Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)
Reproduced with permission of 13 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law & Arbitration (1/2009) 15-42

Homeward Trend and Lex Forism Despite Uniform Sales Law

Franco Ferrari [*]

  1. Autonomous Interpretation v. Homeward Trend?
  2. Defining Homeward Trend
  3. Homeward Trend in CISG Case Law: A First Example
  4. Homeward Trend in CISG Case Law: A Second Example
  5. The Homeward Trend Overcome
  6. Conclusion

1. AUTONOMOUS INTERPRETATION v. HOMEWARD TREND?

It is common knowledge, and has been for some time,[1] that 'drafting uniform words is one thing; ensuring their uniformity is another',[2] since 'even when outward uniformity is achieved [...], uniform application of the agreed rules is by no means guaranteed, as in practice different countries almost inevitably come to put different interpretations upon the same enacted words'.[3] Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of diverging [page 15] interpretations of the same text,[4] that text must be interpreted in a uniform manner. This is necessary since, as stated by Viscount Simonds on behalf of the House of Lords in Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd.,[5] 'it would be deplorable if the nations should, after protracted negotiations, reach agreement [...] and that their several courts should then disagree as to the meaning of what they appeared to agree upon'.[6]

The drafters of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods [7] (hereafter 'CISG') [8] were aware of this problem. To combat it they introduced a provision which requires that when interpreting the CISG 'regard is to be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade'.[9] Similar provisions are found in other uniform law conventions, such as the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations [10] and the 1988 UNIDROIT Conventions on International Factoring and International Financial Leasing.[11] [page 16]

Many courts [12] and commentators [13] have construed this provision to mean that the CISG is to be interpreted 'autonomously',[14] not 'nationalistically', i.e. not in the light of domestic law,[15] as difficult as this may be.[16] Consequently, one should not have [page 17] recourse to any domestic concept in order to solve interpretive problems arising under the CISG.[17] As stated in a recent Swiss court decision,[18] this 'nationalistic approach'[19] would not only lead to divergences, but, ultimately, to the promotion of forum shopping,[20] which the CISG aims to reduce.[21]

Many commentators have argued that the above proposition applies even where the expressions employed by the CISG (or by other uniform law conventions for that matter) [22] are textually the same as expressions that have a specific meaning within a particular domestic legal system -- such as 'avoidance', 'reasonable', or 'good faith'.[23] [page 18]

In effect, the CISG refers to concepts that are necessarily independent [24] and different [25] from national concepts,[26] since the expressions employed in uniform law conventions such as the CISG are intended to be neutral.[27] This appears to be a basic principle of international uniform law [28] resulting, in part, from the assumption that international uniform law 'does not want to identify itself with any legal system, because it wants to conjugate with all'.[29] Indeed, any choice of one expression rather than another is the result of a compromise [30] and generally does not correspond to the reception of a [page 19] concept peculiar to a specific domestic law:[31] As a result, an interpreter must be aware of so-called faux-amis.[32] Where, however, it is apparent from legislative history that the drafters wanted a given concept to be interpreted in light of a specific domestic law, one is allowed to have recourse to the 'domestic' understanding of that concept.[33]

Unfortunately, however, courts do not always comply with this mandate to interpret the CISG autonomously, nor do they seem to resort to 'nationalistic' interpretations only where justified by the legislative history. Rather, a closer look at some decisions allows one to state that a 'homeward trend' is discernible, at least by some courts. This trend is deplorable because it promotes parochialism [34] and thus defeats the very purpose of the CISG,[35] namely the creation of a uniform sales law [36] aimed at the creation of legal certainty and 'the removal of legal barriers in international trade'.[37] In effect, the homeward trend 'deprives the collective signatories of the predictability and reliability of law which the CISG was meant to create. In order for the CISG to truly live up to the purpose for which it was created, interpreting courts must stay within the strict boundaries of Article 7'.[38] It is therefore rather surprising that one commentator suggests not only that the 'categorical condemnation of the homeward trend is unwarranted',[39] but also that '[t]he homeward trend may [...] enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of the CISG over the long term'.[40]

This view is not tenable. The suggestion that the homeward trend enhances the CISG's legitimacy overlooks the fact that the CISG's legitimacy is derived from the [page 20] wide acceptance it enjoys,[41] which is in turn due to the goal it pursues -- namely the creation of a uniform sales law able to break down the obstacles to international import/export constituted by the plethora of existing domestic legal regimes.[42] This goal can only be achieved by applying the CISG in one and the same manner in the various contracting States.[43]

The suggestion that the homeward trend enhances the CISG's applicability by preventing parties from countries in the courts of which the homeward trend is discernible from opting-out [44] is similarly misguided. It does not take due account, for example, of the fact that those parties' reliance on the homeward trend is justified only where the dispute is to be decided by the courts of the countries in which they are located.[45] This, however, would (generally) require the opposing parties to agree with the former parties' choice of forum, which they may be unwilling to do. Instead, they may want their own courts' domestic interpretation of the CISG, where one exists, to apply (thus leading to a battle of homeward trends), or simply be reluctant to give the opposing parties the competitive advantage of reliance on their 'domestic' interpretation. The resolution of this potential conflict may ultimately require excluding the CISG altogether [46] (which certainly does nothing to enhance the CISG's applicability). What is certain is that this conflict creates unpredictability,[47] and therefore cannot be advocated.

The theory of enhanced CISG applicability as a result of the homeward trend has additional weak points. It does not take into account, for example, that the homeward trend limits rather than promotes the CISG's applicability because it prevents the CISG from functioning as a neutral law to which parties can resort when they wish to avoid the application of the domestic law of opposing parties.[48] Furthermore, a [page 21] homeward trend in any given country may not be readily identifiable to contracting parties ex ante, which may increase transaction costs in international contracts. If a party is unaware that his or her national courts' interpretation is the result of a homeward trend, that party may be induced to believe that his or her courts' interpretation is one generally accepted. Reliance upon this erroneous assumption may induce parties to make wrong choices (regarding, for instance, the forum) and generate costs. Again, this conflicts with one of the primary goals of the CISG (or any other uniform law instrument, for that matter) [49] -- reducing costs by creating a uniform regime.[50]

From this only one conclusion can be drawn: 'Indulging in the homeward trend, obviously, violates the mandate of Art. 7(1) (which requires that the CISG be interpreted with "regard" for its international character and for "the need to promote uniformity in its application") and constitutes a serious -- quite possibly the most serious -- threat to the main purpose of the CISG: progress toward a uniform regime of international sales law.'[51] In other words, only if one moves 'towards a CISG perspective that transcends domestic ideology'[52] can the CISG's main purpose be reached.[53] This requires fighting the homeward trend, not advocating for it. [page 22]

2. DEFINING HOMEWARD TREND

How, can this -- arguably most significant [54] -- threat to the CISG's main purpose be defined? According to those CISG commentators who have not only referred to the homeward trend,[55] but who have also attempted to define it, the homeward trend is akin to the 'natural'[56] 'tendency of those interpreting the CISG to project the domestic law in which the interpreter was trained (and with which he or she is likely most familiar) onto the international provisions of the Convention'.[57] It is, in other words, the 'the tendency to think that the words we see [in the text of the CISG] are merely trying, in their awkward way, to state the domestic rule we know so well'.[58]

      This 'natural tendency [by courts] to read the international rules in light of the legal ideas that have been imbedded at the core of their intellectual formation'[59] is, however, to be distinguished from recourse to domestic law for interpretive purposes in cases where that recourse to domestic law is imposed by the CISG itself. Although it may seem contradictory to first advocate, as has been done in Part 1, the autonomous interpretation of the CISG [60] and then refer to the need to resort to domestic law, it is not. Rather the mandate to interpret the CISG autonomously is not [page 23] absolute,[61] and therefore not all expressions used by the drafters of the CISG must be interpreted autonomously.[62] Indeed there are some expressions which an interpreter must interpret 'domestically', despite the negative effect this may have on the uniformity the drafters of the CISG wanted to achieve. This is true, for instance, with respect to the expression 'private international law' employed by the CISG.[63] Since the CISG constitutes 'merely' a substantive law convention [64] that does not set forth any private international law rule,[65] the expression 'private international law' found in Arts. 1(1)(b) and 7(2) CISG has to be understood as a reference to the private international law of the forum.[66]

Although various courts have already implicitly adopted this view,[67] an Italian court, the Tribunale di Padova,[68] has recently done so explicitly. When examining the CISG's substantive applicability requirements, the court first rejected the homeward trend when it stated that from a substantive point of view, it is necessary that the contract be one for the sale of goods which, however, the Convention does not define. Nevertheless, the lack of an express definition should not lead one to resort to a domestic definition, such as that to be found in Art. 1470 of the [Italian] Civil Code. In effect, the Convention's concept of "contract for the sale of goods" has to be interpreted, as have the majority of concepts (such as that of "place of business", "habitual residence", "goods") autonomously, i.e. without resort to concepts [page 24] characteristic of any particular legal system.[69] The court then also stated that not all CISG expressions had to be interpreted autonomously; by way of example it referred to the 'concept of "private international law", which corresponds to the concept of private international law of the forum.[70] In so stating, the court made it clear that there is a distinction between the homeward trend as defined above -- which is to be avoided -- and recourse to domestic law, which may be required by the CISG itself.[71]

The homeward trend, as defined above, must be distinguished not only from the legitimate, albeit exceptional, recourse for interpretive purposes to domestic law in cases where it is imposed by the CISG itself, but also from another trend, namely that of promoting interpretive solutions that 'by one means or another, result in the application of the forum's own internal law'.[72] This trend of 'favor legis fori' [73] is a variation of the homeward trend and differs from the variation referred to earlier in that it does not manifest itself in domestic interpretations of supposedly autonomous concepts, but rather in the tendency to reach results that lead to the application of domestic law tout court. This 'lex forism' [74] is independent from the variation of the homeward trend mentioned initially; though they may, at times, go hand in hand.

