Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography

Reproduced with permission of 71 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht (January 2007) 52-80

The Interaction between the United Nations Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and Domestic Remedies

(Rescission for Mistake and Remedies in Tort Law)

By Franco Ferrari, Verona [*]

  1. Article 28 CISG and Domestic Rules on Specific Performance
  2. The CISG's Scope of Application as a Starting Point for Assessing to What
    Extent Domestic Contractual Remedies Can Become Relevant -- The
    Introductory Wording of Article 4
  3. The Article 4(a) "Validity-Exception"
  4. The Exception to the Validity-Exception and the Function Equivalence Test
  5. Consequences of the Functional Equivalence Test in Respect of Mistake
  6. The Interaction Between the CISG and Domestic Tort Law
  7. Final Considerations

I. Article 28 CISG and Domestic Rules on Specific Performance

Despite some statements in legal writing [1] and case law [2] to the effect that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of [page 53 ] Goods.[3] (hereinafter "CISG" or "the Convention")[4] constitutes "a comprehensive code"[5] governing all international sales transactions,[6] that "exhaustively deals with all problems"[7] and, therefore, "excludes the additional application of domestic law",[8] domestic law continues to play an important role in respect of international sales transactions. This is true not only because the CISG does not really govern all international sales transactions,[9] its substantive sphere of application [10] being as limited [11] as its international sphere of [page 54 ] application,[12] but also, and for the purpose of this paper more importantly, because the scope of application of the CISG is limited;[13] it does not settle all the issues that may arise in connection with the transactions to which it applies.[14]

The relationship between the CISG and domestic law is therefore more complex than appears from the above quotations. In respect of the specific relationship to be discussed here -- between the CISG and domestic law remedies and defences -- the need to look beyond the exclusive application of either the CISG or domestic law can easily be derived from a provision of the Convention itself, namely Art. 28. Pursuant to this provision, if, in accordance with the provisions of the CISG, "one party is entitled to require performance of any obligation by the other party, a court is not bound to enter a judgment for specific performance unless the court would do so under its own law in respect of similar contracts of sale not governed by this Convention."

This provision was intended by the drafters to limit the importance of the remedy of specific performance [15] which, in terms of Arts. 46(1) and 62,[16] as [page 55 ] emphasised in case law,[17] is routinely available under the CISG,[18] independent of the kind of obligation that is breached, as long as that obligation relates to the performance of the contract.[19] By allowing courts to refrain from ordering specific performance where they would not do so under their own law, the drafters of the Convention tried to reach a compromise [20] between those jurisdictions, generally associated with common-law countries,[21] such as England,[22] where the primary remedy is an award of damages, and those (basically, civil law)[23] jurisdictions, where courts will grant specific performance more routinely. This compromise does not mean, however, that courts are prohibited from entering a judgment for specific performance when they would [page 56 ] not do so under their own law; rather, they have a discretion [24] to grant specific performance even if they would not do so under their own law.[25] Indeed, Art. 28 shows clearly that "courts are not obliged not to enter such a judgment;"[26] an obligation merely exists where the courts would enter such a judgment under their own law.[27] In the latter case, "Art. 28 gives no discretion to a court. If specific relief would be ordered under [domestic law], a court must make the remedy available under the CISG. The injured buyer, not the court, has discretion by way of electing between remedies."[28] The obligation to order specific performance thus depends on the court's "own law in respect of similar contracts of sale not governed by this Convention," i.e., on the substantive law of the forum;[29] the private international law rules of the forum are not to be taken into account;[30] "[a]ny other interpretation would defeat the apparent purpose of Article 28 of respecting the legal traditions of the forum State."[31]

It should be evident from the foregoing that there is much more interaction between the CISG and domestic law in general, and domestic law remedies in particular, than suggested by the quotations referred to above.[32] In the context of Art. 28, the interaction goes even so far as to create a potential for "forum shopping",[33] due to the fact that an obligation to grant specific performance depends, as mentioned, on the substantive law of the forum.[34] [page 57]

II. The CISG's Scope of Application as a Starting Point for Assessing to What Extent Domestic Contractual Remedies Can Become Relevant --The Introductory Wording of Article 4

Article 28 is the only provision within the Convention that expressly deals with the impact of a (specific) domestic law remedy on the CISG. This does not necessarily mean that the Convention contains no other provisions allowing assessment of whether and, if so, to what extent, there can be interaction between the CISG and (other) domestic contractual remedies and defences. In this author's opinion, it merely means that the impact of other provisions is less apparent than that of Art. 28.

The provision most often referred to when assessing the extent of the aforementioned interaction is Art. 4 -- a provision that, more than any other, defines the CISG's scope of application [35] (as opposed to its sphere of application).[36] This comes as no surprise, as Art. 4 distinguishes the matters governed by the CISG from (some of) those that it does not govern,[37] thus drawing a line that necessarily impacts on the interaction between the Convention and domestic law in general, and domestic contractual remedies and defences in particular. Unfortunately, however, this line is not as clear as one may wish it were.

In terms of Art. 4, CISG "governs only the formation of the contract of sale and the rights and obligations of the seller and the buyer arising from such a contract. In particular, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Convention, it is not concerned with: (a) the validity of the contract or of any of its provisions or of any usage; (b) the effect which the contract may have on the property in the goods sold." At first sight, this provision does not seem to pose great difficulties,[38] at least "as regards those aspects expressly referred to."[39] [page 58 ] However, quite the contrary is true,[40] particularly as far as the interaction between the CISG and domestic contractual remedies and defences, such as mistake, is concerned.

Some commentators appear to exclude issues such as mistake (as well as duress and fraud) from the CISG's scope of application on the sole ground that Art. 4 expressly identifies the "only" matters it governs and that mistake (like fraud and duress) is not expressly referred to.[41] This is far too simplistic and, ultimately, untenable. In effect, despite the wording of Art. 4, the matters listed are not the only ones the CISG is concerned with.[42] It is therefore incorrect to state, as some courts have done,[43] that the Convention governs only the listed matters.[44] In this respect it may suffice to recall that Art. 8 sets forth rules relating to the interpretation of any statement or conduct of a party, i.e., rules relating to an issue that does not concern any of the matters listed in the first part of Art. 4.[45] Moreover, the issue dealt with in Art. 29 CISG (modification [page 59] of contracts) cannot be classified as one of the matters listed in the first part of Art. 4 either.[46]

It may therefore be more appropriate to interpret the reference to the matters the CISG is "only" concerned with as implying that these matters are "without any doubt" governed by the Convention.[47] In respect of the issue of "formation of the contract of sale", however, this statement has to be further qualified: it is commonly stated both in legal writing [48] and case law [49] that the CISG merely governs the (external) mechanism [50] by means of which contracts are concluded,[51] i.e., the objective requirements for the conclusion of the contract [52] rather than subjective requirement.[53]

The above statements reveal that the introductory wording of Art. 4 is not particularly helpful for the purpose of assessing whether, and to what extent, there is interaction between the CISG and domestic contractual remedies, such as rescission for mistake; i.e., to what extent there is pre-emption or concurrence of the CISG and domestic contractual remedies.

III. The Article 4(a) "Validity-Exception"

According to many commentators, the relationship between domestic contractual remedies and defences, such as mistake, fraud and duress, and CISG remedies has to be solved on the basis of a different part of Art. 4 -- [page 60] namely, that which lays down the so-called "validity exception,"[54] according to which "except as otherwise expressly provided in this Convention, it is not concerned with: (a) the validity of the contract". This does not mean, however, that there is consensus on how the validity-exception impacts upon the said relationship: commentators disagree on the interpretation of the term "validity", the vagueness of which has led some writers to argue not only that the validity-exception "poses 'a particular danger' to the development of a uniform and coherent jurisprudence under the Convention,"[55] but also that it is a potential "black hole" for the Convention.[56] The interaction of CISC; remedies and domestic contractual remedies and defences (i.e., the issue of the pre-emption or concurrence of the CISG and domestic contractual remedies and defences) appears to turn, in other words, on the interpretation of the term "validity",[57] the importance of which becomes evident if one considers the wide variety of definitions that can be found in the various national legal systems.[58]

Some commentators do not appear to recognize this and very simplistically (and without any justification) equate mistake (and fraud and duress) with some kind of "invalidity".[59] They therefore exclude mistake (as well as the [page 61 ] other contractual defences referred to) from the CISG's scope of application, and suggest that the applicable domestic law should deal with it.[60]

Most commentators, however, approach the issue as one (largely) relating to the interpretation of the term "validity"; in other words, they deal with the issue by asking themselves: "Should we interpret 'validity' as it would be interpreted parochially? Or, should we be true to the requirement of autonomous interpretation and insist upon a construction that transcends any Contracting State?"[61] Not surprisingly, the replies to these questions show that "two diametrically opposed approaches to Art. 4(a) of CISG have developed."[62]

Some scholars argue that since the CISG specifically excludes "validity" from its scope of application, the concept of "validity" is a purely domestic concepts,[63] thus "emphasiz[ing] the negative rule of CISG article 4(a) ('not concerned with')"[64] and completely disregarding its positive part ("except as otherwise expressly provided"). Consequently, "whether [a party] can avoid the contract on the ground of his mistake is ... not determined by the [page 62] Convention but rather by the applicable domestic law."[65] According to some scholars,[66] this view is supported, on the one hand, by the fact that the CISG's drafters discussed the inclusion of rules on mistake, fraud, duress, etc., to be found in the so-called Draft Law for the Harmonization of Certain Rules Relating to the Validity of Contracts of International Sale of Goods [67] and eventually decided against their inclusion, and, on the other hand, by the fact that the CISG's drafters opted against the retention of Art. 34 of the' Uniform Law for the International Sale of Goods [68] (hereinafter "ULIS"), according to which domestic remedies that could apply to cases of mistake were excluded under ULIS.[69]

The aforementioned arguments, however, are unconvincing. The decision not to deal with the matters governed by the so-called Draft Law for the Harmonization of Certain Rules Relating to the Validity of Contracts of International Sale of Goods was not so much due to the drafters' intention to leave those matters to domestic law, but rather due to their intention to avoid unduly delaying the drafting process of the CISG.[70] The reason, on the other hand, for not including a provision similar to Art. 34 ULIS was that "the Working Group found that its rule went too far. The drafters feared that the exclusion would also apply to remedies for mistake that are explicitly or implicitly agreed by the parties. Thus, the underlying idea of the non-inclusion of Art. 34 ULIS was to honour party autonomy and leave open the issue of a conflict between domestic and uniform remedies."[71] Consequently, it is not possible to infer from the legislative history of the CISG a clear intent on the part of its drafters to allow parties always to rely on the domestic defence of mistake, duress, fraud, etc.[72] Neither is it possible to infer that the term "validity" should not be interpreted having regard to the CISG's "international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application ". There is [page 63] no indication in the legislative history that in respect of "validity" interpretative rules other than those set forth in Art. 7(1) have to be applied;[73] the term "validity", like most expressions employed by the CISG,[74] also has to be interpreted in an "autonomous" manner.[75] Most recently, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York attempted to define the concept (autonomously) in Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc;[76] on this occasion, the Court stated that a validity issue is "any issue by which the domestic law would render the contract void, voidable, or unenforceable."[77] [page 64]

IV. The Exception to the Validity-Exception and the Functional Equivalence Test

It must be doubted, however, whether resorting to this definition (or any other, for that matter) is sufficient to determine whether domestic contractual remedies can coexist with the CISG or whether the latter pre-empts any such remedy or defence.[78] In this author's opinion, to solve that dilemma, one must rather rely on the part of Art. 4 that provides for the exception to the validity exception, i.e., where it is stated that "except as otherwise expressly provided in this Convention", the CISG is not concerned with validity. In terms of this wording, even where a dispute concerns a matter that qualifies as one of "validity" (in an autonomous sense), and thus is apparently excluded from the CISG's scope of application, the CISG cannot simply be disregarded in favour of domestic law remedies.[79] Rather, one must first examine whether the Convention provides an "express" solution to the specific problem in question.[80] In other words, one has to focus more closely on the positive rule of Art. 4,[81] rather than on the negative ("it is not concerned with").

