5 CISG, see Rolf Herber, UN-Kaufrechtsubereinkommen: Produkthaftung - Verjahrung, Monatschrift für Deutsches Recht 105 (1993); Rolf Herber, Mangelfolgeschaden nach dem CISG und nationales Deliktsrecht, IHR 187 (2001); Dydra Kuhlen, Produkthaftung im internationalen Kaufrecht. Entstehungsgeschichte, Anwendungsbereich und Sperrwirkung des Art. 5 des Wiener UN-Kaufrechts (CISG) (1997); Dirk Otto, Produkthaftung nach dem UN-Kaufrecht, Monatschrift für Deutsches Recht 533 (1992); Dirk Otto, Nochmals - UN-Kaufrecht und EG- Produkthaftungsrichtlinie, Monatschrift für Deutsches Recht 306 (1993); Dirk Schneider, UN-Kaufrecht und Produktehaftpflicht (1995).

240. Kuhlen, previous note, at 61; see also Audit, supra note 41, at 36; Magnus, supra note 35, at 143; Jean-Pierre Plantard, Un nouveau droit uniforme de la vente internationale: La Convention des Nations Unies du 11 avril 1980, Journal du droit international 311, 327 (1988); Reinhart, supra note 34, at 25.

241. Audit, supra note 41, at 36; Franco Ferrari, Vendita internazionale di beni mobili. Art. 1-13. Ambito di applicazione. Disposizioni generali 105 note 13 (1994); Ferrari, supra note 77, at; Rolf Herber, Art. 5, in Commentary on the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, supra note 65, 50; for a court decision holding the opposite view, see OLG Düsseldorf, 2 July 1993, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/74.htm>.

242. Ferrari, previous note, at 106; Kritzer, supra note 98, at 95; Peter Schlechtriem, The Borderland of Tort and Contract – Opening a New Frontier?, Cornell International Law Journal 467, 471 (1988); contra, Muna Ndulo, The Vienna Sales Convention 1980 and the Hague Uniform Laws on International Sale of Goods 1964: A Comparative Analysis, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1, 5 (1989); in case law see HG Kanton Zürich, 26 April 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426s1.html>.

243. As the CISG pre-empts the applicability of domestic contract law, domestic rules that classify product liability as a contract law issue cannot be applied concurrently with the CISG.

244. Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.), 10 May 2002, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/020510u1.html#svia>; Viva Vino Import Corporation v. Farnese Vini S.r.l., August 29, 2000, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/000829u1.html>.

245. See Franco Ferrari, Art. 5, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, supra note 33, 132, 135 f.

246. For this view, see, however, Kuhlen, supra note 239, at 114 ff.; Otto, Produkthaftung nach dem UN-Kaufrecht, supra note 239, at 537; Gritli Ryffel, Die Schadenersatzhaftung des Verkäufers nach dem Wiener Übereinkommen über international Warenkaufverträge vom 11. April 1980 136 (1992).

247. See Herber, UN- Kaufrechtsubereinkommen: Produkthaftung - Verjahrung, supra note 239, at 105 f.

248. Czerwenka, supra note 86, at 168 f.; Ulrich Magnus, Aktuelle Fragen des UN-Kaufrechts, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 79, 95 f. (1993); Plantard, supra note 240, at 327; Mauro Tescaro, Il concorso tra i rimedi contrattuali di cui alla Convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale di beni mobile (CISG) e i rimedi domestico, Contratto e impresa/Europa 319, 329 (2007); Peter Schlechtriem, Einheitliches UNKaufrecht. Das Ubereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom 11. April 1980 uber Vertrage uber den internationalen Warenkauf (CISG), JuristenZeitung 1040 (1988); in case law see most recently Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Super Electric Motors, Ltd et al., U.S. District Court (E.D. Arkansas, West. Div.), 23 December 2009, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/091223u1.html>; Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., U. S. Dist. Ct. (S. D. N. Y.), 10. 5. 2002, CISG-online 653 = 2002 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 8411.

249. Schlechtriem, supra note 242, at 473-474.

250. For an overview, see, apart from the paper quoted in note 227, Claude Witz, CVIM: interpretation et questions non couvertes, International Business Law Journal 253 (2001).

251. See Camara Nacional de los Apelaciones en lo Comercial, Argentina, October 14, 1993, available at <http://www.uc3m.es/uc3m/dpto/PR/dppr03/cisg/sargen6.htm>.