3. HOMEWARD TREND IN CISG CASE LAW: A FIRST EXAMPLE

Examples of both variations of the homeward trend can be found in CISG case law. Nevertheless, it appears that the variation which consists of the tendency by interpreters 'to turn to their familiar, and nonuniform, norms of domestic law in the [page 25] interpretation of international standards'[75] has had a larger impact on court decisions than that trend's favor legis fori variation. This is unsurprising, as there are very few CISG provisions which can be interpreted to allow courts to apply the lex fori.

The former variation, though it has had an impact on courts from various countries,[76] is discernible mainly in the United States.[77] There, unfortunately, courts seem not only to rely on it as regards specific issues,[78] but also as a matter of principle. This is evidenced by the following statement, found in many decisions: 'caselaw interpreting analogous provisions of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") may also inform a court where the language of the relevant CISG provisions tracks that of the UCC'.[79] In this author's opinion,[80] this statement, as well as other comparable ones,[81] which clearly show, as suggested already more than half a century ago, that [page 26] 'the homeward trend may be prompted not only by greater strangeness but also by greater similarity between forum and foreign [or uniform] law',[82] is wrong. The mere fact that the wording of a particular CISG provision corresponds to that of a specific domestic rule (whether created by statute or case law) is per se insufficient to allow one to resort to interpretations of that domestic rule, as noted in Part 1 of this paper.[83] Thus, one should question whether it is true that the CISG's 'foreseeability requirement [...] is identical to the well-known rule of Hadley v. Baxendale, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (Ct. Exch. 1854), such that relevant interpretations of that rule can guide the Court's reasoning regarding proper damages'.[84] If the foreseeability requirement set forth in Art. 74 CISG really were based on the Hadley v. Baxendale Common Law rule, one should indeed be allowed to have recourse to the Common Law interpretations of that rule, despite the mandate that in interpreting the CISG regard 'be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application autonomously'. However, as has been repeatedly shown,[85] the foreseeability limit set forth in Art. 74 CISG does not stem from the Common Law,[86] because even the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale upon which the various expressions of the foreseeability limit to be found in Common Law are modelled [87] is itself not a rule invented under the Common Law. Rather, as stated in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Hamilton & Dotson, among others,[88] the Common Law foreseeability limit 'is known [page 27] as the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale and is sometimes spoken of as having originated in that case, though it is in reality an embodiment of civil law principles, and is substantially a paraphrasing of a rule on the subject as it had been stated at an earlier date in the Code Napoleon, by Pothier'.[89]

Ultimately, this means that the Art. 74 CISG foreseeability limit is not a derivative of the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale. It is therefore incorrect to state, as did one U.S. court when interpreting the CISG, that the 'CISG requires that damages be limited by the familiar principle of foreseeability established in Hadley v. Baxendale'.[90] This 'frankly preposterous'[91] statement is nothing but 'a consummate illustration of a court unwittingly seeing a provision of the Convention through a domestic lens',[92] which it should not do,[93] except in the very limited circumstances referred to earlier.[94] The foreseeability requirement set forth in Art. 74 CISG, like most other concepts and expressions used in the CISG, is to be interpreted autonomously and not in the light of any given domestic law, whether U.S., English or even French [95] -- where the [page 28] foreseeability limitation originated. In other words, the exception to the mandate to interpret the CISG autonomously, pursuant to which one should have recourse to the 'domestic' understanding of a concept where it is apparent from the legislative history that the drafters of the CISG wanted to adopt that specific concept's domestic understanding, does not apply to the foreseeability limit set forth in Art. 74 CISG. From a methodological point of view it is therefore incorrect to state, as did one U.S. court, that the 'relevant interpretations of [the Hadley v. Baxendale] rule can guide the Court's reasoning regarding proper damages'[96] under the CISG. This statement is nothing but another 'excellent example of the errors that result from the failure to interpret and apply the Convention as an international, rather than a domestic, body of law'[97] and shows that that court, too, 'was clearly unable to overcome its own ethnocentric bias'.[98] This inability led the court to even go so far as to state that the CISG's 'foreseeability requirement [...] is identical to the well-known rule of Hadley v. Baxendale',[99] a statement that, as pointed out earlier, is clearly incorrect. Even '[a] cursory reading of the two formulations of "foreseeability" illustrates the [obviously] dissimilar content'.[100]

It is worth mentioning that under Art. 74 CISG 'the foreseeability of the loss must be judged from the view-point of the party in breach'[101] and of that party alone,[102] 'whereas at common law foreseeability is determined by what is in the "reasonable contemplation of the parties"'.[103] It should be noted, however, 'that more recent English decisions, although still always referring to Hadley v. Baxendale, essentially focus on examining foreseeability only on the side of the party [in breach]. Despite some uncertainty, a similar tendency can be observed in American judicial practice as well and the UCC specifically provides this very rule'.[104] [page 29]

Moreover, while Art. 74 CISG refers to the 'foreseeability' of damages; the original rule in Hadley v. Baxendale requires their 'contemplation'.[105] There is a difference in the meaning behind these different expressions,[106] which impacts the limitation of recoverable damages. In effect, 'a rule that provides that damages only need to be "foreseeable" surely ought to narrow the limitations of Hadley and widen the scope of recovery'.[107]

Additionally, Art. 74 CISG limits recovery to those damages which the party in breach 'knew or ought to have known as a possible consequence of the breach',[108] while the (original) rule in Hadley v. Baxendale limits recovery of lost profits to those that were 'in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach'.[109] 'Thus, [under the CISG] a claimant need not show awareness that the loss was a "probable result" or a substantial probability'.[110] 'This means that the breaching party ought to be liable for a greater range of consequential damages under the CISG (those that were foreseeable as a "possible" consequence of the breach) than under the common law or UCC (only those that were foreseeable as a "probable" consequence of the breach)'.[111] To put it differently, 'Hadley's [original] [page 30] "probable result" limitation is much more restrictive than the "possible consequence" limitation of Art. 74'.[112]

Given the aforementioned differences that unequivocally show that the rules on limitation of damages set forth in Art. 74 CISG and in Hadley v. Baxendale are rather different, only one overall conclusion can be drawn: in interpreting Art. 74 CISG 'U.S. judges should try [much harder] to divorce themselves from the influence of [their domestic law, such as] Hadley as much as possible'.[113]

4. HOMEWARD TREND IN CISG CASE LAW: A SECOND EXAMPLE

CISG case law also provides examples of the other variation of the homeward trend, i.e., the tendency to interpret the Convention in a way that permits the court 'to arrive, if possible, at the application of domestic law'.[114] These examples relate to the interpretation of Art. 6 CISG, the provision which allows the parties to exclude the CISG's applicability and, thus, sets forth the CISG's dispositive nature [115] -- also emphasised in case law [116] -- as well as the 'central role which party autonomy plays in international commerce and, particularly, in international sales'.[117] [page 31]

In case law, there is a dispute as to whether this provision requires the parties to expressly exclude the CISG's applicability or whether it allows them to implicitly exclude it. This dispute arises from the fact that Art. 3 Ulis, the 'direct predecessor'[118] of Art. 6 CISG, expressly stated that its exclusion could also be agreed upon implicitly,[119] but this express reference to the possibility of implicit exclusion was not retained by the drafters of the CISG,[120] despite some attempts made at the Vienna Diplomatic Conference to reintroduce it.[121]

US courts, for instance, consistently [122] exclude the possibility for parties to implicitly [page 32] opt-out of the CISG, holding that, '[w]hile the parties to a contract may exclude the applicability of the CISG, any such exclusion must be explicit'.[123] It is therefore not surprising that U.S. courts have stated, for instance, that the choice of the law of a contracting State to the CISG requires courts to 'uphold application of the Convention as the law of the designated Contracting State'[124] or that 'merely referring to a particular state's law does not opt out of the CISG'.[125]

What is surprising, however, is the fact that various U.S. courts [126] have held that where the parties choose to be bound by the Uniform Commercial Code, the CISG does not apply. This solution is irreconcilable with the express opt-out agreement required, among others, by those very same courts. It can only be explained by the aforementioned lex forism, i.e., that variation of the homeward trend that favours an interpretation that will lead to the application of the law of the forum.