At first sight, this approach seems to favour the claim that the CISG is not concerned with domestic remedies, such as rescission for mistake, fraud and duress, since nowhere does it "expressly" refer to the fact that it governs these issue.[82] The lack of any "express" reference, however, is not at all conclusive, since "except as otherwise expressly provided in this Convention" "should not be taken to mean only those of the Convention's provisions that expressly indicate a deviation from domestic law or the validity of an obligation despite the domestic prohibition."[83] "It is quite obvious ... that no express, even if anonymous, rejection of certain national concepts can be demanded ... It is sufficient that the CISG contains other options to settle the problem."[84]

This view is corroborated by the way that the CISG deals with form requirements.[85] When it provides that "[a] contract of sale need not be concluded in or evidenced by writing and is not subject to any other requirement [page 65 ] as to form", Art. 11 does not "expressly" provide that, contrary to Art. 4(a), it deals with something that can be analogized to a validity issue.[86] Nevertheless, there is no doubt at all that "[a]rticle 11 replaces domestic rules which make validity conditional on the observance of requirements as to form and which therefore render contracts invalid, void, or voidable (but possibly curable) where those requirements are not met."[87]

In the light of these remarks, the following rule can be established to deal with the pre-emption or coexistence of the CISG and domestic contractual remedies and defences: where, in relation to a specific set of facts, the CISG provides solutions that are exhaustive [88] and functionally equivalent [89] to the otherwise applicable domestic remedies, the CISG pre-empts recourse to those domestic remedies.[90] This approach is confirmed by the UNCITRAL Secretariat Commentary on the Draft Convention,[91] and operates independently from any domestic labeling of the specific issue in question [92] (as one of validity, non-performance, etc.). It best allows one to "give to the CISG the [page 66 ] widest possible application consistent with its aim as a unifier of legal rules governing the relationship between parties to an international sale."[93]

This means in practice that once the courts have decided that an issue is one of "validity" as autonomously defined under CISG, and therefore (potentially) excluded from its scope of application on the grounds of the negative rule of Art. 4, courts will have to identify the applicable domestic law to a specific contract and determine whether domestic remedies or defences are available to the parties in the specific case.[94] The courts then have to determine whether the CISG provides solutions that are functionally equivalent to those available to the parties under the applicable domestic law. If the Convention does so, it will pre-empt the corresponding domestic remedies and defences; if it does not, then domestic law determines the remedies and defences that the parties can rely on in concreto.

It is unsurprising, therefore, to find all commentators agreeing that capacity to contract is left to domestic law;[95] nor is it surprising that proponents of this (positive) reading of Art. 4 "do not argue that cases of aggravated defect of intention as those of fraud or duress are addressed by CISG,"[96] since the CISG does not at all provide rules that, from a functional point of view, are comparable to those that in domestic law fall under the heading of fraud [97] and duress.[98] [page 67]

V. Consequences of the Functional Equivalence Test in Respect of Mistake

The solution to the pre-emption/coexistence dilemma is far more complex in the context of mistake than in that of fraud and duress, because there are too many types of mistake to be dealt with under a single "one-size-fits all" solution.[99] Rather, the solution depends on how one answers the question, "what is the mistake about?"[100]

Where the mistake relates to the characteristics of the goods, and the applicable law does not itself pre-empt recourse to rescission by obliging the mistaken party to rely on domestic remedies for non-conformity (as is the case under German law, for instance),[101] the CISG pre-empts resort to domestic (rescission) law [102] by providing a set of rules that exhaustively deal with the consequences of such a mistake. These rules are to be found in Arts. 35ff, and 45ff,[103] which respectively deal with non-conformity and remedies for breach of contract by the seller, and ought not to be circumvented.[104] This view, which certainly promotes legal uniformity.[105] has been adopted not only by scholars from countries such as Germany,[106] the domestic law of which obliges the mistaken party to resort to remedies for lack of conformity, but also by scholars from countries with domestic law allowing for a concurrence of the aforementioned remedies,[107] such as France,[108] Switzerland [109] and [page 68 ] the United States.[110] It has also been adopted by courts,[111] even in countries that allow for concurrence of rescission for mistake and remedies for lack of conformity.[112] The same applies mutatis mutandis in respect of mistakes relating to whether the goods are free from any right or claim of third parties.[113]

Similarly, the domestic rules governing mistakes concerning the characteristics of the other party, i.e., "those elements of a person that are important for the one party when forming the intention to enter into a transaction with the other party"[114] (in particular the seller's ability to perform and the buyer's creditworthiness)[115] are pre-empted,[116] as is also pointed out in case law.[117] This follows from the fact that Art. 71 CISG "offers a complete set of provisional remedies for the consequences of the apparition of one party's potential inability to perform after the conclusion of the contract,"[118] and thus excludes "all legal remedies of the applicable national law, which are envisaged for the situation that -- subsequent to the conclusion of the contract -- serious doubts arise whether the other party is able to perform her obligations."[119] [page 69]

In some countries, the effect of a mistake as to the existence of the goods at the time the contract is concluded (i.e., a case of initial impossibility) is that the contract is considered void.[120] In other countries,[121] the issue is treated not as one of validity, but rather of non-performance and excuse, "because, in the performance stage of the contractual obligations, one party could not perform (i.e., performance was impossible or extremely difficult)."[122] The same can be said for the CISG, as can be derived, one the one hand, from Art. 68(3) and, on the other, from Art. 79(1). The former provision clearly presupposes the validity of a contract despite the non-existence of the goods at the time of its conclusion;[123] the latter provides a rule applicable to the case where the goods no longer exist at the time when the contract is concluded. In other words, "[I]f the goods were non-existent 'at the time of the conclusion of the contract,' then Art. 79 appears to provide a rule for the court's decision whether the non-performing party should be excused."[124] Ultimately, this must lead to the CISG pre-empting domestic law in respect of this type of mistake as well.[125]

Also, where a mistake "in the transmission of the communication" has been made, the mistaken party cannot rely on domestic rules governing rescission in this context, since Art. 27 exhaustively addresses the consequences of such a mistake, and thus pre-empts domestic law.[126] This is true not only in respect of notices, requests or any other communication given or made by a party in accordance with Part III of CISG (for which no express rule provides that they must be received),[127] but also for communications that relate to Part II (i.e., "Formation of the Contract").

There are other types of mistake, however, for which CISG does not provide functionally equivalent solutions. This is true, for instance, in respect of a mistake concerning the identity of the other party [128] -- an issue which appears to be "more discussed than seen."[129] Where one party believes, for instance, [page 70 ] that he or she is contracting with a specific person without realizing that that person is merely an agent, recourse to the CISG is not possible, since the Convention itself does not determine who is "party" to a contract,[130] the issue of agency clearly falling outside its scope of application.[131] Courts must therefore determine whether rescission for this kind of mistake is permitted on the basis of domestic; law.[132] Similarly, the CISG does not provide rules that serve the same function as domestic rules on rescission for mistake regarding the identity of the goods.[133]

VI. The Interaction Between the CISG and Domestic Tort Law

The issue of pre-emption or concurrence of the CISG and domestic remedies does not arise only in respect of domestic remedies based on contract law, but also where such remedies are based on tort law,[134] since conduct that qualifies as a breach of contract under the CISG (delivery of non-conforming goods) may at the same time constitute a tort under domestic law.[135]

Despite some statements to the contrary,[136] it is very important in practice to determine whether the CISG pre-empts domestic tort law,[137] because, [page 71 ] among other reasons, unlike the damages recoverable under the CISG,[138] domestic tort law may allow recovery of unforeseeable damages [139] or even punitive damages;[140] moreover, unlike the CISG,[141] domestic tort law often grants damages regardless of whether adequate notice of non-conformity has been given.[142] In addition, while Art. 6 permits derogation from the Convention's damages provisions, domestic tort laws generally cannot be excluded as easily. Of course, these are but some of the many reasons indicating the importance of solving the pre-emption/concurrence dilemma.[143]

The solution can be found partially in the CISG itself,[144] namely, in Art. 5, which provides that the Convention "does not apply to the liability of the seller for death or personal injury caused by the goods to any person,"[145] This does not mean, as suggested by one scholar,[146] that the seller is not liable for death or personal injury caused by the goods,[147] but rather that a domestic liability regime applies, to be identified by means of the private international [page 72 ] law rules of the forum [148] (which may qualify the issue as one relating to tort or contract law).[149]

It is important, however, to determine the extent to which this provision, introduced to avoid conflicts between the CISG and domestic product liability regimes,[150] leaves the liability of the seller for death or personal injury to domestic law, i.e., whether this really constitutes a general exclusion from the CISG's scope,[151] and whether the exclusion covers liability for death or personal injury caused by the goods to "any person". In this respect, it has been correctly pointed out by commentators [152] 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."[153] As a consequence of this exclusion, any claim of the buyer for pecuniary loss flowing from a prior claim against him or her for personal injury caused by purchased goods, which the buyer sold on in a "sub-sale", is also excluded from the CISG's scope of application,[154] despite a German court decision stating the contrary.[155] This view has been justified on the ground that "only in that way can the damages claim be passed back to the producer through the contractual claim;"[156] in effect, the application of CISG "would mean that recourse actions could be barred for lack of notice under Art. 39, so that the buyer/ [page 73] re-seller either would be unable to pass on these damages or wou1d have to revert to concurring actions under domestic law anyway."[157]

Whereas liability for death and personal injury is expressly excluded from the CISG's scope, provided that the death or personal injury is "caused by the goods,"[158] liability for damage caused to property is not excluded, as has been pointed out in legal writing [159] and case law.[160] Here, once again, the pre-emption/concurrence dilemma may rear its head.[161] Thus, where the party who suffers loss either does not wish to, or cannot, claim damages in terms of the CISG, he or she may want to turn to tort law.[162] The issue, then, is whether that party is entitled to do so.