252. See Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Arbitral Award of 15 July 2008, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1795.pdf>; OLG Hamburg, 25 January 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080125g1.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award of 1 March 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060301r1.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award of 13 January 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060113r1.html>; China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Arbitral Award of 7 December 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051207c1.html>; China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Arbitral Award of 9 November 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051109c1.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award of 27 April 2005, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1500.pdf>; China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Arbitral Award of 1 September 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040900c1.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award 9 June 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040609r1.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award 24 May 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040524r1.html>; RB Koophandel Hasselt, 17 June 1998, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/tradelaw/WK/1998-06-17.htm>; Hof van Beroep Antwerpen, 18 June 1996, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/tradelaw/WK/1996-06-18.htm>; Hof Arnhem, 22 August 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950822n1.html>; ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award No. 7197, Journal du droit international 1028 (1993).

253. See LG Aachen, 14 May 1993, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930514g1.html>.

254. See HG Aargau, 26 November 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081126s1.html>; District Court Trnava, 17 September 2008, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1991.pdf>; OLG Hamburg, 25 January 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080125g1.html>; Regional Court Kosice, 22 May 2007, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070528k1.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award of 27 May 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050527r1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 Feburary 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Supreme Court of Poland, 19 December 2003, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/031219p1.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 7 September 2000, available at <http://www.cisg.at/8_2200v.htm>; Austrian Supreme Court, 25 June 1998, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=347&step=FullText>; German Supreme Court, 12 February 1998, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980212g1.html>; OG Kanton Thurgau, 19 December 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951219s1.html>; Trib. Comm. Nivelles, 19 September 1995, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/tradelaw/WK/1995-09-19.htm>; OLG Hamm, 8 February 1995, RIW 153 ff (1997); BG Arbon, 9 December 1994, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=172&step=FullText>.

255. See German Supreme Court, 15 February 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950215g1.html>.

256. See Maxxsonics USA, Inc. v. Fengshun Peiying Electro Acoustic Co., Ltd., U.S. District Court (N.D. Ill.), 21 March 2012, 2012 WL 962698; Swiss Supreme Court, 18 May 2009, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1900.pdf>; AG Basel-Stadt, 26 September 2008, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1732.pdf>; Court of First Instance of Athens, docket n. 4505/2009 (no date indicated), available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/094505gr.html>; Supreme Court Slovak Republic, 30 April 2008, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1873.pdf>; Audiencia Provincial de Valencia, 13 March 2007, available at <http://turan.uc3m.es/cisg/sespan69.htm>; OLG Köln, 13 February 2006, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1219.pdf>; Cour d'Appel Versailles, 13 October 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051013f1.html>; Regional Court Bratislava, 11 October 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051011k1.html>; OLG Linz, 8 August 2005, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1087.pdf>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award of 2 June 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050602r1.html>; KG Nidwalden, 23 May 2005, available at <http://cisgw3. law.pace.edu/cases/050523s1.html>; LG Bamberg, 13 April 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050413g1.html>; Hof van Bereop Gent, 4 October 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/041004b1.html>; OLG Karlsruhe, 20 July 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040720g1.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award of 9 June 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040609r1.html>; Hof van Beroep Gent, 17 May 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040517b1.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Ukraine Chamber of Commerce and Trade, Arbitral Award of 15 April 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040415u5.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; RB Koophandel Ieper, 29 January 2001, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/tradelaw/WK/2001-01-29.htm>; Austrian Supreme Court, 7 September 2000, available at <http://www.cisg.at/8_2200v.htm>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; OLG München, 21 January 1998, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/536.htm>; Austrian Supreme Court, 25 June 1998, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=347&step=FullText>; LG Heilbronn, 15 September 1997, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/562.htm>; Cour de Justice de Geneve, 10 October 1997, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971010s1.html>; LG Düsseldorf, 11 October 1995, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/180.htm>; OLG Hamm, 9 June 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950609g1.html>; ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award No. 7660/KJ, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin 69 (1995).

257. See HG Kanton Zürich, 26 April 1995, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426s1.html>.

258. See KG Wallis, 21 Feburary 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050221s1.html>; German Supreme Court, 11 July 2000, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/000711s1german.html>.