At this point, it is worth mentioning that the view held by U.S. courts, pursuant to which parties must expressly opt-out of the CISG for it not to apply, is not shared by many courts [127] or commentators.[128] The majority of courts [129] and commentators [130] [page 33] (correctly) [131] hold that under the CISG the exclusion does not always have to be expressly agreed upon.[132] This conclusion is based, in part, on the fact that on the occasion of the CISG's drafting 'the majority of delegations was [...] opposed to the proposal according to which a total or partial exclusion of the Convention could only be made "expressly"'.[133] Consequently, the lack of an express reference to the possibility of an implicit exclusion must not be regarded as precluding such possibility.[134] Rather, it has a different meaning: to discourage courts from too easily inferring an 'implied' exclusion or derogation.[135] Thus, an implicit exclusion of the CISG is possible,[136] and has been confirmed by very many courts.[137] Of course, for the [page 34] CISG to be implicitly excluded there must be clear indications that the parties really wanted such an exclusion.[138] There must be a real -- as opposed to theoretical, fictitious or hypothetical -- agreement of the parties,[139] as is supported by case law.[140]

The issue then becomes how the parties can implicitly exclude the CISG.[141] In light of the legislative history,[142] most courts and commentators agree that while the parties may implicitly exclude the CISG by choosing the law of a non-contracting State as the [page 35] law governing their contract,[143] the parties' choice of the law of a contracting State as the governing law does not per se amount to an (implicit) exclusion of the CISC.[144] Of course, where it can be discerned either from the choice of law clause itself or the circumstances that the purely domestic law of a Contracting State is intended to govern the contract, the CISG will not apply.[145] According to an Italian arbitral tribunal,[146] however, the parties' agreement to exclusively apply 'Italian law' amounted to an implicit exclusion of the CISG, even where no reference to Italy's purely domestic law had been made. This overly simplistic interpretation of Art. 6 CISG is nothing but a manifestation -- by the arbitral tribunal with its seat in Italy and composed of three Italian arbitrators -- of lex forism. [page 36]

In discussing the possibility of implicitly excluding the CISG, the question has been raised whether the CISG is implicitly excluded where the parties argue a case on the sole basis of the substantive law of the forum. In this author's opinion,[147] the mere fact that the parties argue on the sole basis of a domestic law does not per se lead to the exclusion of the CISG,[148] which is a view also held by many courts.[149] It is only where it can be derived from the briefs or from other circumstances that the parties were aware of the CISG's applicability, can the fact that they have based their briefs solely on the purely domestic law of the forum be considered as an implicit exclusion. One Italian court stated this very clearly: 'The fact that during the preliminary legal proceedings in this case the parties based their arguments exclusively on Italian domestic law without any references to the CISG cannot be considered an implicit manifestation of an intent to exclude application of the Convention [...]. Reference in a party's brief to the non-uniform national law of a Contracting State -- even though it is theoretically some evidence of an intent to choose the national law of that State -- does not imply the automatic exclusion of the CISG. One has to assume that the parties wanted to exclude the application of the Convention only if it appears in an unequivocal way that they recognised its applicability and they nevertheless insisted on referring only to national, non-uniform law. In the present case, it does not appear from the parties' arguments that they realised that the CISG was the applicable law [...]; we cannot, therefore, conclude that they implicitly wanted to exclude the [page 37] application of the Convention by choosing to refer exclusively to national Italian law'.[150]

The French Supreme Court, however, takes a completely different view.[151] It consistently compares the pleadings of the parties on the sole basis of the French Civil Code to an implicit exclusion of the CISG, and does so independently of whether there are any indications as to whether the parties were aware of the CISG's applicability. This is probably the best example of a court's tendency to read the CISG in a way that allows the court ultimately to apply its own substantive law.

5. THE HOMEWARD TREND OVERCOME

Even though it has been suggested that there are many courts that succumb to the homeward trend,[152] the situation is not really that grim. There are many decisions that comply with the obligation to have regard for the CISG's international character and avoid resorting to domestic concepts to interpret the CISG. This is also true in the U.S., as can easily be derived from some U.S. decisions. In St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. et al. v. Neuromed Medical Systems & Support GmbH, et al.,[153] for instance, it is stated that 'the CISG aims to bring uniformity to international business transactions, using simple, non-nation specific language', a statement that is clearly incompatible with the homeward trend. In MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino, S.p.A.,[154] the need to refrain from reading domestic concepts into the CISG is addressed more directly, as it states that 'courts applying the CISG cannot [...] substitut[e] familiar principles of domestic law when the Convention requires a different result.' This line of reasoning constitutes the basis for other US court decisions too, such as Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc.,[155] stating that 'UCC case law is not per se applicable to cases governed by the CISG'[156] and Calzaturificio Claudia S.n.c. v. Olivieri Footwear Ltd.,[157] where it is [page 38] expressly stated that 'although the CISG is similar to the UCC with respect to certain provisions, it differs from the UCC with respect to others, including the UCC's writing requirement for a transaction for the sale of goods and parole evidence rule. Where controlling provisions are inconsistent, it would be inappropriate to apply UCC case law in construing contracts under the CISG.'

European courts as well have complied with the obligation not to interpret the CISG in the light of domestic law, but rather by having regard for its international character. In a Swiss case from 1993,[158] a court of first instance even expressly stated that the CISG 'is supposed to be interpreted autonomously and not out of the perspective of the respective national law of the forum. Thus, [...] it is generally not decisive whether the Convention is formally applied as particularly this or that national law, as it is to be interpreted autonomously and with regard to its international character.' An express reference to the need to interpret the CISG "autonomously" can also be found in a more recent Swiss case [159] as well as in a Spanish case,[160] an Austrian one [161] and various recent Italian court decisions rendered by the Tribunale di Padova in 2005 and 2004 [162] as well as by the Tribunale di Modena.[163]

While there are some courts in Germany that have simply referred to the need to interpret the CISG by having regard for its international character and to the need to [page 39] promote its uniform application,[164] other courts have gone further. In 1996, the German Supreme Court, for instance, expressly stated that 'the CISG is different from German domestic law, whose provisions and special principles are, as a matter of principle, inapplicable for the interpretation of the CISG (Art. 7 CISG).'[165] It is this reasoning that has led the Court of Appeal of Karlsruhe to state that 'German legal concepts such as "Fehler" and "zugesicherte Eigenschafteri" are therefore not transferable to the CISG'.[166] More recently, in 2005, the German Supreme Court stated that 'insofar as the Court of Appeals refers to [various German] judgments [...] in analysing the question whether, at the time the risk passed, the delivered meat conformed to the contract within the meaning of Arts. 35, 36 CISG, it ignored the fact that these decisions were issued before the CISG went into effect in Germany and refer to 459 BGB [...]. The principles developed there cannot simply be applied to the case at hand, although the factual position -- suspicion of foodstuffs in transborder trade being hazardous to health -- is similar; that is so because, in interpreting the provisions of CISG, we must consider its international character and the necessity to promote its uniform application and the protection of goodwill in international trade (Art. 7(1) CISG)'.[167]

Arbitral tribunals have also referred to the need to take into account the CISG's international character. In one instance, an arbitral tribunal, after answering the question of whether Art. 35(2)(a) CISG obliges the seller to deliver goods of average or reasonable quality, stated that its solution 'complies with Article 7(1) CISG imposing to take into account the international character of CISG and its reluctance to rely immediately on notions based on domestic law'.[168]

6. CONCLUSION

As the foregoing Part shows, there are courts that do not fall into the trap of the 'homeward trend' that 'induces tribunals both to ignore non-domestic law and assume that 'international' interpretations reflect domestic ones'.[169] However, as long as the homeward trend comes 'naturally'[170] to interpreters, i.e., as long as interpreters cannot [page 40] 'purge [their] minds of presuppositions derived from domestic traditions',[171] the uniformity aimed at by the drafters of the CISG is as much at risk as its success, at least if one uses the level of uniformity reached as a measure of that success.[172] But how to avoid the 'gravitational pull of the "homeward trend"?'[173] Some of the reasons that may ultimately favour the homeward trend under the CISG are intrinsically linked to the CISG itself and, therefore, cannot be corrected, as it is unlikely that the CISG will ever be revised to amend the current situation. This is true, for instance, as regards the 'vague standards [that] pervade the CISG'.[174] The very fact that the CISG uses (a lot of) vague standards [175] facilitates recourse to domestic standards for interpretive purposes [176] much more than a text that is more specific and contains itself a number of definitions.[177] In effect, the more a uniform law instrument spells out its [page 41] own terms, the harder it will be for an interpreter to read domestic legal concepts into it. Also, because the CISG is the result of many compromises,[178] there are 'ambiguities inherent in the CISG provisions themselves'[179] which also open the door to resort to domestic preconceptions.

What, then, can be done to avoid the homeward trend, given that an amendment of the CISG does not appear to be an option? Of course, if, as suggested, resort to one's own legal background comes naturally [180] (due to an unconscious process),[181] recourse to 'background assumptions and conceptions that are embedded in judges and lawyers during their intellectual formation'[182] cannot be avoided. This does not mean, however, that nothing can be done to correct the homeward trend's disruptive effect on the uniformity aimed at by the CISG. In this author's opinion, the key to the solution lies in a change of those background assumptions and conceptions. If interpreters are from the outset, i.e., during their intellectual formation, made aware of the fact that they operate in a legal system that is composed of various layers of sales law rules, of which the CISG is one, and that these layers are to be distinguished because they differ from each other, when -- naturally -- resorting to their background assumptions and conceptions, interpreters will also resort to the CISG. In other words, the CISG has to become part of domestic background assumptions and conceptions in order for the disruptive effect of the natural resort to domestic background assumptions and conceptions to be overcome. For this result to be reached, law school curricula [183] as well as textbooks will have to be changed to incorporate the study of the CISG. This, of course, will not be easy, and therefore it will still take some time before the disruptive effects of the homeward trend visible today are fully overcome. [page 42]


FOOTNOTES

* Professor of International Law, Verona University School of Law; Inge Rennert Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; this paper is an updated version of a paper first published in (2009) Internationales Handelsrecht 8.

1. See Riese, O., "Einheitliche Gerichtsbarkeit für vereinheitlichtes Recht" (1961) RabelsZ 604, at pp. 607 ff; Zweigert, K., "Die Rechtsvergleichung im Dienste der europäischen Rechtsvereinheitlichung" (1951) RabelsZ. 387, at p. 395.