In this author's opinion,[163] the view that CISG is exclusively applicable [164] -- i.e., that it pre-empts (basically)[165] all domestic tort law [166] -- is to be rejected.[167] [page 74] The reason is to be found in the functional equivalence approach discussed above. According to this approach, which is based on the positive rule contained within Art. 4 and is not limited to "validity" issues, the CISG preempts domestic law only where it provides for a comprehensive solution to a specific problem that is functionally equivalent to the solution provided by domestic law. Tort law is based on different policy considerations [168] and serves a function different to that served by contract law (and, thus, also by the rules of the CISG); therefore, it follows that the CISG cannot pre-empt all domestic tort law.[169] Whereas contract law,[170] and thus the CISG, protect "what [a party] is entitled to expect under the contract"[171] -- i.e., interests shaped by the parties' agreement [172] -- tort law protects a much wider and more fundamental range of interests that exist independently from any contractual relationship between the parties.[173] This, however, does not mean that where such a contractual relationship exists, the protection of those fundamental interests is no longer necessary;[174] contracting parties are entitled to expect from each other at least [page 75] the same degree of care in protecting each other's fundamental interests as they could reasonably expect if no contract existed between them.[175] Ultimately, this means that "[t]here is no difficulty in regarding the imposition of a duty of care in tort as independent of any contractual liability, and the CISG,"[176] which was designed to deal only with the contractual side, and not with tort law.

Thus, to the extent that the protected interests overlap (as is the case where the purchased goods are damaged), the CISG applies exclusively [177] and trumps domestic law.[178] Where there is no overlap, domestic tort law is not excluded a priori;[179] rather, whether domestic tort law may be concurrently applied depends on the answer, provided by the relevant conflict of law rules,[180] to the question whether such a cumul is excluded, as in French law,[181] or whether it is admitted, as in German law (Ansprnchskonkurrenz) [182].[183]

In practice, this means, for instance, that where the CISG governs, the aggrieved party will not, in the light of Art. 74 CISG, be able to claim unforeseeable damages on the basis of the applicable domestic tort law; it also means that where domestic tort law is relevant, "a tort action for property damages [page 76 ] caused by defective and non-conforming goods should not be barred by an omission to give notice within reasonable time under Art. 39 CISG."[184]

It is worth mentioning that the suggested solution is compatible with the CISG's dispositive nature;[185] if the Convention were exclusively to deal with liability for damages to property and such liability were excluded in terms of Art. 6, the damaged party would remain without protection,[186] a result which seems inappropriate.[187]

This solution also holds true irrespective of whether the domestic tort law in question is based upon the EC Product Liability Directive of 25 July 1985.[188] Article 90 CISG states that under certain circumstances the Convention "does not prevail over any international agreement which has already been or may be entered into and which contains provisions concerning the matters governed by this Convention." Some commentators [189] have argued that this provision requires (by analogy) the prevalence of domestic rules enacted to give effect to the aforementioned Directive over the rules of the CISG.[190] But this view is untenable for several reasons,[191] one of which is that [page 77] the Directive does not constitute an "international agreement" in the sense intended by Art. 90.[192] Furthermore, an argument by analogy is inadmissible here because Art. 90, being an exception to the general rule (i.e., that the CISG prevails over domestic law where it regulates an issue exhaustively), should be interpreted restrictively.[193]

VII. Final Considerations

The importance of an exact determination of the interaction between the CISG and domestic law remedies such as those discussed above -- i.e., rescission for mistake and remedies in tort law -- can easily be understood, as the solution to this pre-emption/concurrence dilemma has a direct impact on the CISG's scope of application. The solution can be found in the functional equivalence approach developed above. Thus, whether a party is entitled to rescind a contract governed by the CISG for mistake, or whether an aggrieved party can recover damages on the basis of domestic tort law, will depend on whether the CISG provides a solution that is 'functionally equivalent' to the one provided by domestic law.

It is worth mentioning, though, that the usefulness of the functional equivalence approach is not restricted to the issues dealt with in this paper. It can be, and indeed frequently is (although not always consciously), employed to resolve the pre-emption/concurrence dilemma in other respects. Thus, for example, there is the issue whether "a problem of common-law 'consideration' [can] arise within the area governed by the Convention."[194] Given that, at common law, a promise that lacks consideration may not be enforceable because the presence of consideration is a precondition of validity for all contracts in Anglo-American law,[195] and given that consideration also constitutes an issue of "validity" as autonomously defined under CISG, it may appear at first sight that consideration is required where the domestic law determining "validity" calls for it, despite the applicability of the CISG.[196] [page 78]

However, according to the Convention, the offeror can make an offer irrevocable by mere promise or indication to that effect;[197] also, a contract may "be modified or terminated by the mere agreement of the parties."[198] The convention thus rejects "on each occasion when [the issue] came to the fore ... 'consideration' as a barrier to enforcing the [promise or the] agreement."[199] This is why scholars,[200] some courts,[201] and the UNICITRAL Secretariat [page 79] Commentary on the Draft Convention.[202] conclude that "consideration" is not an issue where the CISG is applicable. This view is based on the functional equivalence approach. The fact that some of its proponents are not aware of it, and do not use that label, in no way diminishes the value of this approach. It is fully consistent with one of the key premises of the functional equivalence approach, i.e., that labels are irrelevant. [page 80]


FOOTNOTES

* Thanks are due to Professor H.M. Flechtner for commenting on an earlier version of this article.

Literature citied in abbreviated form: W. Achilles, Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrechtsübereinkommen (CISG) (2000); B. Audit, La vente internationale de marchandises: Convention des Nations-Unies du 11 avril 1980 (1990); H. Bamberger/H. Roth (-I. Saenger), Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch III: 1297-2385, EGBGB, CISG (2003); C.M. Bianca/M. Bonell, Commentary on the International Sales Law: The 1980 Vienna Sales Convention (1987) (cited: Bianca/Bonell [-author]); M. Bridge, A Commentary on Articles 1-13 and 78, in: The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond (below in this note); C. Brunner. UN-Kautfecht -- CISG, Kommentar zum Übereinkommen über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf von 1980 (2004); L. Diez-Picazo, La compraventa internacional de mercaderías (1997) (cited: Díez-Picazo [-author]); The Draft UNCITICAL Digest and Beyond: Cases, Analysis and Unresolved Issues in the U.N. Sales Convention, ed. by F. Ferrari et al (2004); F. Enderlein/D. Maskow/H. Strohbach Internationales Kaufrecht: Kaufrechtskonvention, Verjährungskonvention, Vertretungskonvention, Rechtsanwendungs-konvention (1991); C. Heiz. Validity of Contracts Under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, April 11, 1980, and Swiss Contract Law: Vanderbilt J. Transnat. L. 20 (1987) 639; V. Heuzé, La vente internationale de marchandises. Droit uniforme (2000) (Traité des contrats, ed. by J. Ghestin); R. Herber/B. Czevenka, Internationales Kaufrecht, Kommentar zu dem Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom 11. April 1980 über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf (1991); J. Honnold. Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nations Convention [3] (1999); H. Honsell, Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrecht (1997) (cited: Honsell [-author]); D. Kuhlen, Produkthaftung im international en Kaufrecht, Entstehungsgeschichte, Anwendungsbereich und Sperrwirkung des Art. 5 des Wiener UN-Kaufrechts (CISG) (1997); P. Leyens, CISG and Mistake: Uniform Law vs. Domestic Law, The Interpretative Challenge of Mistake and the Validity Loophole: Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 2003-2004 (2005) 1-51 (also available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/leyens.html>; Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, ed. by H. Westemann/W. Krüger III (2004) (cited: Münch. Komm. BGB [-author]); Münchener Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch, ed. by K. Schmidt VI (2004) (cited: Münch. Komm. HGB [-author]); K. Neumayer/C. Ming, Convention de Vienne sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises, Commentaire (1993); H. Rudolph, Kaufrecht der Import- und Exportverträge, Kommentierung des UN-Übereinkonunens über internationale Warenkaufverträge mit Hinweisen für die Vertragspraxis (1996); P. Schlechtriem, The Borderland of Tort and Contract -- Opening a New Frontier?; Cornell Int. L.J. 21 (1988) 467 (cited: Borderland); P. Schlechtriem/I. Schwenzer , Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 2. (Engl.) ed. (2005) (cited: Schlechtriem/Schwenzer [-author]. Commentary 2005); P. Schlechtriem/I. Schwenzer (eds.), Kommentar zum Einheiclichen UN-Kaufrecht -- CISG (2004) (cited: Schlechtriem/Schwenzer [-Ferrari], CISG-Komm. 2004); A. Schluchter, Die Gültigkeit von Kaufverträgen unter dem UN-Kaufrecht: Wie gestaltet sich die Ergänzung des Einheitsrechts mit deutschen und französischen Nichtigkeitsnormen? (1996); C. Schmid, Das Zusammenspiel von Einheiclichem UN-Kaufrecht und nationalem Recht: Lückenfüllung und Normenkonkurrenz (1996); J.V.Standinger (-U. Magnus), Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen (Neubearb. 2005), Wiener UN-Kaufrecht (CISG); S. Walt, For Specific Performance under the United Nations Sales Convention: Tex. Int. L.J. 26 (1991) 211ff.; W. Witz/H.-Ch. Salger/M. Lorenz, International Einheitliches Kaufrecht (2000) (cited: Witz/Salger/Lorenz [-author])

1. See, apart from the commentators referred to in the following notes: M. Bradley el al., The Purposes and Accountability of the Corporation in Contemporary Society: Corporate Governance at a Crossroads: L Contemp. Probl. 62 (2000) 9, 82, stating that CISG "presents a comprehensive code governing contracts for the international sale of goods"; for similar statement, see also L. Clark /J. Wool, Entry into Force of Transactional Private Law Treaties Affecting Aviation: Case Study -- Proposed UNIDROIT/ICAO Convention as Applied to Aircraft Equipment: J. Air L. Com. 66 (2001) 1403, 1411 n.30.

2. See, apart form the decision quoted in note 7, Cour de Justice de Genève 15.11.2002, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/853.pdf>; Schweizerisches Bundesgericht (BG) 15.9.2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000915s2.html>; Bezirksgericht Laufen 7.5.1993, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930507s1.html>.