259. See Austrian Supreme Court, 24 April 1997, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970424a3.html>.

260. See OLG Hamm, 23 June 1998, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980623g1.html>.

261. See Usinor Industeel, v. Leeco Steel Products, Inc., U.S. District Court (North. Dist. Illinois), 28 March 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020328u1.html>; German Supreme Court, 12 February 1998, NJW 3205 (1998).

262. See LG München, 25 January 1996, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/278.htm>.

263. Usinor Industeel, v. Leeco Steel Products, Inc., U.S. District Court (North. Dist. Illinois), 28 March 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020328u1.html>.

264. See Maxxsonics USA, Inc. v. Fengshun Peiying Electro Acoustic Co., Ltd., U.S. District Court (N.D. Ill.), 21 March 2012, 2012 WL 962698; German Supreme Court, 23 June 2010, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/2129.pdf>; AG Basel-Stadt, 26 September 2008, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1732.pdf>; OLG Köln, 19 May 2008, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080519g1.html>; Single-Member Court of First Instance of Thessalonika, docket n. 43945/2007 (no date indicated), available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080002gr.html>; Wsiss Supreme Court, 20 December 2006, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1426.pdf>; LG Bamberg, 23 October 2006, available at <http://www.globalsaleslaw.org/content/api/cisg/urteile/1400.pdf>; OLG Köln, 13 February 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060213g1.html>; HG Zürich, 22 December 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051222s1.html>; OLG Linz, 23 March 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050323a3.html>1376; OLG Stuttgart, 20 December 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/041220g1.html>; OLG Düsseldorf, 22 July 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040722g1.html>; Swiss Supreme Court, 7 July 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040707s1.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 22 October 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011022a3.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; AG Duisburg, 13 April 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413g1.html>:; OLG München, 11 March 1998, available in English at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980311g1.html>; KG Freiburg, 23 January 1998, Transportrecht-Internationales Handelsrecht 13 (2000); LG Hagen, 15 October 1997, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/311.htm>; LG München, 6 May 1997, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/341.htm>; OLG München, 9 July 1997, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/282.htm>; OLG Düsseldorf, 24 April 1997, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/385.htm>; OLG Düsseldorf, 11 July 1996, RIW 958 (1996); LG Duisburg, 17 April 1996, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/186.htm>.

265. For the application of the Convention to set-off in respect of receivables all arising out of contracts governed by the Convention, see AG Duisburg, 13 April 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413g1.html>; OLG München, July 9, 1997, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/282.htm>.

266. For this assertion, see Robert Koch, Wider den formularmasigen Ausschlus des UN-Kaufrechts, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 910, 910 (2000); Kritzer, supra note 10, at 148; Richard M. Lavers, CISG: To Use or Not to Use?, 21 International Business Lawyer 10, 10 (1993); Webb Lenden, International BBB Ratings a la Ebay: A Proposal for an Improved Online Better Bureau to Facilitate International Business Transactions, 35 California Western International Law Journal 127, 129 (2004); Katharina Pistor, The Standardization of Law and Its Effect on Developing Economies, 50 American Journal of Comparative Law 97, 111 (2002).

267. For this reason behind the CISG's exclusion, see McNamara, supra note 191, at 11, referring to John E. Murray Jr., The Neglect of CISG: A Workable Solution, 17 Journal of Law and Commerce 365, 365 (1998).

268. During the drafting process, some States expressed reservations to the principle of party autonomy laid down in Article 6 CISG; "[t]heir concern was that, in practice, the principle could be abused by the economically stronger party imposing his own national law or contractual terms far less balanced than those contained in the Convention", Michael J. Bonell, Art. 6, in Commentary on the International Sales Law, supra note 90, 51, 51; see, also 1 UNCITRAL Yearbook 168 (1968-1970); 2 UNCITRAL Yearbook 43-44 (1971); 3 UNCITRAL Yearbook 73 (1973).

269. Despite some textual differences, Article 6 CISG is based upon Article 3 ULIS, as has often been pointed out; see, e.g., Bonell, previous note, at 51; Rolf Herber, Art. 6, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, supra note 91, 83, 83.

270. For papers on the sources of international sales law, see Franco Ferrari, What sources of law for contracts for the international sale of goods? Why one has to look beyond the CISG, Internationales Handelsrecht 1 (2006); Franco Ferrari, Quelles sources de droit pour les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises? Des raisons pour lesquelles il faut aller au-dela de la CVIM, International Business Law Journal 403 (2006).