2. Andersen, C, "The Uniform International Sales Law and the Global Jurisconsultorium" (2005) 24 Journal of Law and Commerce (J. L. & Com.) 159, at p. 162; see also Martiny, D., "Autonome und einheitliche Auslegung im Europäischen ZivilprozeBrecht" (1981) RabelsZ, at p. 427; McMahon, A., "Differentiating between Internal and External Gaps in the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Proposed Method for Determining "Governed by" in the Context of Article 7(2)" (2006) 44 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 992, at p. 999; Rudolf, C, Einheitsrecht für Internationale Forderungsabtretungen, 2006, Mohr Siebeck, at p. 11; Ryan, L. M., "The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Divergent Interpretations" (1995) 4 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 99, at p. 101; Sturley, M. F., "International Uniform Law in National Courts: The Influence of Domestic Law in Conflicts of Interpretation" (1989) 27 Va. J. Int'l L. 729, at p. 731.

3. Munday, R. J. C, "The Uniform Interpretation of International Conventions" (1978) 27 ICLQ 450, at p. 450; for similar statements, see, more recently, Andersen, C, "Furthering the Uniform Application of the CISG Sources of Law on the Internet", (1998) 10 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 403, at p. 404 (stating that 'uniformity does not follow automatically from a proclamation of uniform rules. Uniformity is a difficult goal to achieve, as uniform words do not always ensure uniform results, especially where a Convention is in effect throughout countries with completely differing social, economic, and cultural backgrounds, and perhaps most significantly, different legal systems'); Duncan, J., "Nachfrist was Ist? Thinking Globally and Acting Locally: Considering Time Extension Principles of the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods in Revising the Uniform Commercial Code" (2000) Brigham Young Law Review (B.Y. L. Rev.) 1363, at p. 1368 (stating the same).

4. It has often been stated that it is only possible to reduce the danger of diverging interpretations; it is not possible to eliminate it as such; see, e.g., Lookofsky, J. M., Consequential Damages in Comparative Context, 1989, Djoef Publishing, Copenhagen, at p. 294.

5. Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] A.C. 446, at p. 471.

6. For similar statements see Ferrari, F., La vendita internazionale. Applicabilità ed applicazioni della Convenzione di Vienna del 1980, 2nd ed., 2006, Cedam, Padua, at pp. 10 ff.

7. See the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, reprinted in (1980) 19 International Legal Materials (ILM) 668 ff.

8. Many abbreviations have been used for the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods; for a court decision listing several ones, see Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, 20 April 1994, available in English at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/125.htm>. For an overview in legal writing of the various abbreviations, see Flessner, A. and Kadner, T., "CISG? Zur Suche nach einer Abkürzung für das Wiener Übereinkommen über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf" (2005) ZEuP 347 ff.

9. Article 7(1) CISG.

10. See Art. 18 of the EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, reprinted in (1980) 19 ILM 1492, at p. 1496.

11. See Art. 4 of the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring, reprinted in (1988) 27 ILM 943, at p. 945; Art. 6 of the UNIDROIT Convention on International Financial Leasing, reprinted in (1988) 27 ILM 931, at p. 933.

12. See, e.g., Tribunale di Forlì, 11 December 2008, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081211i3.html>; Tribunale di Modena, 9 December 2005, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/1398.pdf>; Oberster Gerichtshof, 23 May 2005, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050523a3.html>; Bundesgerichtshof, 2 March 2005, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050302g1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Audiencia Provincial de Valencia, 7 June 2003, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030607s4.html>; Handelsgericht Aargau, 26 September 1997, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970926s1.html>; Gerichtspräsident Laufen, 7 May 1993, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930507s1.html>.

13. See, e.g., Audit, B., La vente internationale de marchandises, 1990, L. G. D. J., Paris, at p. 47; Bonell, M. J., "La nouvelle Convention des Nations-Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de merchandiseuse" (1981) Dr. pr. comm. int. 7, at p. 14; Diedrich, F., "Maintaining Uniformity in International Uniform Law via Autonomous Interprétation: Software Contracts under the CISG" (1996) 8 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 303, at p. 303; Ferrari, F., "Interpretation uniforme de la Convention de Vienne de 1980 sur la vente internationale" (1996) Rev. int. dr. comp. 813, at p. 827; Hager, G., "Zur Auslegung des UN-Kaufrechts - Grundsätze und Methoden" in Baums, T. and Wertenbruch, J. (eds.), Festschrift für Ulrich Huber zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, 2006, Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, 319, at p. 320; Karollus, M., UN-Kaufrecht. Eine systematische Darstellung für Studium und Praxis, 1991, Springer-Verlag, Vienna/New York, at p. 11; Magnus, U., Wiener UN-Kaufrecht - CISG, 2005, Gruyler, Berlin, at p. 171; Najork, E., Treu und Glauben im CISG, 2000, Universitätsverlag, Bonn, at p. 53; Schmitt, H. F., "Intangible Goods" in Online-Kaufverträgen und der Anwendungsberich des CISG" (2001) CuR 145, at p. 147.

14. See, among others, Achilles, W-A., Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrechtsübereinkommen (CISG), 2000, Kriftel, Neuwied, at p. 28; Bonell, M. J., "Commento all'art. 7 della Convenzione di Vienna", (1989) Nuove Leggi civili commentate (Nuove Leggi civ. comm.) 21, at p. 21; Felemegas, J., "The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Article 7 and Uniform Interpretation" (2000/2001) Review of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (Rev. CISG) 115, at p. 235; Hackney, P., "Is the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods Achieving Uniformity?" (2001) 61 La. L. Rev. 473, at p. 475; Jametti Greiner, M., "Der Vertragsabschluss", in Hoyer, H. and Posch, W. (eds.), Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht, 1992, Orac, Vienna, at p. 57; Liguori, L., "La convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale di beni mobili nella pratica: un'analisi critica delle prime cento decisioni" (1996) Foro it. 145, at p. 148; Saenger, I., in Ferrari, F., et al. (eds.), Internationales Vertragsrecht, 2007, C. H. Beck, Munich, Art. 7 CISG No. 2; Torsello, M., Common Features of Uniform Commercial Law Conventions. A Comparative Study Beyond the 1980 Uniform Sales Law, 2004, European Law Publishers, Munich, at p. 18; Vazquez Lepinette, T., "The interpretation of the 1980 Vienna Convention on International Sales" (1995) Dir. comm. internaz. 377, at p. 387.

15. See Honnold, J., "The Sales Convention in Action -- Uniform International Words: Uniform Applications?" (1988) 8 J. L. & Com. 207, at p. 208; where the author states that 'one threat to international uniformity in interpretation is a natural tendency to read the international text through the lenses of domestic law'. See also Babiak, A., "Defining 'Fundamental Breach' under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (1992) 6 Temple Int'l & Comp. L. J. 113, at p. 117; Kolosky, M., "Beyond Partisan Policy: The Eleventh Circuit Lays Aside the Parol Evidence Rule in Pursuit of International Uniformity in Commercial Regulation" (1998) 24 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 199, at p. 200; Komarov, A. S., "Internationality, Uniformity and Observance of Good Faith as Criteria in Interpretation of CISG: Some Remarks on Article 7(1)" (2006) 25 J. L. & Com. 75, at p. 77; Schlechtriem, P., Internationales UN-Kaufrecht, 4th ed., 2007, Mohr, at p. 45.

16. In this respect see Murray, J. E., "The Neglect of CISG: A Workable Solution" (1998) 17 J. L. & Com. 365, at p. 367, stating that for a court it certainly is difficult to 'transcend its domestic perspective and become a different court that is no longer influenced by the law of its own nation state'; more recently see Dimatteo, L., et al., "The Interpretive Turn in International Sales Law: An Analysis of Fifteen Years of CISG Jurisprudence" (2004) 24 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 299, at p. 303.

17. See also Honnold, J., (3rd. ed.), Uniform Law for International Sales under the United Nations Convention, 1999, Kluwer Law International Deventer, at p. 89: stating that 'the reading of a legal text in the light of the concepts of our domestic legal system [is] an approach that would violate the requirement that the Convention be interpreted with regard to its international character'. For similar statements, albeit without particular reference to the CISG, see Bernstein, H., "International Contracts in European Courts: Jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention" (1996) 11 Tul. Eur. & Civ. L. Forum 31, at p. 36. For a similar statement in case law, albeit without specific reference to the CISG, see: Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines [1980] 2 All E. R. 696 (H.L.), [1980] W.L.R. 209; Corte di Cassazione, 24 June 1968, Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (Riv. dir int priv e proc.) 1969,914.

18. See the decision by the Gerichtspräsident Laufen, 7 May 1993, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930507s1.html>.

19. For this expression see Bonell, M. J., supra fn 13, at p. 14.

20. The danger of forum shopping as a result of diverging interpretations by courts from different countries has also been referred to by Honnold, J., supra fn 17, at p. 95, where the author states that '[t]he settlement of disputes would be complicated and litigants would be encouraged to engage in forum shopping if the courts of different countries persist in divergent interpretations of the Convention'.

21. For a reference to the CISG's goal of reducing forum shopping, see, e.g., Burkart, F., Interpretatives Zusammenwirken von CISG und UNIDROIT Principles, 2000, Nomos, Baden-Baden, at p. 8; De Ly, F., "Opting out: some Observations on the Occasion of the CISG's 25th anniversary" in Ferrari, F. (ed.), Quo Vadis CISG? Celebrating the 25' anniversary of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 2005, European Law Publishers, Munich, 25, at p. 37; Dore, I. I., "Choice of Law under the International Sales Convention: A U.S. Perspective" (1983) 77 Am. J. Int'l L. 521, at p. 532; Erauw, J., "Wanneer is het Weens Koopverdrag van toepassing?" in van Houtte, H. et al. (eds.), Het Weens Koopverdrag, 1997, Intersentia, Antwerpen/Groningen, 21, at p. 23; Klepper, C. D., "The Convention for the International Sale of Goods: A Practical Guide for the State of Maryland and Its Trade Community" (1991) 15 Md. J. Int'l L. & Trade 235, at p. 237; Sambugaro, G., "Exclusion of the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention: Does Recent US Case Law Open the door to Forum Shopping?" (2007) IHR 231, at p. 236.