3. For the English text of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the international Sale of Goods, see Int. Leg. Mat. 19 (1980) 668. The text of the other official versions (i.e. Arab, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish) can be found in: Bianca/Bonell 681-806; and D. Magraw/R. Kathrein, The Convention for the International Sale of Goods, A Handbook of the Basic Materials (1990) 169-246.

4. For a paper examining the various acronyms used for CISG in legal writing, see A. Flessner/T. Kadner, CISG? Zur Suche nach einer Abkürzung für das Wiener Übereinkommen über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf vom 11.April 1980: Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 3 (1995) 347ff.

5. B. Overby, Contract, in the Age of Sustainable Consumption: J. Corp. L. 27 (2002) 603, 606, according to whom CISG constitutes "a comprehensive code governing international sales of goods."

6. See T. McNamara, U.N. Sale of Goods Convention: Finally Coming of Age?: Colo. Law. 32 (2003) 11, 16, stating that "the Convention presumptively and automatically governs all international trade transactions within the CISG's scope (an international sales contract)". In case law see, Camara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires 21.7.2002, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020721a1.html>, stating that "the Convention becomes the common law of the international sale of goods in the countries that adopt it."

7. Schweizerisches BG 19.2. 2004, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=979&step=FullText>.

8. Schweizerisches BG 19.2.2004 (previous note).

9. For a similar statement, see C. Germain, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Guide to Research and Literature: Int. J. Leg. Information 24 (1996) 48, 52, stating that "researchers must acquire some familiarity with any applicable foreign sales law and choice of law rules because the Convention does not deal with all international sales transactions;" see also R. Stanton, How to Be or Not to Be; The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Article 6: Cardozo J. Int. Comp. L. 4 (1996) 400, 430.

10. For papers on CISG's substantive sphere of application, see, e.g., G. De Nova, L'ambito di applicazione "ratione materiae" della convenzione di Vienna: Riv. trim. dir. proc. civ. 44 (1990) 749ff.: S. Höss. Der gegenständliche Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts (1995).

11. For this statement, see, among other authors, K. Bell, The Sphere of Application of the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Pace Int. L. Rev. 8 (1996) 237, 249; K. Giannuzzi, The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Temporarily out of "Service"?: L. Pol. Int. Bus. 28 (1997) 991, 992; M. Torscllo, Common Features of Uniform Commercial Law Conventions, A Comparative Study beyond the 1980 Uniform Sales Law (2004) 15; T. Tuggey, The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Will a Homeward Trend Emerge?: Tex. Int. L.J. 21 (1986) 540, 542.

12. For a paper on CISG's international sphere of application, see K. Siehr, Der internationale Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts: RabelsZ 52 (1988) 587ff.

13. See F. Ferrari, International Sales Law and the Inevitability of Forum Shopping: J.L. Com. 23 (2004) 169, 184 (cited: Int. Sales Law).

14. For similar statements in legal writing, see Giannuzzi (supra n. 11) 1016, stating that CISG does "not provide an 'exhaustive' body of rules, nor is it intended to provide solutions to all problems that can originate from an international sale;" see also R. Andreason, MCC-Marble Ceramic Center: The Parol Evidence Rule and Other Domestic Law Under the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Brigham Young L. Rev. 1999, 351, 376; A. Esslinger, Contracting in the Global Marketplace: The UN Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods (1999) 69, 79 (American Law Institute -- American Bar Association Course of Study); M. Gstoehl, Das Verhältnis von Gewährleistung nach UN-Kaufrecht und Irrtumsanfechtung nach nationalem Recht: ZR vgl. 1998, 1; Heuzé 83; J. Lookofsky, Loose End and Contorts in International Sales: Problems in the Harmonization of Private Law Rules: Am. J. Comp. L. 39 (1991) 403, 404; P. Smart, Formation of Contracts in Louisiana Under the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods: La. L. Rev. 53 (1993) 1339, 1346; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (pp.63-64); U. Schroeter, Freedom of contract: Comparison between provisions of CISG (Article 6) and counterpart provisions of the Principles of European Contract Law: Vindobona J. Inc. Com. L. Arbitr. 2002, 257, 263; S. Walt, Implementing CISG's Scope Provisions: Validity and Three-Party Cases: UCC L.J. 35 (2002) 43. In case law, see Kammergericht (KG) Nidwalden 23.5.2005, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/1086.pdf>.

15. For a similar affirmation, see F. Akaddaf; Application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) to Arab Islamic Countries: Is the CISG Compatible with Islamic Law Principles?: Pace Int. L. Rev. 13 (2001) 1, 40; Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 28 CISG (p.2803); Díez-Picazo (-A. Cabanillas Sänchez) Art. 28 (pp. 229-231); Rudolph 193; P. Winship, Domesticating International Commercial Law: Revising UCC Article 2 in Light of the UN Sales Convention: Loyola L. Rev, 37 (1991) 43, 68.

16. J. Catalano, More Fiction than Fact: The Perceived Differences in the Application of Specific Performance under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Tul. L. Rev. 71 (1997) 1807, 1809; Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach Art. 28 (p.107); S. Stijns/R. van Ransbeeck, De rechtsnuddelen (algemeen), in: Het Weens Koopverdrag, ed. by H. van Houtte et al. (1997) 191, 205.

17. See Magellan International v. Salzgitter Handel, U.S. District Court, (N.D., Ill.), Eastern Division, 7 December 1999. available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991207u1.html>.

18. For a paper convincingly arguing that the remedy of specific performance is routinely available under CISG, see Walt 211 ff.

19. Thus, Art. 28 CISG does not apply, for instance, in respect of the obligation to pay damages; see Díez-Picazo (-Cabanillas Sánchez) Art. 28 (p. 231 ); H. Th. Soergel (-A. Lüderitz /C. Budzikiewicz), Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen [13], ed. by W. Siebert/J. F. Baur XIII (2000) Art. 28 CISG (pp.57-58); Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 28 CISG (p. 2803); Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-H. Salger) Art. 28 (pp. 221-226).

20. For this qualification of Art. 28 CISG, see Achilles 73; Akaddaf (supra n.15) 40; R. Bejesky, The Evolution in and International Convergence of Specific Performance in Three Types of States: Ind. Int. Comp. L. Rev. 13 (2003) 353, 401; Münch. Komm. HGB (-C. Bellicke) Art. 28 CISG (pp. 485, 486); B. Botzenhardt, Die Auslegung des Begriffs der wesentlichen Vertragsverletzung im UN-Kaufrecht (1998) 54; Catalano (supra n.16) 1813; Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach Art. 28 (p.107); D. Frisch, Commercial Common Law; the United Nations Convention on the International Sales of Goods, and the Inertia of Habit: Tul. L. Rev. 74 (1999) 495, 545; H. Gabriel, General provisions, obligations of the seller, and remedies for breach of contract by the seller, in: The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond 336, 342; A. Garro/A. Zuppi, Compraventa internacional de mercaderías (1990) 121; Herber/Czenvenka 56; Heuzé 359; Honnold Art. 48 (p. 318); Rudolph 196.

21. See Díez-Picazo (-Cabanillas Sanchez) Art. 28 (p. 232); Garro/Zuppi (previous note) 141 ff.; Honsell (-M. Karollus) Art. 28 (pp. 298-301); Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 28 CISG (p. 2803); Stijns/Van Ransbeeck (supra n. 16) 207; Walt 218; for a comparative analysis of specific performance in the US and in England, see, most recently, Bejesky (previous note) 353ff.

22. P. Piliounis, The Remedies of Specific Performance, Price Reduction and Additional Time (Nachfrist) under the CISG: Are these worthwhile changes or additions to English Sales Law?: Pace Int. L. Rev. 12 (2001) 1, 10.

23. It should be noted, however, that many authors (see, e.g., Schlechtriem/Schwenzer [-M. Müller-Chen], Commentary 2005, Art. 28 [pp. 316, 317]) overlook that not all civil law jurisdictions follow the same rules; in Italy, for instance, specific performance is not readily available "in respect of similar contracts of sale"; in this respect, see A. Fusaro, Commento all' Art. 28 della Convenzione di Vienna: Nuove Leggi civili commentate 1989, 117, 118.

24. Heuzé 360; O. Lando, Salient Features of the Principles of European Contract Law: A Comparison with the UCC: Pace Int. L. Rev. 13 (2001) 339, 350; Witz/Salger (-Sa1ger) Art. 28 (p. 225).

25. See Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach Art. 28 (p.108); A. Garro, Cases, Analyses and Unresolved Issues in Articles 25-34, 45-52, in: The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond 362, 368; Honsell (-Karollus) Art. 28 (p.307); Bianca/Bonell (-Lando) Art. 28 (pp. 232, 237); Neumayer/Ming 230; Piliounis (supra n. 22) 18; Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 28 CISG (p. 2804); Stijns/Van Ransbeeck (supra n.16) 207.

26. Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 28 (p. 305).

27. Catalano (supra n. 16) 1820.

28. Walt 223.

29. Catalano (supra n. 16) 1818-1819; Díez-Picazo (-Cabanilla Sánchez) Art. 28 (p. 231); Ferrari, Int. Sales Law (supra n. 13) 189; Heuzé 360 n. 153; Honnold Art. 28 (pp. 223-224); Honsell (-Karollus) Art. 28 (p. 303); P. Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law, The UN-Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1986) 63; Walt 219.

30. Münch. Komm. HGB (-Benicke) Art. 28 CISG (p. 487); Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach Art. 28 (pp. 108-109); Heuzí 360; A. Kastely, The Right to Require Performance in International Sales: Towards an International Interpretation of the Vienna Convention: Wash. L. Rev. 63 (1988) 607, 637; Neumayer/Ming 230; Rudolph 199; Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Salger) Art. 28 (p. 225).

31. Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 28 CISG (p. 2804); see also Garro (supra n. 25) 369; Honsell (-Karollus) Art. 28 (p.303); Walt 219.

32. See supra the text accompanying notes 5ff.

33. See Catalano (supra n. 16) 1830; Piliounis (supra n. 22) 17; J. Shen, The Remedy of Requiring Performance under the CISG and the Relevance of Domestic Rules: Ariz. J. Int. Comp. L. 13 (1996) 253, 305; Walt 230.

34. See supra the text accompanying notes 29f.

35. See Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (pp. 99-100).

36. Arguing in favour of a clear distinction between CISG's sphere of application and its scope of application, see, e.g., Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Vor Artt. l-6 (pp. 41-42); P. Schlechtriem, Anwendungsvoraussetzungen und Anwendungsbereich des UN-Übereinkommens über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf (CISG): Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 1992, 339, 340; Schluchter 25; Schmid 29.