271. For a similar statement, see Audit, supra note 41, at 37 (stating that "[...]the Convention makes of the parties' will the primary source of the sales contract"); see also Daan Dokter, Interpretation of exclusion-clauses of the Vienna Sales Convention, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationals Privatrecht 430, 432 (2004); Friedrich Enderlein, Die Verpflichtung des Verkaufers zur Einhaltung des Lieferzeitraums und die Rechte des Kaufers bei dessen Nichteinhaltung nach dem UN-Ubereinkommen uber Vertrage uber den Internationalen Warenkauf, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 313, 314 (1991); Hans Hoyer, Der Anwendungsbereich des Einheitlichen Wiener Kaufrechts, in Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht, supra note 41, 31, 41; Magnus, supra note 35, at 149.

In case law see Polimeles Protodikio Athinon, Greece, docket n. 4505/2009 (no date indicated), available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/094505gr.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Yugoslav Chamber of Commerce, Arbitral Award of 9 December 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021209sb.html>; Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>; Hof Beroep Gent, 17 May 2002, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/tradelaw/WK/2002-05-17.htm>; RB Koophandel Ieper, 29 January 2001, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/tradelaw/WK/2001-01-29.htm>; LG Stendal, 12 October 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001012g1.html>; German Supreme Court, 4 December 1996, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961204g1.html>; Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Comercial n. 10, 6 October 1994, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=178&step=FullText>.

272. Brunner, supra note 35, at 72; Sergio Carbone, L'ambito di applicazione ed i criteri interpretative della convenzione di Vienna, in La vendita internazionale. La Convenzione dell'11 aprile 1980 63, 78 (1981); Sergio Carbone and Riccardo Luzzatto, I contratti del commercio internazionale, in 11 Trattato di diritto privato 111, 131 (Pietro Rescigno ed., 1984); Erauw, supra note 101, at 47; Ferrari, supra note 45, at 154; Herber, supra note 269, at 84; Rolf Herber, "Lex mercatoria" und "Principles" – gefahrliche Irrlichter im internationalen Kaufrecht, Internationales Handelsrecht 1, 1 (2003); Alessandra Lanciotti, Norme uniformi di conflitto e materiali nella disciplina convenzionale della compravendita 146 (1992); Jochen Lindbach, Rechtswahl im Einheitsrecht am Beispiel des Wiener UN-Kaufrechts 67 (1996); Magnus, supra note 35, at 149; Reinhart, supra note 34, at 26; Giorgio Sacerdoti, I criteri di applicazione della convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale: diritto uniforme, diritto internazionale privato e autonomia dei contratti, Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 733, 744 (1990); Ingo Saenger, Art. 6 CISG, in Internationales Vertragsrecht, supra note 34, 431, 432; Schlechtriem and Witz, supra note 35, at 24; Claude Witz, L'exclusion de la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises par la volonte des parties (Convention de Vienne du 11 avril 1980), Recueil Dalloz Chronique 107 (1990); Witz et als., supra note 130, at 71.

273. For an express reference to the CISG's non-mandatory nature, see OG Kanton Bern, 19 May 2008, available at <http://globalsaleslaw.com/content/api/cisg/urteile/1738.pdf>; Shanghai High People's Court, 17 May 2007, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070517c1.html>; Tribunal cantonal de Vaud, 24 November 2004, available at <http://globalsaleslaw.com/content/api/cisg/urteile/1842.pdf>; Tribunal Cantonal du Jura, 3 November 2003, available at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/965.pdf>; Italian Supreme Court, 19 June 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000619i3.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 21 March 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000321a3.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 15 October 1998, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981015a3.html>; HG Wien, 4 March 1997, available at <http://www.cisg.at/1R4097x.htm>; KG Wallis, 29 June 1994, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940629s1.html>.

274. Michael J. Bonell, Commento all'art. 6 della Convenzione di Vienna, Nuove Leggi civili commentate 16, 16 (1989); see also Carbone, supra note 272, at 78 (comparing the reaffirmation of party autonomy as a basic principle of the CISG to "the recognition of a necessity for the development of international commerce"); for similar statements, see Samuel Date-Bah, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980: Overview and Selective Commentary, 11 Ghana Law Review 50, 54 (1979); Enderlein, supra note 271, at 316; Hoyer, supra note 271, at 41; Peter Schlechtriem, Einheitliches UN-Kaufrecht 21 (1981).