22. For a discussion of the interpretation of uniform law conventions in general (as opposed to a discussion of the interpretation of the CISG), see Bariatti, S., L'interpetazione delle convenzioni internazionali di diritto uniforme, 1986, CEDAM, Padua; Trompenaars, B., Pluriforme unificatie en uniforme interpretatie -- in het bijzonder de bijdrage van UNCITRAL aan de Internationale unificatie van het privaatrecht, 1989, Kluwer Law International, Deventer.

23. Note, however, that according to Salama, S., "Pragmatic Responses to Interpretive Impediments: Article 7 of the CISG, An Inter-American Application" (2006) 28 U. Mia. Int-Am. L. Rev. 225, at p. 232: 'a methodological approach that discounts the use of analogies to domestic legal concepts seems impractical if not impossible. In particular, a judge looking to interpret a provision needs some frame of reference to assist in understanding that provision'.

24. For this conclusion, see also Herber, R. and Czerwenka, G. B., Internationales Kaufrecht. Kommentar zu dem Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom II. April 1980 iiber Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf, 1991, C. H. Beck, Munich, at p. 47. For somewhat different conclusions, see, Van der Velden, F. J. A., "Indications of the Interpretation by Dutch Courts of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" in Gerver, P. H. M., Hondius E. H. and Steenhoff G. J. W. (eds.), Netherlands Reports to the Twelfth International Congress of Comparative Law: Sydney-Melbourne 1986, 1987, T. M. C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, 21, at pp. 33-34 (stating that where the source of uniform law is to be found in a specific national law, recourse to a domestic interpretation is a logical aid to the interpretation of the uniform law); Mann, F. A., "Uniform Statutes in English Law" (1983) 99 LQR 376, at p. 383 (stating that '[i]t is simply common sense that if the Convention adopts a phrase which appears to have been taken from one legal system [...] where it is used in a specific sense, the international legislators are likely to have had that sense in mind and to intend its introduction into the Convention').

25. See Ferrari, F., "The Relationship between the UCC and the CISG and the Construction of Uniform Law" (1996) 29 Loy. LA L. Rev. 1021, at p. 1026.

26. For this statement, see also Lanciotti, A., Norme uniformi di conflitto e materiali nella disciplina convenzionale della compravendita, 1992, Scientifiche Italiane, Naples, at p. 287.

27. The presumed neutrality of the language employed by the drafters of the CISG has been referred to, e.g., Bonell, M. J., "Art. 7" in Bianca, C. M. and Bonell, M. J. (eds.), Commentary on the International Sales Law, 1987, Giuffre, Milan, at p. 74 ('[w]hen drafting the single provisions these experts had to find sufficiently neutral language on which they could reach a common understanding'). For similar statements, see more recently, Bridge, M., "A Law of International Sale of Goods" (2007) 37 Hong Kong L. J. 17, at p. 40; Butler, P., "Celebrating Anniversaries" (2005) 37 Vict. U. Wellington L. Rev. 775, at p. 777; Spaic, A., "Approaching Uniformity in International Sales Law Through Autonomous Interpretation" (2007) 11 Vindobona Journal 237, at pp. 242 ff; Zeller, B., "International Trade Law -- Problems of Language and Concepts?" (2003) 23 J. L. & Com. 39, at p. 39; see also the statement by UNCITRAL itself to be found in U.N. document A/CN.9/562, at p. 1: 'The drafters of the Convention took special care in avoiding the use of legal concepts typical of a given legal tradition'.

28. See, e.g., Kropholler, J., Internationales Einheitsrecht. Allgemeine Lehren, 1974, J. C. B. Mohr, Hamburg, at p. 265.

29. Benedetti, G., "Commento all'art. 4 della Convenzione di Vienna sui contratti di vneidta internazionale di beni mobili" (1989) Nuove Leggi civili commentate (Nuove Leggi civ. comm.) 9, at p. 9.

30. Diedrich, F., (1996) 8 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 303, at p. 310, even states that 'the text of the CISG consists of unique, supranational collective terms formed out of compromises between state delegates based on several systems of laws'. For further statements stressing that the CISG constitutes a compromise, see Diederichsen, E., "Commentary to Journal of Law & Commerce Case I, Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M." (1995) 14 J. L. & Com. 177, at p. 177; Ferrari, F., "Uniform Interpretation of the 1980 Uniform Sales Law" (1994) 24 Ga. J. Int'l & Com. L. 183, at p. 201; Koneru, P. "The International Interpretation of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: An Approach Based on General Principles" (1997) 6 Mn. J. Global Trade 105, at p. 105; Salama, S., (2006) 28 U. Miami Int-Am L. Rev. 225, at p. 232; Selden, B. S., "Lex Mercatoria in European and U.S. Trade Practice: Time to Take a Closer Look" (1995) 2 Ann. Surv. Int'l & Comp. L. 111, at p. 121.

31. See also Enderlein, F., Maskow, D. and Strohbach, H., Internationales Kaufrecht: Kaufrechtskonvention. Verjährungskonvention. Vertretungskonvention. Rechtsanwendungskonvention, 1991, Haufe, Berlin, at p. 61; Herber, R., "Art. 7" in Schlechtriem, P. and von Caemmerer, E. (eds.), Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, 2nd ed., 1995, C. H. Beck, Munich at p. 94.

32. See Honnold, J., supra fn 17, at p. 89.

33. For this conclusion, see Achilles, W-A., supra fn 14, at p. 29; Ferrari, F., "Art. 7", in Schlechtriem, P. and Schwenzer, 1. (eds.), Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht - CISG, 4th ed., 2004, C. H. Beck, Munich, at p. 142; Magnus, U., supra fn 13, at p. 171.

34. See Rockwell, M. B., "Choice of Law in International Products Liability: Internationalizing the Choice" (1992-1993) 16 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 69, at p. 74.

35. See Diedrich, F., (1996) 8 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 303, at p. 304 (stating that the homeward trend 'puts a uniform application of International Uniform Law at risk'); Tuggey, T. N., "The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Will a Homeward Trend Emerge" (1985-1986) 21 Tex. Intl L. J. 540, at p. 554 (stating that '[i]f such a [homeward] trend emerges and remains uncorrected it would defeat the purposes of the CISG in a manner equal to a simple failure on the part of many nations to ratify the Convention').

36. In this respect, see, e.g., Malloy, S. A., "The Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts: Another Piece of the Puzzle of the Law Applicable to International Contracts" (1995) 19 Fordham Int'l L. J. 662. at p. 667 fn 17.

37. Preamble CISG.

38. Larson, M. G., "Applying Uniform Sales Law to International Software Transactions: The Use of the CISG, its Shortcomings, and a Comparative Look at How the Proposed U.C.C. Article 2B Would Remedy Them" (1996) 5 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 445, at p. 459.

39. Halverson Cross, K., "Parol Evidence Under the CISG: The 'Homeward Trend' Reconsidered" (2007) 68 Ohio St. L J. 133, at p. 138.

40. Ibid.

41. See Bridge, M., "A Comment on 'Towards a Universal Doctrine of Breach' -- The Impact of the CISG by Jürgen Basedow" (2005) 25 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ. 501, at p. 501.

42. Legitimizing the CISG on different grounds, see Gillette, C. P and Scott, R. E., "The Political Economy of International Sales" (2005) 25 Int'l Rev. L & Econ. 446, at pp. 447 ff.

43. See also Povrzenic, N. "Interpretation and Gap-Filling under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods", available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/gap-fill.html>.

44. See Halverson Cross, K., (2007) 68 Ohio St. L. J. 138, stating that 'the propensity of U.S. courts to interpret the Convention in light of domestic legal traditions may ameliorate the tendency of U.S. parties to opt out of the CISG.'

45. For a recent analysis of the relationship between the CISG and choice of forum, see Ferrari, F., "Choice of Forum and CISG; Remarks on the Latter's Impact on the Former" in Flechtner, H., Brand, R. A. and Walter, M. S. (eds.), Drafting Contracts Under the CISG, 2007, Oxford University Press, Oxford, at pp. 103 ff.

46. See also Gillette, C. P and Scott, R. E., supra fn 42, at p. 454, stating that '[i]f the problem solving objective of a uniform [International Sales Law] is not met, therefore, the product will be linguistically uniform upon enactment, but the parties subsequently will either abandon the law entirely or opt-out of disfavoured provisions thus undermining even the initial benefits of the standard terms'.

47. See Rockwell, M. B., (1992-1993) 16 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 69, at p. 74, stating that courts should have ways 'to enable them to avoid the temptations, and [...] unpredictability, of the homeward trend'.

48. See, e.g., Fountoulakis, C, "The Parties' Choice of 'Neutral Law' in International Sales Contracts" Eur. J. L. Ref. 303, at p. 314, stating that '[t]he CISG is neutral law by nature. Neither party has a particular advantage when applying it; the parties are quasi on the same "level playing field"'. For similar statements, see De Ly, F., supra fn 21, at p. 36 f.; McNamara, T., "U.N. Sale of Goods Convention: Finally Coming of Age?" (2003) 32 Feb. Colorado Lawyer (Colo. Law.) 11, at p. 20; Nakata, G. K., "Filanto S.p.A. v. Chilewich Intl Corp.: Sounds of Silence Bellow Forth under the CISG's International Battle of the Forms" (1994) 7 Transnat'l Law. 141, at p. 144.