37. For a court decision expressly stating that Art. 4 CISG does not identify all issues excluded from CISG's scope of application, see Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH) 22.10.2001, (1 Ob 77/01g) available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011022a3.html>. For papers on the matters not governed by CISG, see F. Ferrari, Jurisprudence concernant les questions non abordées par la CVIM: Int. Bus. L.J. 1998, 835ff. (cited: Jurisprudence); H. Mather, Choice of Law for International Sales Issues not Resolved by the CISG: J.L. Com. 20 (2001) 155ff.; C. Witz, CVIM: Interpretation et questions non couvertes: Int. Bus. L.J. 2001, 253ff.

38. For this assessment, see C. Mastellone, Sales-Related Issues not Covered by the CISG: Assignment, Set-off, Statute of Limitations, etc., under Italian Law: Vindobona J. Int. Com. L. Arbitr. 7 (2001) 143, 1-43; see also Gstoehl (supra n.14) 1. It should be noted that one commentator even considers Art. 4 to be superfluous: see Bianca/Bonell (-W. Khoo) Art. 4 (pp. 44-45).

39. Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 65).

40. See also Leyens; Mastellone (supra n. 38) 144.

41. See J. Klein/C. Bachehi, Precontractual Liability and the Duty of Good Faith Negotiation in International Transactions: Houston J. Int. L. 17 (1994) 1, 20 n. 144, "Art. 4 CISG states that it governs 'only formation of the contract and the rights and obligations or the parties to the contract.' it does not govern the validity of the contract. The drafting history suggest that this article also excludes issues arising out of fraud, duress. illegality and mistake"; see also Esslinger (supra n. 14) 79; D. Goderre, International Negotiations Gone Sour: Precontractual Liability Under the United Nations Sales Convention; U. Cin. L. Rev. 66 (1997) 257, 257 n. 4.

42. See Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (pp. 101-102); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 64).

43. See Tribunal (Trib.) cantonal Valais 19.8.2003, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030819s1.html> ; Cour de Cassation (Cass.) 5.1.1999, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990105f1.html> (stating that "the Convention applies to international Contracts for the sale of goods and governs exclusively the rights and obligations which such a Contract gives rise to between the seller and the buyer"); Cour d'appel Paris 22.4.1992, available at: <http://witz.jura.uni-sb.de/CISG/decisions/220492v.htm> (stating the same).

44. For uncritical statements in legal writing that refer to the fact that CISG "governs only the formation of the contract of sale and the rights and obligations of the seller and the buyer arising from such contract," see G. Brussel, The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods; A Legislative Study of the North-South Debates; N.Y. Int. L. Rev. 6 (1993) 53, 72; Mather (supra n. 37) 159; P: Smart (supra n. 14) 1346; R. Speidel, The Revision of UCC Article 2, Sales in Light of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods: Nw. J. Int. L. Bus. 16 (1995) 165, 179; M. Tessitore, The U.N. Convention on International Sales and the Seller's Ineffective Right of Reclamation under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code: Willamette L. Rev. 35 (1999) 367, 377; N. Turner, Usinor Industeel v. Leeco Steel Products, Inc.; N.Y. Int. L. Rev. 17 (2004) 103, 106.

45. For a similar statement, see also Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (p. 102); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 64).

46. See Schluchter 27.

47. For this conclusion, see also F. Ferrari, Scope of application: Articles +-5, in: The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond 96-97.

48. See Brunner 36; F. Bydlinski, Das allgemeine Vertragsrecht, in: Das UNCITRAL-Kaufrecht im Vergleich zum österreichischen Recht, ed. by P. Doralt (1985) 57-60; Münch. Komm. HGB (-Ferrari) Vor Art. 14 CISG (pp.401-402); B. Piltz, Internationales Kaufrecht, Das UN-Kaufrecht (Wiener Übereinkammen van 1980) in praxisorientierter Darstellung (1993) 71; W. Stoffel, Formation du contrat, in: Wiener Übereinkommen von 1980 über den internationalen Warenkauf, Lausanner Kolloquium vom 19. und 20. November 1984 (1985) 55-56.

49. See Cour d'appel de Liege 28.4.2003. available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030428b1.html>; OGH 22.10.2001 (1 Ob 77/01 g) (supra n. 37), available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011022a4.html>.

50. See Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Graz 24.2. 1999, available at: <http://www.cisg-Online.ch/cisg/urteile/797.pdf>.

51. See, apart from the authors quoted supra (n.48), Herber/Czernvenka 32; M. Karollus, UN-Kaufrecht, Eine systematische Darstellung für Studium und Praxis (1991) 55; Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p.122); Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-M. Lorenz) Art. 4 (pp.52. 58).

52. See OGH 22.10.2001, (l Ob 49/01i), available at: <http://www.cisg.at/1_4901i.htm>; 6.2.1996, available at: <http://www.cisg.at/10_51895.htm>; Zivilgericht Kanton Basel 21.12.1992, Baseler Juristische Mitteilungen 1993, 310, also available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/921221s1.html>.

53. See Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 64).

54. For this expression, see H. Flechtner, The Several Texts of the CISC, in a Decentralized System: Observations on Translations, Reservations and other Challenges to the Uniformity Principle in Article 7(1): J.L. Com. 17 (1997) 187, 198; H. Hartnell, Rousing the Sleeping Dog: The Validity Exception to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods; Yale J. Int. L. 18 (1993) 1; P. Koneru, The International Interpretation of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: An Approach Based on General Principles: Minnesota J. Global Trade 6 (1997) 105, 107; Leyens; J. Ohnesorge, The 1980 UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Comparative Analysis of Consequences of Accession by the Republic of Korea: Transnat. Law. 12 (1999) 63, 70; T. Weitzmann, Validity and Excuse in the U.N. Sales Convention: J.L. Com. 16 (1997) 265, 281.

55. Flechtner 199; see also Hartnell 7 (both previous note).

56. See P. Winship, Commentary on Professor Kastely's Rhetorical Analysis: Nw. J. Int. L. Bus. 8 (1988) 623, 636.

57. See also Leyens; Schmid 37.

58. For a recent comparative overview of the existing concepts of validity in general, and mistake in particular, see E. Kramer, Der Irrtum beim Vertragsschluss: Eine weltweit rechtsvergleichende Bestandsaufnahme (1998).

59. See B. Crawford/J. Rich, Going International: International Trade for the Nonspecialist, New Rules for Contracting in the Global Market Place: the CISG (1989) 115, 124 (American Law Institute -- American Bar Association Course of Study), simply asserting that "Article 4 ... states that CISG does not govern rules of validity: mistake, duress, fraud, etc.;" Mather (supra n. 37) 161-162, stating that "[w]ith respect to a number of issues, it is generally agreed that they are validity issues and are not expressly addressed by the CISG rules. A list of such issues includes: ... fraud and misrepresentation; duress ... and (7) mistake" (footnotes omitted); J. Murray, The Definitive "Battle of the Forms": Chaos Revisited: J.L. Com. 20 (2000) 1, 2 n.11, stating that "CISG does not deal with 'validity' issues such as mistake, fraud, duress or unconscionability"; G. Nakata, Sounds of Silence Bellow Forth Under the CISG's International Battle of Forms: Transnat. Law. 7 (1994) 141, 148, stating that the Convention "does not, however, cover the validity of the contract and issues such as fraud, duress, illegality, and mistake"; Speidel (supra n.44) 173, stating that "the CISG is not concerned with the 'validity' of the contract or of any of its provisions or of any usage. This excludes defenses that the contract is against public policy or should be avoided because of mistake, fraud, duress, or unconscionability" (footnotes omitted).

60. See Bell (supra n. 11) 252, stating that the "CISG is not concerned with the validity of the agreement (unless otherwise expressly provided in the Convention) or of any of its provisions, leaving such issues as error, mistake, fraud, duress, unconscionability, and illegality to be determined solely by the application of municipal law"; W. Dodge, Teaching the CISG in Contracts: J. Leg. Ed. 50 (2000) 72, 78, staring that the CISG "is expressly not concerned with questions of validity, which means that domestic law continues to govern such issues as incapacity, fraud, duress, mistake, and unconscionability."

61. J. Murray, Jr., The Neglect of CISG: A Workable Solution: J.L. Com. 17 (1998) 365, 372.

62. Leyens.

63. See L. Longobardi, Disclaimers of Implied Warranties: The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Fordham L. Rev. 53 (1985) 863, 867-868, stating that "certain issues raised by [sales] transactions, however, are specifically excluded from [the CISG's] scope. If the domestic law that would govern the contract absent the Convention places in question 'the validity of the Contract or of any of its provisions', the issue of validity must be determined under that domestic law" (footnotes omitted). For other Commentators interpreting the term "validity" nationalistically, see Bydlinski (supra n. 48) 85ff.; H. Grigera Naón, The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, in: The Transnational Law of International Commercial Transactions, ed. by N. Horn/C.W. Schmitthoff (1982) 89, 123 (Studies in Transnational Economic Law, 2): R. Lessiak, UNCITRAL-Kaufrechtsabkommen und Irrtumsanfechtung: J. Bl. 1989, 487, 492f.; G. Reinhart, UN-Kaufrecht: Kommentar zum Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom 11. April 1980 über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf (1991) 23. .

64. Leyens.

65. Bianca/Bonell (-A. Farnsworth) Art. 8 (pp. 95, 102); see also Bianca/Bonell (-G. Eörsi) Art. 14 (pp.132, 140): "In fact, mistake belongs to the sphere of validity of the contract and, since the issue of validity is excluded from the Convention (Art. 4(a)) the rules of the applicable domestic law of the contract bearing on mistake have to be applied."

66. See Neumayer/Ming 72.

67. For the text of this draft, see J. Honnold, Documentary History of the Uniform for International Sales (1989) 268 f.

68. See the Convention Relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, 1 July 1964, United Nations Treaty Series 834:1972 (1977) 107.

69. For this justification, see: E. von Caemmerer, Vertragspflichten und Vertragsgültigkeit im international Einheitlichen Kaufrecht, in; Festschrift (FS) Beitzke (1979) 35, 41 ff.; Karollus (supra n. 51) 42; Lessiak (supra n. 63) 490; Neumayer/Ming 72 n.16.

70. For this statement, see also Leyens; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005. Art. 4 (p. 64); see also International Sale of Goods, Report of the Working Group of its ninth session (1977), UNCITRAL Yearbook IX:1978 (1981) 61, 65f.

71. Leyens.

72. See also Gstoehl (supra n.14) 3; Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p. 133); Schlechtriem/ Schwenzer (-Schwenzer), Commentary 2005, Art. 35 (pp. 410; 430).