275. For this statement, see also Bonell, supra note 268, at 53; Esperanza Castellanos Ruiz, Autonomia de la voluntad y derecho uniforme en la compraventa internacional 37 (1998); Lohmann, supra note 55, at 127; Tomas Vazquez Lepinette, Compraventa internacional de mercaderias. Una vision jurisprudencial 86 (2000); Wolfgang Wasmer, Vertragsfreiheit im UN-Kaufrecht 21 (2004).

276. For this distinction, see also Lanciotti, supra note 272, at 148 f.; Dieter Martiny, Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrecht, in 7 Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch 1639, 1655-1656 (Hans-Jürgen Sonnenberger ed., 2nd ed., 1989); Sacerdoti, supra note 272, at 745-746.

For decisions referring to the fact that parties may exclude the application of the CISG or derogate from or vary the effect of most of its provisions, see ZG Basel-Stadt, 8 November 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/061108s1.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award of 30 June 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060630r1.html>; OLG Linz, 23 January 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060123a3.html>; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arbitral Award of 16 March 2005, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050316r1.html>; HG St. Gallen, 11 February 2003, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030211s1.html>; Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can-Eng Manufacturing Ltd., U.S. District Court (North. Dist. Illinois, E.D.), 29 January 2003, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030129u1.html>; Tribunal cantonal du Vaud, 11 April 2002, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020411s1.html>.

277. For this statement, see Franco Ferrari, CISG rules on exclusion and derogation: Article 6, in The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond, supra note 41, 114, 117 f.; Hoyer, supra note 271, at 41; Lohmann, supra note 55, at 195.

278. See Bonell, supra note 268, at 61 f.; Rüdiger Holthausen, Vertraglicher Ausschlus des UNUbereinkommens uber internationale Warenkaufvertrage, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 513, 515 (1989); Karollus, supra note 88, at 381; in case law see Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>.

279. For this conclusion, see also Bonell, supra note 274, at 19; Kren Kostkiewicz and Ivo Schwander, Zum Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechtsubereinkommens, in Festschrift Neumayer 33, 48 (Ferenc Majoros ed., 1997); Magnus, supra note 35, at 153.

280. For this solution, see also Herber, supra note 269, at 85; Martiny, supra note 276, at 1656; Siehr, supra note 60, at 600.

281. Outside Europe, see, however, Article 9 of the Inter-American Convention on the Law Applciable to International Contracts, 33 International Legal Materials 732, 735 (1994).

282. See, e.g., Article 4(1) of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, reprinted in 19 International Legal Materials 1492, 1493 (1980).

283. For court decisions expressly stating that the Unidroit Principles are not binding, see, e.g., Tribunale di Padova, 10 January 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060110i3.html>.

284. See Achilles, supra note 41, at 30; Adame Goddard, supra note 206, at 73; Bammarny, supra note 197, at 167; Bonell, supra note 202, at 80; Dejaco, supra note 41, at 44; Felemegas, supra note 41, at 285; Herber and Czerwenka, supra note 68, at 50; Huber and Mullis, supra note 41, at 34; Janssen and Kiene, supra note 212, at 276 f.; Karl Neumayer and Catherine Ming, Convention de Vienne sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises. Commentaire 126 (1993); Mather, supra note 30, at 158; Posch and Terlitza, supra note 35, at 50; Reinhart, supra note 34, at 32; Schwenzer and Hachem, supra note 197, at 136; Christian Thiele, Erfullungsort bei der Ruckabwicklung von Vertragspflichen nach Art. 81 UN-Kaufrecht – ein Pladoyer gegen die herrschende Meinung, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 892, 894, (2000); contra Jametti Greiner, supra note 41, at 46 f.

285. See RB Arnhem, 17 January 2007, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070117n1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 31 March 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; RB Rotterdam, 12 July 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010712n1.html>; Swiss Supreme Court, 15 September 2000, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000915s2.html>; Compromex Arbitration, 16 July 1996, available at <http://www.uc3m.es/cisg/rmexi2.htm>; Compromex Arbitration, 29 April 1996, available at <http://www.uc3m.es/cisg/rmexi2.htm>; Austrian Supreme Court, 6 February 1996, available at <http://131.152.131.200/cisg/urteile/224.htm>.