49. See Mancuso, S., "Trends on the Harmonization on Contract Law in Africa" (2007) 13 Ann. Surv. Int'l & Comp. L. 157, at p. 158 (stating that 'following a single set of rules, instead of having to consider various state laws, is more efficient, reduces transaction costs, and thus facilitates the development of economic activities'); see also Beline, T., "Legal Defect Protected by Article 42 of the CISG: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" (2007) 7 U. Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 6, at p. 6; Berman, P. S., "Global Legal Pluralism" (2007) 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1155, at p. 1190; Cranston, R., "Theorizing Transnational Commercial Law" (2007) 42 Tex. Int'l L. J. 597, at p. 601; Pavkovic, K., "Estonia: A Model for Success in Transition Economies" (2007) 19 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L. J. 531, at p. 534.

50. See, Knieper, R., "Celebrating Success by Accession to CISG" (2006) 25 J.L. & Com. 477, at p. 478; Meyer, L., "Soft Law for Solid Contracts? A Comparative Analysis of the Value of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the Principles of European Contract Law to the Process of Contract Law Harmonization" (2006) 34 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y) 119, at p. 122 f.; Ubertaite, E., "Application of the CISG in the United States" (2005) 7 Eur. J.L. Reform 277, at p. 280. See, however, Cuniberti, G., "Is the CISG Benefiting Anybody?" (2006) 39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1511 ff; arguing that the CISG does not really reduce costs.

51. Flechtner, H. and Lookofsky, J., "Nominating Manfred Forberich: The Worst CISG Decision in 25 Years?" (2005) 9 Vindobona Journal 199, at p. 203; see also Salama, S., (2006) 38 U. Mia. Int-Am. L. Rev. 225, at p. 231 ff, stating that '[t]he "homeward trend" as a method of interpretation in the United States remains one of the greatest obstacles to the creation of a foreign law based jurisprudence for the CISC'

52. Flechtner, H. and Lookofsky, J., "Viva Zapata! American Procedure and CSIG Substance in a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal" (2003) 7 Vindobona Journal 93, at p. 103.

53. See also Murray, J. E., (1998) 17 J.L & Com. 365, at p. 367, stating that courts have to 'transcend [their] domestic perspective and become a different court that is no longer influenced by the law of [their] own nation state.'

54. See Flechtner, H., "Recovering Attorneys' Fees as Damages under the U.N. Sales Convention: A Case Study on the New International Commercial Practice and the Role of Case Law in CISG Jurisprudence, with Comments on Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. v. Hearthside Baking Co." (2002) 22 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 121, at p. 122 ('probably the most significant threat to the values embraced in Article 7(1)'); see also Thompson, D. A., "Buyer Beware: German Interpretation of the CISG has led to Results Unfavourable to Buyers" (2000) 19 J.L. & Com. 245, at p. 254 ('arguably one of the greatest barriers to uniformity').

55. For mere references to the homeward trend, without any attempts to define it, see, e.g., Birch, R., "Article 44 of the U.N. Sales Convention (CISG): A possible divergence in interpretation by courts from the original intent of the framers of the compromise" (2006) 4 Regent J. Int'l L. 1, at p. 14; Komarov, A. S., (2006) 25 J. L & Com. 75, at p. 77; Mazzotta, F., "Why Do Some American Courts Fail to Get it Right?" (2005) 3 Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L Rev. 85, at p. 115; McQuillen, M., "The Development of a Federal CISG Common Law in US Courts: Patterns of Interpretation and Citation" (2007) 61 U. Mia. L Rev. 509, at p. 536; Williams, A., "Limitations on Uniformity in International Sales Law: A Reasoned Argument for the Application of a Standard Limitation Period under the Provisions of the CISG" (2006) 10 Vindobona Journal 229, at p. 250.

56. Salama, S., (2006) 38 U. Mia. Int-Am. L. Rev. 225, at p. 231.

57. Flechtner, H. and Lookofsky, J., supra fn 51, at p. 203. For similar definitions, see Keily, T., "Good Faith and the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)" (1999) 3 Vindobona Journal 15, at p. 19; Nottage, L., "Who's Afraid of the Vienna Sales Convention (CISG)? A New Zealander's View from Australia and Japan" (2005) 36 Vict. U. Wellington L Rev. 815, at p. 838; Walt, S., "The CISG's Expansion Bias: A Comment on Franco Ferrari" (2005) 25 Int'l Rev. L & Econ. 342, at p. 348; Whittington, N., "Comment on Professor Schwenzer's Paper" (2005) 36 Vict. U. Wellington L Rev. 809, at p. 811.

58. Honnold, J., "The Sales Convention in Action -- Uniform International Words: Uniform Application?" (1998) 8 J.L. & Com. 207, at p. 208.

59. Honnold, J., Documentary History of the Uniform Law for International Sales: The studies, deliberations and decisions that led to the 1980 United Nations Convention with Introductions and Explanations, 1989, Kluwer Law International, Deventer, at p. 1; for this exact same definition, see also Hartnell, H. E., "Rousing the Sleeping Dog: The Validity Exception to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (1993) 18 Yale J. Int'l L. 1, at p. 47.

60. See the text accompanying supra fn 13.

61. See Andersen, C, (2005) 24 J. L. & Com. 159, at p. 169; Ferrari, F., "The CISG's Uniform Interpretation by Courts -- An Update" (2005) 9 Vindobona Journal 233, at p. 241; Flechtner, H., "The Several Texts of the CISG in a Decentralized System: Observations on Translations, Reservations and Other Challenges to the Uniformity Principle in Article 7(1)" (1998) 17 J.L.& Com. 187, at p. 205.

62. For the following remarks see, Ferrari, F. "La jurisprudence sur la CVIM: un nouveau défi pour les interprètes?" (1998) Int'l Bus. L. J., at pp. 497ff.

63. For this conclusion, see also Ferrari, F., "Do Courts Interpret the CISG Uniformly?", in Quo Vadis CISG?, supra fn 21, at p. 10.

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

65. For this statement see Enderlein, F. and Maskow, D., International Sales Law. United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods, 1992, Oceana, New York, at p. 370.

66. For this conclusion in case law, see Tribunale di Padova (Italy), 25 February 2004, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.

67. See the court decisions commented on by Ferrari, F., "Der Begriff des "internationalen Privatsrechts" nach Art. 1 Abs. 1 lit. b) des UN-Kaufrechts" (1998) Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 162ff; Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 8 January 1993, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930108g1.html>; Bezirksgericht Wien, 20 February 1992, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920220a3.html>; Landgericht Aachen, 3 April 1990, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/12.htm>.

68. Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at: < http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.

69. Ibid.

70. Ibid. For this statement, see also Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>.

71. Another concept to be interpreted domestically is that of 'party' to the contract (see Ferrari, F., (1998) Int'l Bus. L. J. 496 f.). Since the CISG itself is not concerned with agency (for this conclusion see, e.g., Oberlandesgericht Köln, 13 November 2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001113g1.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; Oberster Gerichtshof, 20 March 1997, (1997) Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRvgl) 204; Appellationsgericht Tessin, 12 February 1996, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960212s1.html>; Obergericht Kanton Thurgau, 19 December 1995, (2000) Schweizersche Zeitschrift für europäisches und Internationales Recht (SZIER) 118), the issue of who is party to the contract is 'to be solved on the basis of the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law of the forum', Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.

72. Rheinstein, M., "Methods of Legal Thought and Conflict of Laws" (1942-1943) 10 U. Chi. L. Rev. 466, at p. 475; for a reference to this kind of 'homeward trend', see also Akehurst, M., "Jurisdiction in International Law" (1972-1973) 46 Brit. Y. B. Int'l L. 145, at p. 185; Webb, P. R. H., "Some Thoughts on the Place of English Law as Lex Fori in English Private International Law" (1961) 10 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 818, at p. 818; Wong, "Case comment on Lee Cheuk v. Siu Wai-kin" (1972) 2 Hong Kong L. J. 222, at p. 222.

73. Kahn-Freund, O., "Commercial Arbitration and the Conflict of Laws: Recent Developments in England", (1972) 7 U. Brit. Colum. L. Rev. 155, at p. 165.

74. Lando, O., "Some Issues Relating to the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations" (1996-1997) 7 K.C. L. J. 55, at p. 57.

75. van Alstine, M. P., "Dynamic Treaty Interpretation" (1998) 146 U. Perm. L. Rev. 687, at p. 704.

76. See, e.g., Corte d'appello di Milano, 20 March 1998, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980320i3.html>, considered to be 'an example' of the homeward trend by DiMatteo, L., et al., (2004) 34 Nw. J. lnt'l L. & Bus. 299, at p. 303.

77. See also Salama, S., (2006) 38 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 225, at p. 225, stating that '[i]n practice it has been found that U.S. courts rely on the "homeward trend" more often than other judges in interpreting the CISC'

78. See, e.g., Schmitz-Werke GmbH & Co. v. Rockland Industries, Inc.; Rockland International FSC, Inc., U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (4th Circuit), 21 June 2002, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020621u1.html>, which 'disregarded CISG interpretive methodology and resorted to a homeward trend analysis', Dimatteo, L., et al., (2004) 24 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 299, at p. 398; see also Delchi Carrier S.p.A, v. Rotorex Corporation, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (2d. Cir.), 6 December 1995, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>, where 'the U.S. court rejected the application of international case law and instead looked to the UCC and its domestic interpretations for guidance'; Sheaffer, C, "The Failure of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and a Proposal for a New Uniform Global Code in International Sales Law" (2007) 15 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 461, at p. 477.