73. For papers on the interpretation of CISG, see, among others, J. Goddard, Reglas de interpretación de la Convención sobre Compraventa Internacional de Mercaderías: Revista de investigaciones jurídicas 14 (1990) 9ff.; G. Bisazza, Auslegung des Wiener UN-Kaufrechts unter Berücksichtigung ausländischer Rechtsprechung, Ein amerikanisches Beispiel: European Legal Forum 2004, 380ff.; M. Bonell, L'interpretazione del diritto uniforme alla luce dell'Art. 7 della convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale: Riv. dir. civ. 1986, 221ff.; S. Cook, Note, The Need for Uniform Interpretation of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: U. Pittsburgh L. Rev. 1988. 197ff.; J. Felemegas, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Article 7 and Uniform Interpretation: Review of CISG 2000/2001. 115ff.; F. Ferrari, Gap-filling and Interpretation of the CISG: Overview of International Case Law: Vindobona J. Int. Com. L. Arbitr. 2003. 63ff.; id., Interpretation uniforme de la Convention de 1980 sur la vente internationale: Rev. int. dr. comp. 1996, 813ff.; L. Graffi, L'interpretazione autonoma della Convenzione di Vienna: rilevanza del precedente straniero e disciplina della lacune: Giur. merito 2004, 873tf.; A. Canellas, La interpretación y la integración de la Convención de Viena sobre la compraventa internacional de mercaderías, de 11 abril de 1980 (2004); M. Perales Viscasillas. Una aproximación al articulo 7 de la Convencion de Viena de 1980 sobre compraventa internacional de mercaderías: Quadernos de derecho y comercio 1995, 55ff.; P. Schlechtriem, Interpretation, Gap-filling and Further Development of the UN Sales Convention: Pace Int. L. Rev. 16 (2004) 279ff.; Y. Zhang, Principles of interpretation of a uniform law and functions of travaux préparatoires. commentaries and case collections for interpretation of a uniform law, in: UNCITRAL, Uniform Commercial Law in the Twenty-First Century, Proceedings of the Congress of the UNCITRAL, New York, 18-22 May 1992 (1995) 41.

74. For a paper identifying some of the expressions to be interpreted domestically, see F: Ferrari, CISG Case Law: A New Challenge for Interpreters?: J.L. Com. 17 (1998) 245, 248ff.

75. For this conclusion, see Bridge 235, 243-244; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (p. 104); Heiz 660f.; Bianca/Bonell (-Khoo) Art. 4 (p. 48); Díez-Picazo (-L. Ajuria) Art. 4 (pp.72, 77); Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law (supra n. 29) 32; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem,), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 65); Schluchter 45; Schmid 43.

76. Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 201 F.Supp.2d 236 (S.D.N.Y., 10 May 2002), also available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html>.

77. The definition referred to in the text was borrowed from Hartnell (supra n. 54) 45, a paper that the U.S. court has expressly referred to.

78. See also Schmid 44.

79. For this conclusion, see also Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISC-Komm. 2004. Art. 4 (p.103).

80. See Ferrari, Jurisprudence (supra n. 37) 836.

81. See also Leyens.

82. See Lessiak (supra n. 63) 493.

83. Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law (supra n. 29) 33.

84. F. Enderlein/D. Maskow, Uniform Sales Law, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. in: Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods (1991) 40. For a similar statement, see also, K. Flesch, Mängelhaftung und Beschaffenheitsirrtum beim Kauf (1994) 148; Schmid 46.

85. For recent papers dealing with form requirements under the CISG, see F. Ferrari, Writing requirements: Articles 11-13, in: The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond 206ff.; id., Form und UN-Kaufrecht: Internationales Handelsrecht (IHR) 4 (2004) 1 ff.

86. For a similar statement in legal writing, see Reinhart (supra n. 63) 22; Rudolph 117. In case law see Tribunale (Trib.) Padova 31.3.2004, available in English. at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>: "[I]t is observed that documental proof of the conclusion of the contract of sale exists. In addition, it is not necessary, with respect to the validity, that the act be completed in writing. In fact, even if affirming that Article 4 of the Convention 'is not concerned with [(a)] the validity of the contract or of any of its provisions,' the question of formal validity is however regulated by Article 11."

87. Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 11 (pp. 159, 163); see also, Heuzé 84.

88. For this requirement, see Flesch (supra n.84) 148-149; Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law (supra n. 29) 33.

89. For this requirement, see, e.g., F. Ferrari, Vendita internazionale di beni mobili, Art. 1-13, Ambito di applicazione, Disposizioni generali (1994) 99 (cited: Vendita internazionale); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (p. 106); Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p. 60); Schluchter 46; similarly Heuzé 85, referring to the "goal" CISG rules aim at; see also, Honnold Art. 4 (p. 67), where, however, the author limits the functional equivalence approach when staring that "the crucial question is whether the domestic rule is invoked by the same operative facts that invoke a rule of the Convention."

90. See, in addition to the authors quoted in the previous note, Enderlein/Maskow (supra n. 84) 41; M. Kohler, Die Haftung nach UN-Kaufrecht im Spannungsverhaltnis zwischen Vertrag und Delikt (2003) 66.

91. See Commentary on the Draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Prepared by the Secretariat, document A/CONF.97/5, in: United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 10 March-11 April 1980, Official Records (1981) 14, 17: "Although there are no provisions in this Convention which expressly govern the validity of the contract or of any usage, some provisions may provide a rule which would contradict the rules on validity of contracts in a national legal system. In case of conflict the rule in this Convention would apply."

92. See also Honnold Art. 4 (p. 68): "[t]he substance rather than the label or characterization of the competing rule of domestic law determines whether it is displaced by the Convention". For a similar statement, see also Schluchter 46.

93. Bianca/Bonell (-Khoo) Art. 4 (p. 48).

94. See Schmid 45.

95. See A. Kritzer, Guide to Practical Applications of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1989) 86; Schluchter 59.

96. Leyens; see, however, R. Koch, Der besondere Gerithtsstand des Klagers/Verkäufers im Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts: RIW 1996, 687-688.

97, See Honnold Art. 4 (pp. 66-67): "The Convention does not interfere with the special rights and remedies that domestic law gives to persons who have been induced to enter into a contract by fraud ... Preserving domestic protection against intentional fraud could be based on the general rule of Article 4 that the Convention 'governs only' the obligations 'arising from [the] contract'; the conduct that gives rise to a remedy for fraud may be distinct from the making of the contract. This result is reinforced by paragraph (a) which excludes issues of 'validity'. Even if domestic law characterizes a contract obtained by fraud as 'voidable' rather than 'invalid' and gives the innocent party a choice as whether to avoid the contract, these rights are not disturbed by the Convention. The crucial point is that the Convention does not address factual situations involving fraud and should not be construed as ..." This conclusion is also reached by Heiz 654; Münch. Komm. BGB (-P. Huber) Art. 45 CISG (pp. 2424, 2429-2430); Witz /Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p. 61); Schluchter 105 and 111; Münch. Komm. BGB (-H. Westermann) Art. 4 CISG (pp. 2174, 2179).

98. For this view, see, e.g., Achilles 19; Esslinger (supra n.14) 79; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (p. 108); Standinger (-Mangus) Art. 4 (p. 134).

99. Compare Heiz 661.

100. Kritzer (supra n. 95) 90; Leyens.

101. For a very recent discussion of German law on this point, see P. Huber, Die Konkurrenz von Irrtumsanfechtung und Sachmängelhaftung im neueu Schuldrecht, in: FS Walther Hadding (2004) 105, 115tf.

102. See also, Bridge 243; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (p. 107).

103. See Heiz 653; P. Huber, Irrtumsanfechtung und Sachmängelhaftung (2001) 283f. (cited: Irrtumsanfechtung); Münch. Komm. BGB (-Huber) Art. 45 (pp. 2429-2430); Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p. 60); Schluchter 98.

104. See Münch. Komm. BGB (-Huber) Art. 45 (p. 2429).

105. For this argument, see Heiz 660; P. Huber, UN-Kaufrecht und Irrtumsantechtung: Die Anwendung des nationalen Rechts bei einem Eigenschaftsirrtum des Käufers: ZEuP 1994, 585,597f. (cited: UN-Kaufrecht); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Müller-Chen), Commentary 2005; Art. 45 (pp. 519, 531).

106. See Münch. Komm. HGB (-Benicke) Art. 4 CISG (pp.343, 345); A. Dawwas, Die Gültigkeit des Vertrages und das UN-Kaufrecht (1998) 82; Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach Art. 4 (p. 51); Huber, UN-Kaufrecht (previous note) 597; Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p. 133); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 68); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schwenzer), Commentary 2005, Art. 35 (p. 431); Münch. Komm. BGB (Westermann) Art. 4 CISG (p. 2179); but see C. T. Ebenroth, Internationale Vertragsgestalrung im Spannungsverhaltnis zwischen AGBG, IPR-Gesetz und UN-Kaufrecht: JBI. 108 (1986) 681, 688.

107. For a discussion of the issue at hand in the light of the solutions provided by various domestic laws, see Flesch (supra n. 84) passim; Gstoehl (supra n. 14) 3ff.; Huber, UN-Kaufrecht (supra n. 105) passim; id., Irrtumsanfechtung (supra n. 103) 67ff.: F. Niggemann, Erreur sur une qualité substantielle de la chose et application de la CVIM: Rev dr. affaires int. 1994, 397ff.

108. See Audit 118; Heuzé R5 and 248-249.

109. Brunner 40; Heiz 653; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Müller-Chen), Commentary 2005, Art. 45 (p. 531).

110. See Honnold Art. 35 (pp. 262-263).

111. See Landgericht (LG) Aachen 14.5.1993, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/86.htm>, stating that "Ob aufgrund der fehlenden Marktgängigkeit der Geräte die Anwendung der Regeln über den Wegfall der Geschäfugrundlage oder die Anfechtung wegen Irrtums über eine verkehrswesencliche Eigenschaft der gekauften Sache nach national em Recht in Betracht kommt, kann offengelassen werden, da diese Rechtsinstitute durch die Regelung des CISG verdriingt werden."

112. See OGH 13.4.2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413a3.html>. It should be noted that Austrian scholars generally deny that the CISG pre-empts domestic law on the point referred to in the text; Bydlinski (supra n. 48) 85-86; Gstoehl (supra n. 14) 8 (stating that the CISG does not pre-empt Austrian rules on mistake, but that it does pre-empt German and Swiss rules); Karollus (supra n. 51) 41-42; Lessiak (supra n. 63) 487ff.; P. Rummel, Schadenersatz, höhere Gewalt und Wegfall der Geschäftsgrundlage, in: Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht, ed. by H. Hoyer/W. Posh, (1992) 177, 188 n. 41; but see R. Loewe, Internationales Kaufrecht (1989) 66.

113. See Schmid 161; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schwenzer ), Commentary 2005, Art. 41 (pp. 482, 492).