286. See most recently District Court Trnava, 9 March 2011, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/110309k1.html>; District Court in Michalovce, 11 October 2010, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/101011k1.html>.

287. For a more detailed analysis, see Franco Ferrari, Writing requirements: Articles 11-13, in The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond, supra note 41, 206 ff.; Franco Ferrari, Form und UN-Kaufrecht, in Internationales Handelsrecht 1 (2004).

288. See Golden Valley Grape Juice and Wine, LLC v. Centrisys Corporation et al., U.S. District Court (E.D. Cal.), 21 January 2010, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/100121u1.html#iii>; MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino S.p.A., U.S. Court of Appeals (11th Cir.), 29 June 1998, available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/980629u1.html>; Austrian Supreme Court, 2 February 1995, Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung 248 (1996); OLG München, 8 March 1995, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/145.htm>; for an example of a case where an oral contract was held to be valid, see OLG Köln, 22 February 1994, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/127.htm>.

289. For this statement, see District Court in Michalovce, 11 October 2010, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/101011k1.html>; KG Zug, 14 Decmeber 2009, available at <http://globalsaleslaw.com/content/api/cisg/urteile/2026.pdf>; Hof van Beroep Gent, Belgium, 17 May 2002, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/tradelaw/WK/2002-05-17.htm>; OLG München, 8 March 1995, available at <http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/145.htm>.

290. For an express reference in case law to the fact that the parties are not allowed to exclude or derogate from Article 12 of the CISG, see OLG Linz, 23 January 2006, available at English at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060123a3.html>.

291 See Article 96 CISG: "A Contracting State whose legislation requires contracts of sale to be concluded in or evidenced by writing may at any time make a declaration in accordance with article 12 that any provision of article 11, article 29, or Part II of this Convention, that allows a contract of sale or its modification or termination by agreement or any offer, acceptance, or other indication of intention to be made in any form other than in writing, does not apply where any party has his place of business in that State."

292. Article 12 of the CISG.

293. See RB Koophandel Hasselt, 2 May 1995, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/ipr/eng/cases/1995-05-02.html>.

294. See Forestal Guarani S.A. v. Daros International, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals (3rd Cir.), 21 July 2010, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/100721u1.html>; RB Rotterdam, 12 July 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010712n1.html>.

295. For this view, see the High Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 16 February 1998, summarized at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/980216r1.html>; RB Koophandel Hasselt, 2 May 1995, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/ipr/eng/cases/1995-05-02.html>. For this view in legal writing, see Garro and Zuppi, supra note 107, at 70; Rodolfo C. Hussonmorel, La compraventa Internacional de Mercaderias 40 (2004).

296. See also Forestal Guarani S.A. v. Daros International, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals (3rd Cir.), 21 July 2010, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/100721u1.html>.

297. See RB Rotterdam, 12 July 2001, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010712n1.html>; Dutch Supreme Court, 7 November 1997, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=333&step=FullText>.

298. See supra the text accompanying notes 59 ff.

299. See Michael G. Bridge, Uniformity and Diversity in the Law of International Sale, 15 Pace International Law Review 55, 56 (2003), stating in respect of the CISG that it "should not however be thought that all international sales are alike and that one single uniform sales law should be provided on a "one size fits all" basis".

300. See supra the text accompanying notes 82 ff.

301. See supra the text accompanying notes 166 ff.

302. See supra the text accompanying notes 189 ff.

303. See supra the text accompanying notes 266 ff.

304. See supra the text accompanying notes 284 ff.

305. It has often been pointed out that the CISG promotes certainty as to the rules applicable to contracts for the international sale of goods; see, e.g., Djakhongir Saidov, Methods for Limiting Damages under the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 14 Pace International Law Review 307, 308-309 (2002).

306. See Paul B. Stephan, The Futility of Unification and Harmonization in International Commercial Law, 39 Virginia Journal of International Law 743, 779 (1999).

307. For a reference to the CISG's default character, see, e.g., Lookofsky, supra note 41, at 270 note 46; Charles Sukurs, Harmonizing the Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United States, Canada, and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 34 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1481, 1483 (2001).

308. For this conclusion, see Bridge, supra note 299, at 72.


©Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated January 25, 2013
Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography
Comments/Contributions