79. See Macromex S.r.l. v. Globex Intern., Inc., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 16 April 2008, 2008 WL 1752530 (S.D.N.Y.); Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al. v. Saint-Gobain Technical Fabrics Canada Limited, U.S. Federal District Court, Minnesota, 31 January 2007, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070131u1.html>; Genpharm Inc. v. Pliva-Lachema A.S., U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District Court of New York, 19 March 2005, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050319u1.html>; (stating also, however, that 'UCC case law is not per se applicable to cases governed by the CISC) Raw Materials Inc. v. Manfred Forberich GmbH & Co. KG, U.S. Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 6 July 2004, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040706u1.html>.

80. For this author's view on the matter, see Ferrari, F., "The Relationship between the UCC and the CISG and the Construction of Uniform Law" (1996) 29 hoy. LA L. Rev. 1021 ff.

81. See, e.g., Schmitz-Werke GmbH & Co. v. Rockland Industries, Inc.; Rockland International FSC, Inc., U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (4th Circuit), 21 June 2002, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020621u1.html>, surprisingly stating that 'case law interpreting provisions of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code that are similar to provisions in the CISG can also be helpful in interpreting the Convention', after having stated that the 'CISG directs that its interpretation be informed by its "international character and [...] the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade".' For similar statements, see, more recently, Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food Trading Co., et al., U.S. Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 21 May 2004, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040521u1.html>; for an earlier statement to the same effect, see Delchi Carrier S.p.A. v. Rotorex Corporation, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (2d. Cir.), 6 December 1995, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>.

82. Ehrenzweig, A. A., "Interstate and International Conflicts Law: A Plea for Segregation" (1956-1957) 41 Minn. L Rev. 717, at p. 723.

83. This does not exclude that the interpreter may draw inspiration from the reasoning to be found in domestic decisions concerning similar provisions; the interpreters may, however, not simply use domestic solutions to solve CISG issues.

84. TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 12 August 2006, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>.

85. See Ferrari, F., "Comparative Ruminations on the Foreseeability of Damages in Contract Law" (1993) 53 La. L. Rev. 1257ff; Ferrari, F., "Prevedibilita del danno e contemplation rule" (1993) Contr. impr. 760 ff.

86. Contra see, among others, Schlechtriem, P., "Uniform Sales Law in the Decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof", available in English at: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/schlechtriem3.html; van Houtte, H., The Law of International Trade, 1995, Sweet & Maxwell, London, at p. 146 fn 23.

87. See, e.g., Murphey, A. G., "Consequential Damages in Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Legacy of Hadley" (1989) 23 Wash. J. lnt'l L. & Econ. 415, at pp. 438 ff, referring to Restatement (Second) of Contracts 351 (1979) and UCC section 2-715(2).

88. See, apart from the decisions quoted in the following note, Jones v. George, 61 Tex. 345 (Tex. 1884) (stating that the rule is "largely drawn from the civil law"); Rumely Products Co. v. Moss, 175 S.W. 1084, 1088 (Tex.Civ.App. 1915) (stating that the Louisiana rule comparable to Hadley v. Baxendale 'and its modifications are taken from the Code Napoleon, 1149, 1150, which in turn are taken from Pothier on Obligations, Nos. 159, 160, who asserts that the rule is as old as the Roman law'); Manss-Owens Co. v. H.S. Owens & Son, 105 S.E. 543, 549 (Va. 1921) (stating that 'although the [Hadley v. Baxendale] rule is sometimes spoken of as having originated in that case, it is in reality an embodiment of civil-law principles, and is substantially a paraphrasing of the rule on the subject as it had been stated at an earlier date in the Code Napoleon, by Pothier'); Sinclair Refining Co. v. Hamilton & Dotson, 164 Va. 203, 209 (Va. 1935) (stating that 'the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale [...] is sometimes spoken of as having originated in that case, though it is in reality an embodiment of civil law principles, and is substantially a paraphrasing of a rule on the subject as it had been stated at an earlier date in the Code Napoleon, by Pothier').

89. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Hamilton & Dotson 164 Va. 203, 209 (Va. 1935).

90. Delchi Carrier S.p.A. v. Rotorex Corp., U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (2d. Cir.), 6 December 1995, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>.

91. Flechtner, H., "The CISG in U.S. Courts: The Evolution and Devolution of the Methodology of Interpretation", in Quo Vadis CISG?, supra fn 21, 91, at p. 103.

92. Murray, J. E., (1998) 17 J. L. & Com. 365, at pp. 371-372.

93. For critical remarks see also Cook, S. V., "The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Mandate to Abandon Legal Ethnocentricity" (1997) 16 J. L. & Com. 257, at p. 259 (stating that the Delchi court 'incorrectly assumed, without further investigation, that "the familiar principle of foreseeability established in Hadley v. Baxendale applied without any deviation to the principle of foreseeability established in the Convention'); Flechtner, H., "The U.N. Sales Convention (CISG) and MCC-Marble Ceramic Centre, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino, S.p.A.: The Eleventh Circuit Weighs in on Interpretation, Subjective Intent, Procedural Limits to the Convention's Scope, and the Parole Evidence Rule" (1999) 18 J. L. & Com. 259, at p. 269 (criticising the fact that the Delchi court 'equated the quintessentially common law Hadley rule regarding foreseeable damages with the foreseeability principle of Article 74 of the CISC'); Zeller, B., "The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) -- a leap forward towards unified international sales laws" (2000) 12 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 79, at pp. 89-90 (stating that '[t]he principle of foreseeability may well be similar to the one expressed in Article 74 of the CISG, but to tie Hadley v. Baxendale into Article 74 is patently wrong. [Delchi] is a good example of the danger that domestic courts could construct the CISG within their own experience and procedures').

94. See supra text accompanying fns 33 and 59.

95. It is worth pointing out that there are differences even between that French foreseeability limitation to the recoverable damages and the CISG's foreseeability limit. The most obvious one relates to the fact that the French foreseeability limit (not unlike the Italian and the Spanish one) does not apply where the breach of contract is due to fraud on the part of the breaching party; the Art. 74 CISG foreseeability limit, on the contrary, applies even where the breach is due to fraud; see Vekas, L., "The Foreseeability Doctrine in Contractual Damage Cases" (2002) 43 Acta Juridica Hungarica 145, at p. 160, stating that '[i]n this regard the Vienna Convention deliberately diverges from the 'source rule' of Article 1150 of the Code civil which, as we pointed to before, excludes the use of the foreseeability doctrine in the case of intentional breach of contract'; see also Prieto, P., "Art. 74" in Diez-Picazo, L. and Ponce de Leon, L. (eds.), La compraventa internacional de mercaderias. Comentario de la Convention de Viena, 1998, Civitas, Madrid, 579, at p. 604.

96. TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 12 August 2006, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>.

97. Bailey, J. E., "Facing the Truth: Seeing the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods as an Obstacle to a Uniform Law of International Sales" (1998) 32 Cornell Int'l L. J. 273, at p. 288.

98. Cook, S. V., (1997) 16 J. L. & Com. 257, at p. 262; see also Zeller, B., "Downs Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) v. Perwaja Steel SDN BHD [2002] 2 Qd R 462" (2005) 9 Vindobona Journal 43, at p. 46.

99. TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 12 August 2006, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>.

100. Cook, S. V., supra fn 98, at p. 260.

101. Stoll H. and Gruber, G., "Art. 74" in Schlechtriem, P. and Schwenzer, I. (eds.), Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG), 2nd ed., 2005, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 745, at p. 765 (emphasis added); see also Brolsch, M. W., Schadensersatz und CISG, 2007, Lang, Frankfurt, at p. 52.

102. See also Murphey, A. G., supra fn 87, at p. 435, stating that: Art. 74 CISG, 'in limiting reference to the party in breach, surely does not envision delivering a windfall to the plaintiff, because the plaintiff recovers something not foreseen. Rather, this language reflects the view that the focus should be on the party who will have to answer for the amount of the loss'.

103. Whittington, N., "Reconsidering Domestic Sale of Goods Remedies in Light of the CISG" (2006) 37 Vict. U. Wellington L. Rev. 421, at p. 443, according to whom, however, '[t]his is not a significant difference'.

104. Vekas, L., supra fn 95, at p. 160 (footnotes omitted).

105. See, however, the text of Restatement (Second) of Contracts 351 (1979):

'(1) Damages are not recoverable for loss that the party in breach did not have reason to foresee as a probable result of the breach when the contract was made.
(2) Loss may be foreseeable as a probable result of a breach because it follows from the breach (a) in the ordinary course of events, or (b) as a result of special circumstances, beyond the ordinary course of events, that the party in breach had reason to know.
(3) A court may limit damages for foreseeable loss by excluding recovery for loss of profits, by allowing recovery only for loss incurred in reliance, or otherwise if it concludes that in the circumstances justice so requires in order to avoid disproportionate compensation.

106. See Ziegel, J. S., "The Remedial Provisions in the Vienna Sales Convention: Some Common Law Perspectives" in Galston, N. and Smit, H. (eds.), International Sales: The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1984, Matthew Bender, New York, 9-01, at p. 9-05, where the author refers to Lord Reid's example in The Heron II, 1 A.C. 350 (H.L.) (1969), in order to illustrate the difference between the 'possible consequences' and the 'probable result': 'to borrow from Lord Reid's example in The Heron II, if one takes a well-shuffled pack of cards it is quite possible, though not likely, that the top card will prove to be the nine of diamonds even though the odds are 51 to 1 against.'