114. Leyens.

115. Leyens.

116. See Münch. Komm. HGB (-Benicke) Art. 4 CISG (p. 345); Huber, UN-Kaufrecht (supra n.105) 601; Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p. 61); Münch. Komm. HGB (-P. Mankowski) Art. 71 CISG (pp. 635, 644); contra Karollus (supra n. 51) 42; Lessiak (supra n. 63) 494ff.

117. See OGH 12.2.1998, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980212a3.html>

118. Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-R. Hornung), Commentary 2005, Art. 71 (p. 701, 711).

119. OGH 12.2.1998 (supra n. 117); similarly in legal writing see Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach, Art. 71 (p. 225); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 69) .

120. See Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach Art. 68 (p. 217); Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p. 131).

121. See R. Reischauer, Leistungsstörungsrecht des AGBGB im Vergleich zu dem BGB mit einem Blick auf das UN-Kaufrecht, in: FS Hans Stoll (2001) 344, 350f.

122. Weitzmann (supra n. 54) 277-278.

123. See Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p. 131).

124. Weitzmann (supra n. 54).

125. See Enderlein/Maskow/,Strohbach Art. 79 (p. 253); Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p.60); Karollus (supra n. 51) 43; Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p.131); Schluchter 41; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-H. Stoll/G. Gruber), Commentary 2005, Art. 79 (pp. 806, 813-814); contra Heuzé 85-86; Neumayer/Ming 73-74; Loewe (supra n.112) 29; Bianca/Bonell (-D. Tallon) Art. 79 (pp. 572, 578).

126. See Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 27 (pp. 306, 313).

127. See, e.g., arts. 47(2), 48(2) and (3), 63(2), 65(1) and (2) and 79(4).

128. See Schluchter 117.

129. Leyens.

130. See F. Ferrari, La jurisprudence sur la CVIM: Un nouveau défi pour les interprètes?: Int. Bus. L.J. 1998, 495, 496f.; Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 1 CISG (pp. 2757, 2767).

131. For similar statements in case law, see Trib. Padova 25.2.2004, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=972&step=FullText>; OGH 22.10.2001 (1 Ob 49/01i) (supra n.52); Trib. Vigevano 12.7.2000, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=387&step= FullText>; KG Aargau 11.6.1999, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=485&step=FullText>; KG Zürich, 30.11.1995, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/415.pdf>; LG Berlin 24.3.1998, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=440&step= FullText>; OGH 20.3.1997, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/269.htm>.

132. For this conclusion, see Leyens.

133. See Bianca/Bonell (-A. Farnsworth) Art. 8 (pp. 95, 101); Leyens; in case law sec BG 11.12.2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001211s1.html>.

134. See Leyens, Schlechtriem, Borderland 467.

135. See J. Lookofsky, CISG Case Commentary on Pre-emption in Geneva Pharmaceuticals and Stawski: Review of CISG, 2003/2004, 115-116; id., In Dubio Pro Conventione?. Some Thoughts about Opt-Outs, Computer Programs and Pre-emption under the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention (CISG): Duke J. Comp. Int. L. 13 (2003) 263, 286; Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p. 63).

136. See Herber/Czenwenka 39; D. Otto, Produkthaftung nach dem UN-Kautrecht: MDR 1992, 533, 537 (cited: Produkthaftung).

137. For an overview of the reasons why the issue at hand is important in practice, see B. Ernst, Das Wiener Übereinkommen von 1980 über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf (UN-Kaufrecht) im Recht der Produkthaftung (2002) 52ff.; R. Herber, Mangelfolgeschäden nach dem CISG und nationales Deliktsrecht: IHR 1 (200l) 187, 187; D. Schneider, UN-Kaufrecht und Produktehaftpflicht: zur Auslegung von Art. 4 Satz 1 und Art. 5 CISG und zur Abgrenzung vertraglicher und aeßervertraglicher Haftung aus der Sicht des CISG; (1995) 21 ff.

138. For studies on the foreseeability of damages under the CISG, see, e.g.. F. Faust, Die Voraussehbarkleit des Schadens gemäß Art. 74 Satz 2 UN-Kaufrecht (CISG) (1996); F. Ferrari, Comparative Ruminations on the Foreseeability of Damages in Contract Law: La. L. Rev. 53 (1993) 1257ff.; id., Prevedibiltà del danno e contemplation rule; Contratto e impresa 9 (1993) 760ff.; A. Murphey, Consequential Damages in Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Legacy of Hadley: Geo. Wash. J. Int. L. Econ. 23 (1989/90) 415ff.

139. This is true, for example, in Italy: although Art. 1225 of the Italian Civil Code expressly limits contractual damages to those that are foreseeable (where the breach of contract is not an intentional one), this provision, and thus the foreseeability limitation. does not apply to tort law.

140. For statements to the effect that the CISG does not allow for recovery of punitive damages, see Audit 163; Bianca/Bonell (-V. Knapp) Art. 74 (pp. 538, 544); Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p. 62); Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 74 (p.724).

141. For a statement in case law that a notice of non-conformity is required to successfully claim damages where the damage is caused by defective goods, see Handelsgericht (HG) Kanton Zürich 26.4.1995, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=166&step=FullText>.

142. See Brunner 65-66; J. Lookofsky, CISG foreign case law: How much regard should we have?, in: The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond 216, 227; Standinger (-Magnus) Art. 5 (p. 144); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Müller-Chen), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 44. (p. 512); Rudolph 126; Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 5 CISG (pp. 2777-2778).

143. For other reasons, see Schlechtriem, Borderland 467.

144. Rudolph 122.

145. For papers dealing with the issue referred to in the text see, apart from those cited in n. 137. R. Herber. UN-Kaufrechtsübereinkommen; Produkthaftung -- Verjährung; MDR 1993. 105 ff.; Kuhlen; D. Otto, Nochmals -- UN-Kautrecht und EG-Produkthaftungsrichtlinie: MDR (1993) 306ff.; id., Produkthaftung (supra n. 136) passim.

146. See F. Niggemann, Die Bedeutung des Inkrafttretens des UN-Kaufrechts für den deutsch-französischen Wirtschaftsverkehr: RIW 1991, 372, 377.

147. For this conclusion, see also Honsell (-K. Siehr) Art. 5 (pp. 76-77).

148. See Kuhlen 47.

149. For this distinction, see Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 5 (pp. 118-119); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 5 (pp. 76 78).

150. See Bridge 246; Ernst (supra n. 137) 32; Official Records (supra n. 91 ) 243; P. Schlechtriem, Internationales UN-Kaufrecht [2] (2003) (cited: Int. UN-Kautrecht); Schneider (supra n.137) 33; for a different justification of Art. 5 CISG, see Honnold Art. 5 (p. 71): "The strong protection that the Convention gives to the international sales contract made it necessary to limit the Convention's scope lest the Convention collide with the special protection that some domestic rules provide for the noncommercial consumer"; for a similar justification, see S. Date-Bah, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 1980: Overview and Selective Commentary: Rev. Ghana L. 11 (1979) 50, 53.

151. For a court decision from which one can derive that the Art. 5 exclusion of liability for death or personal injury is a general one, see HG Kanton Zürich 26.4. 1995 (supra n. 141).

152. See Audit 36;), Plantard, Un nouveau droit uniforme de la vente internationale: La Convention des Nations Unies du 11 avril 1980: J. dr. int. 1988, 311, 327.

153. P. Schlechtriem (-R. Herber), Commentary on the CISG (2. ed. in translation) (1998) Art. 5 (p. 50) (cited: Commentary 1998); for similar statements, see also Kuhlen 61; Standinger (-Magnus) Art. 5 (p. 143); Reinhart (supra n. 63) 25.

154. See Achilles 24; Audit 36; Brummer 65; Ernst (supra n. 137) 36-37; Schlechtriem (-Herber), Commentary 1998 (previous note) Art. 5 (p. 50); Herber/Czervenka 38; Kuhlen 61; U. Magnus, Wesentliche Fragen des UN-Kaufrechts: ZEuP 1999, 642, 645; Rudolph 122: Münch. Komm. BGB (-Westermann) Art. 5 CISG (pp. 2183, 2185); contra Bridge 246.

155. See OLG Düsseldorf 2.7.1993, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/74.htm>.

156. Schlechtriem (-Herber), Commentary 1998 (supra n. 153) Art. 5 (p.50).

157. Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 5 (p. 78); see also Audit 37.

158. For this requirement, see Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 5 (pp. 119-120); Köhler (supra n. 90) 118-119; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 5 (p. 77). In those cases where the requirement referred to is not met, the CISG can also govern the liability for death and personal injury; see Achilles 24; Brunner 65; Herber/Czernvenka 38; Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 5 (pp.67-68); contra Kuhlen 56-57.

159. See Audit 36; Münch. Komm. HGB (-Benicke) Art. 5 CISG (pp. 348, 349); Bridge 246; Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach Art. 5 (p. 56); Ferrari, Vendita internazionale (supra n. 89) 106; Heuzé 86; Münch. Komm. BGB (-Huber) Art. 45 (p. 2431); Köhler (supra n. 90) 121; Kritzer (supra n. 95) 95; Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 5 (p. 69); Schlechtriem, Borderland 471; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 5 (p. 76); contra M. Ndulo, The Vienna Sales Convention 1980 and the Hague Uniform Laws on International Sale of Goods 1964: A Comparative Analysis: Int. Comp. L.Q. 38 (1989) 1, 5.

160. See HG Kanton Zürich 26.4. 1995 (supra n. 141).

161. 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: Schlechtriem (-Herber), Commentary 1998 (supra n. 153) Art. 5 (p. 50).

162. See Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 5 (p. 67).

163. See also Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 5 (pp. 120-121).

164. For this view see, e.g., Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach Art. 5 (p. 56); Heuzé 86; Kuhlen 114ff.; Otto, Produkthaftung (supra n. 136) 537; Mather (supra n. 37) 161; G. Ryffel, Die Schadenersatzhaftung des Verkaufers nach dem Wiener Übereinkommen über internationale Warenkaufverträge vom 11 April 1980 (1992) 136; K. Wartenberg, CISG und deutsches Verbraucherschutzrecht: das Verhältnis der CISG insbesondere zum VerbrKrG, HaustürWG und ProdHaftG (1998) 92.

165. Various authors arguing in favour of the exclusive applicability of the CISG make an exception as far as domestic product liability law is concerned, which they derive from the EC Product Liability Directive of 25.7.1985 (infra n. 188); see, e.g., Herber (supra n. 137) 191.

166. See R. Herber, Zum Verhältnis von UN-Kaufrechtsübereinkommen und deliktischer Haftung, in: FS Peter Schlechtriem (2003) 207, 218ff.; in case law, see Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc. (supra n.76), <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html#svib> ("The CISG clearly does not pre-empt the claims sounding in tort."): Viva Vino Import Corp. v. Farnese Vini S.r.l, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12347; 2000 WL 1224903 (E.D. Pa.), 29 August 2000, also available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000829u1.html> (stating that "[t]he CISG does not apply to tort claims"). .

167. For this conclusion, see also Achilles 24; Münch. Komm. HGB (-Benicke) Art. 5 CISG (p. 349); Bridge 246; B. Czenvenka, Rechtsanwendungsprobleme im internationalen Kaufrecht: Das Kollisionsrecht bei grenzüberschreitenden Kaufverträgen und der Anwendungsbereich der internationalen Kautrechtsübereinkommen (1988) 168f; Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 5 (p. 67); U. Magnus, Aktuelle Fragen des UN-Kaufrechts: ZEuP 1993, 79, 95f.; Neumayer/Ming 81; Plantard (supra n.152) 327; P. Schlechtriem, Einheitliches UN-Kaufrecht: Das Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom 11 April 1980 über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf (CISG): JZ 1988, 1037, 1040.

168. For this statement, see Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 5 (p. 145); Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 5 CISG (p. 2779).

169. See Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 5 (p.121).

170. See K. Zweigert/H. Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law [3] (1998) 596, stating that the law of contract entitles people to claim compensation for the harm suffered "only in a rather limited area, where the plaintiff has been disappointed in his justifiable expectation that the defendant would honour his promise".

171. Article 25 CISG.

172. See Schlechtriem. Borderland 473, where the author states that "[t]he obligation of the seller to deliver goods conforming to the contract in time corresponds to interests of the buyer to use, to consume, or to resell the goods purchased, and therefore to receive them in time and conforming to the contract. These economic interests are basically contractual, for they are created by a contract, Their shape and extent depends on the parties' agreement; time of delivery, conformity of the goods and the corresponding interests of the parties are' offspring' of the contract. There were in general no extra-contractual obligations of private parties to provide other private parties with goods and their use. Extracontractual duties-duties of care or duties to manufacture and market goods tree of defects-are designated to protect interests such as health and property existing independently of contractual obligations, but also to protect certain economic interests."

173. See Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p. 63).

174. C. Schmid, Das Verhaltnis von Einheitlichem Kaufrecht und nationalem Deliktsrecht am Beispiel des Ersatzes von Mangelfolgeschäden: RIW 1996, 904, 908.

175. Schmid (previous note) where the author also states that "[d]er Geschädigte soll auch nicht schlechter stehen, weil er gleichzeitig der Vertragspartner des Schädigers ist". For similar reasoning, see also Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p. 62): "Es erscheint auch wenig einleuchtend, dass ein Abnehmer seiner Ansprüche aus deliktischer Produzentenhaftung gegen den Hersteller nur deshalb verlustig gehen soll, weil er in direkter vertraglicher Beziehung steht."

176. Lookofsky (supra n.135) 286. This has also been pointed out in case law; see Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc. (supra n.76), <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html#svib>; Viva Vino Import Corporation v. Farnese Vini S.r.l. (supra n. 166).

177. See Ernst (supra n.137) 72-73; Münch. Komm. BGB (-Huber) Art. 45 (p. 2431); Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p. 64); Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 5 CISG (p. 2278); Schneider (supra n. 137) 231; contra H. Gabriel, Practitioner's Guide to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) and the Uniform Commercial Code (1994) 21.

178. See Rudolph 127.

179. This also appears to be the result reached by various courts; see Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) 23.7. 1997, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/276.htm> ; OLG Frankfurt/Main 15.3.1996, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/275.htm>; OLG München 8.2.1995, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/142.htm>.

180. See Bridge 246; Brunner 66; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Müller-Chen), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 45 (513); Rudolph 123-124; Schlechtriem, Int. UN-Kaufrecht (supra n. 150) 33; for a detailed analysis of the conflict of laws issue referred to in the text, see P. Huber, Mangelfogeschäden: Deliktsstatut trotz Einheitskaufrechts: IPrax 1996, 22f.

181. See Audit 37 n. 1; Niggemann (supra n.146) 377; Schlechtriem, Borderland 468.

182. See Honnold Art. 5 (p.76); Schlechtriem, Borderland 470.

183. For a very detailed study of the interaction between domestic contract and tort law see, most recently, U. Drobnig/C. von Bar, The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe, A Comparative Study (2004).

184. Schlechtriem, Borderland 473-474.

185. For references in legal writing to the CISG's dispositive nature, see S. Carbone, L'ambito di applicaziane ed i criteri interpretativi della convenziane di Vienna, in: La vendita internazionale: La Convenzione dell' 11 aprile 1980 (1981) 61, 78; S. Carbon/R. Luzzatto. I contratti del commercio internazianale, in: Trattato di diritto privato, ed. by P. Rescigno (1984) 111, 131; J. Erauw, Waneer is het Weens koopverdrag van toepassing?, in: Het Weens Koopverdrag (supra n. 16) 21, 47; Ferrari, Vendita internazionale (supra n. 89) 110; A. Lanciotti, Norme uniformi di conflitto e materiali nella disciplina convenzionale della compravendita (1992) 146; A. Lohmann, Parteiautonomie und UN-Kaufrecht (2005) 193; Piltz (supra n. 48) 64; Reinhart (supra n.63) 26; G. Sacerdoti, I criteri di applicazione della convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale: diritto uniforme, diritto internazionale privato e autonomia dei contratti: Riv. trim. dir. proc. civ. 44 (1990) 733.744; P. Volken, Das Wiener Übereinkommen über den internationalen Warenkauf: Anwendungsvoraussetzungen und Anwendungsbereich, in: Einheitliches Kaufrecht und nationales Obligationenrecht, ed. by P. Schlechtriem (1987) 81, 92; P. Wang, Das Wiener Übereinkommen über internationale Warenkaufverträge vom 11. April 1980 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Außenhandels: ZvglRWiss. 1988, 184, 188; C. Witz, L'exclusion de la Convention des Nations unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises par la volonté des parties (Convention de Vienne du 11 avril 1980): D. chron. 1990, 107, For references to CISG's non-mandatory nature in case law, see Cass. civ. 19.6.2000: Giur. it. 2001, 236; OGH 21.3.2000, IHR 1 (2001) 41; 15.10.1998, ZRvgl. 63 (1999); HG Wien 4.3.1997. available at: <http://www.cisg.at/1R4097x.htm>; KG Wallis 29.6.1994: Zeitschrift für Walliser Rechtsprechung 1994, 126.

186. See Honsell (-Siehr) Art. 5 (pp. 76. 78).

187. See Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 5 (p. 121); Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 5 (p. 146); Bamberg/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 5 (p. 2779).

188. See EC Council Directive 85/374/EEC, Official Journal 1985 L 210/29.

189. See Herber/Czenvenka 39; Witz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 5 (p. 69-70); Ryffel (supra n.164) 137.

190. A direct application of Art. 90 to the domestic statutes enacted on the basis of the EC Product Liability Directive mentioned in the text is not possible; this has been acknowledged even by some of the authors who suggest that the domestic statute prevails over CISG; see, e.g., Ernst (supra n. 137) 116; Herber (supra n.145) 105f.; Kuhlen 123.

191. For this conclusion, see also Achilles 261; Brunner 532-533; Kohler (supra n. 90) 151-152; Otto, Nochmals UN-Kaufrecht (supra n.145) 306; Schlechtriem, Int. UN-Kaufrecht (supra n. 150) 29.

192. For this argument, see Ernst (supra n. 137) 96-97; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 5 (p.122); B. Piltz, Gestaltung von Exportverträgen nach der Schuldrechtsreform: IHR 2 (2002) 2. 4; Rudolph 438; contra Honsell (-Siehr) 1061.

193. For this conclusion, see also U. Schroeter, UN-Kaufrecht und europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht: Verhälnis und Wechselwirkungen (2005) 318.

194. Honnold Art. 29 (p. 232).

195. See Zweigert/Kötz (supra n.170) 390ff.

196. For a reference to the issue at hand, see also H. Flechtner, More U.S. Decisions on the U.N. Sales Convention: Scope, Parol Evidence, "Validity" and Reduction of Price under Article 50: J.L. Com. 14 (1995) 153, 166-167.

197. See Art. 16(2)(a) CISG.

198. Article 29(1) CISG; for a court decision applying this provision and stating that consideration is irrelevant under CISG, see Shuttle Packaging Systems v. Tsonakis et al., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21630; 2001 WL 34046276 (W.D. Mich.). 17 December 2001, also available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011217u1.html> ("under the Convention, a contract for the sale of goods may be modified without consideration for the modification").

199. Honnold Art. 29 (p.234).

200. See Audit 32 n.4 (excluding in general that consideration can be relevant under CISG); L. DiMatteo et at., The Interpretive Turn in International Sales Law: An Analysis of Fifteen Years of CISG jurisprudence: Nw. J. Int. L. Bus. 24 (2004) 229, 334 (excluding in general that consideration can be relevant under CISG); S. Eiselen, Remarks in which the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts May be Used to Interpret or Supplement Article 29 of the CISG: Pace Int. L. Rev. 14 (2002) 379, 380 (stating that the requirement of consideration, which may be applicable in common law legal systems, is excluded); Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach Art. 29 (p. 109) (stating that consideration is irrelevant in respect of contract modification); Münch. Komm. HGB (-F. Ferrari) Art. 11 CISG (pp. 390, 393) (excluding in general that consideration can be relevant under the CISG); Gabriel (supra n. 177) 88 (stating that consideration is irrelevant in respect of contract modification); Herber/Czenvenka 141 (stating that consideration is irrelevant in respect of contract modification); M. Greiner, Der Vertragsabschluss, in: Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht (supra n. 112) 43, 46 (excluding in general that consideration can be relevant under the CISG); Henning Lutz, The CISG and Common Law Courts: Is There Really a Problem?: Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev. 35 (2004) 711, 724 (acknowledging a general non-requirement of consideration under the CISG); J. Mattera, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ("CISG") and Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc./Apothecon, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's application and Interpretation of the Scope of the CISG: Pace Int. L. Rev. 16 (2004) 165, 186-187 (excluding that consideration can at all be relevant under the CISG); Piltz (supra n. 48) 105 (excluding in general that consideration can be relevant under the CISG); Reinhart (supra n. 63) 74 (stating that consideration is irrelevant in respect of contract modification); Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law (supra n. 29) 45 (excluding in general that consideration can be relevant under the CISG).

201. See, apart from the decision quoted above in note 198, ICC International Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award no. 9474 of February 1999, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/999474i1.html>. But see also Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc. (supra n. 76). <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html#svib> (regarding consideration as a validity issue governed by domestic law); for critical comments, see Lutz 721-722; Mattera 181 ff. (both previous note).

202. See Official Records (supra n. 91) 28.


Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated October 1, 2007
Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography
Comments/Contributions