107. Murphey, A. G. supra fn 87, at pp. 435-436; see also Darkey, J. M., "A U.S. Court's Interpretation of Damage Provisions under the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Preliminary Step towards an International Jurisprudence of CISG or a Missed Opportunity?" (1995) 15 J.L. & Com. 139, at p. 145.

108. See also Brölsch, M. W., supra fn 101, at pp. 55 ff.

109. In legal writing this difference has been pointed out, e.g., by Prieto, P., supra fn 95, at p. 604; Stoll H. and Gruber, G., supra fn 101, at pp. 763-764.

110. Gotanda, J. Y., "Awarding Damages under the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods: A matter of interpretation" (2005) 37 Geo. J. Int'l L. 95, at p. 204-205; for a similar statement see also Neumayer, K. and Ming, C, Convention de Vienne sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises. Commentaire, 1993, CEDIDAC, Lausanne, at p. 492.

111. Dodge, W. S., "Teaching the CISG in Contracts" (2000) 50 Journal of Legal Education (J. Leg. Edu.) 72, at p. 92; for this conclusion, see also Cohen, K. S., "Achieving a Uniform Law Governing International Sales: Conforming the Damages Provisions of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Uniform Commercial Code" (2005) 26 U. Penn. J. Int'l Ec. L. 601, at pp. 612-613; Darkey, J. M., supra fn 107, at p. 145 fn 31; Whittington, N., supra fn 103, at p. 443; contra Farnsworth, E. A., "Damages and Specific Relief (1979) 27 Am. J. Comp. L. 247, at p. 253 stating that: '[a]lthough the use in art. 7[4] of "possible consequence" may seem at first to cast a wider net than the Restatement's "probable result", the preceding clause ('in the light of the facts [...].') cuts this back at least to the scope of the Code language.'

112. Majumdar, B., and Jha, S., "The Law Relating to Damages under International Sales: A Comparative Overview between the CISG and Indian Contract Law" (2001) 5 Vindobona Journal 185, at p. 193.

113. Dodge, W. S., supra fn 111, at p. 92, borrowing from a statement by Murphey, A. G., supra fn 87, at p. 417.

114. Sand, P. H., "The International Unification of Air Law" (1965) 30 Law & Contemp. Probs. 400, at p. 402.

115. See, e.g., Brunner, C., CISG. Kommentar zum Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf von 1980 unter Berücksichtigung der Schnittstellen zum internen Schweizer Recht, 2004, Stampfli Verlag AG, Berne, at p. 72; Carbone, S. M., L'ambito di applicazione ed i criteri interpretativi della convenzione di Vienna, La vendita Internazionale. La Convenzione dell'll aprile 1980, 1981, Giuffre, Milan, at pp. 61, 78; Erauw, J., supra fn 21, at p. 47; Ferrari, F., Vendita internazionale di beni mobili. Art. 1-13 Ambito di applicazione. Disposizioni generali, 1994, Zanichelli, Bologna, at p. 110; Herber, R., ""Lex mercatoria" und "Principles" -- gefährliche Irrlichter im internationalen Kaufrecht" (2003) IHR 1, at p. 1; Lanciotti, A., Norme uniformi di conflitto e materiali nella disciplina convenzionale della compravendita, 1992, Scientifiche Italiane, Naples, at p. 146; Lindbach, J., Rechtswahl im Einheitsrecht am Beispiet des Wiener UN-Kaufrechts, 1996, Shaker, Aachen, at p. 67; Magnus, U., supra fn 13, at p. 149; Piltz, B., Internationales Kaufrecht. Das UN-Kaufrecht (Wiener Übereinkommen von 1980) in praxisorientierter Darstellung, 1993, C. H. Beck, Munich, at p. 64; Witz, C, "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)" (1990) Recueil Dalloz Chronique 107, at p. 107.

116. For an express reference to the CISG's non-mandatory nature, see, e.g., Tribunal Cantonal du Jura, 3 November 2003, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/965.pdf>; Corte di Cassazione, 19 June 2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000619i3.html>; Oberster Gerichtshof, 21 March 2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000321a3.html>; Oberster Gerichtshof, 15 October 1998, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981015a3.html>; Handelsgericht Wien, 4 March 1997, available at: <http://www.cisg.at/lR4097x.htm>; Kantongsgericht Wallis, 29 June 1994, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940629s1.html>.

117. Bonell, M. J., "Commento all'art. 6 della Convenzione di Vienna", supra fn 14, at p. 16; for similar statements in scholarly writing, see Date-Bah, S. K., "The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Overview and Selective Commentary" (1979) 11 Rev. Ghana L. 50, at p. 54; Enderlein, F., "Die Verpflichtung des Verkäufers zur Einhaltung des Lieferzeitraums und die Rechte des Kaufers bei dessen Nichteinhaltung nach dem UN-Übereinkommen über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf" (1991) Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 313, at p. 316; Hoyer, H. "Der Anwendungsbereich des Einheitlichen Wiener Kaufrechts" in Hoyer, H. and Posch, W. (eds.), Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht, 1992, Orac, Vienna, 31, at p. 41.

118. Bonell, M. J., "Commento all'art. 6 della Convenzione di Vienna", supra fn 14, at p. 17.

119. See Art. 3 Ulis: 'The parties to a contract of sale shall be free to exclude the application thereto of the present Law either entirely or partially. Such exclusion may be express or implied'.

120. See Samson, C, "La Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises: Etude comparative des dispositions de la Convention et des règies de droit québécois en la matière" (1982) 23 Cah. dr. 919, at p. 931.

121. Both the representatives of England and Belgium made proposals to reintroduce a reference to the possibility of implicitly excluding the CISG's application; for a reference to these attempts, see Magnus, U., supra fn. 13, at p. 150; United Nations (ed.), Official Records: Documents of the Conference and Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Main Committees (Vienna, 10 Mars-11 Avril 1980), 1981, New York/Geneva, at pp. 249 ff.

122. See Sky Cast, Inc v. Global Direct Distribution, LLC, U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, 18 March 2008, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080318u1.html>; Easom Automation Systems, Inc. v. Thyssenkrupp Fabco, Corp., U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District Michigan, 28 September 2007, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070928u1.html#iv>; Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al. v. Saint-Gobain Technical Fabrics Canada Limited, U.S. Federal District Court, Minnesota, 31 January 2007, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070131u1.html>; TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 August 2006, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>; BP Oil International v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos de Ecuador, U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Circuit), 11 June 2003, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/cases/030611u1.html>; Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can-Eng Manufacturing Ltd., U. S. Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 29 January 2003, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030129u1.html>; St. Paul Insurance Company et al. v. Neuromed Medical Systems & Support et al., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 26 March 2002, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020326u1.html>; Helen Kaminski PTY, Ltd. v. Marketing Australian Products, Inc., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 July 1997, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970721u1.html>; Delchi Carrier, S.p.A. v. Rotorex Corp., U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Cir.), 6 December 1995, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>; Orbisphere Corp. v. United States, Court of International Trade, 24 October 1989, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/891024u1.html>. Most recently, see, however, Zhejiang Shaoxing Yongli Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd. v. Microflock Textile Group Corp., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of Florida, 19 May 2008, where the court did not at all refer to the need for an express exclusion, but simply stated that the 'CISG automatically applies to international sales contracts between parties from different contracting states unless the parties agree to exclude the application of the CISG, as stated in Article 6 of the CISG. Because the parties did not agree to exclude the application of the CISG, the CISG provides the substantive law governing this contractual dispute'.

123. Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Dongbu Hannong Chemical Co., Ltd., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 19 July 2007, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070719u1.html>.

124. Easom Automation Systems, Inc. v. Thyssenkrupp Fabco, Corp., U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District Michigan, 28 September 2007, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070928u1.html#iv>.

125. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al. v. Saint-Gobain Technical Fabrics Canada Limited, U.S. Federal District Court, Minnesota, 31 January 2007, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070131u1.html>.

126. TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 August 2006, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>.

127. See, however, Rechtbank Zwolle, 21 May 2003, IHR 2005 34, at p. 35; Rechtbank Hasselt, 4 October 1999, available at: <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/ipr/eng/cases/1999-10-04.html>; Landgericht Landshut, 5 May 1995, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950405g1.html>.

128. See, however, Dore, I. I., (1983) 77 Am. J. Int'l L. 521, at p. 532; Dore I. I. and Defranco, J. F., "A Comparison of the Non-Substantive Provisions of the UNCITRAL Convention on the International Sale of Goods and the Uniform Commercial Code" (1982) 23 Harv. Int'l L. J. 49, at p. 53; Dutton, K. P., "Risky Business: The Impact of the CISG on the International Sale of Goods, Guide for Merchants to Limit Liability and Increase Certainty Inside and Outside of the CISG" (2005) 7 Eur. J. L. Ref. 239, at p. 246; Klepper, C. D., "The Convention for the International Sale of Goods: A Practical Guide for the State of Maryland and Its Trade Community" (1991) 15 Md. J. Int'l L. & Trade 235, at p. 238; Murphy, M. T., "United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Creating Uniformity on International Sales Law" (1989) 12 Fordham Int'l L. J. 727, at p. 728; Ostendorf, P., Neumann, N. and Ventsch, V., "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von Haftungsbeschränkungen in internationalen Lieferverträgen zwischen Unternehmern" (2006) IHR 21, at p. 22; Rendell, R. S., "The New U.N. Convention on International Sales Contracts: An Overview" (1989) 15 Brook. J. Int'l L. 23, at p. 25.

129. See, e.g., Tribunale di Forlì, 16 February 2009, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090216i3.html>; Tribunale di Forlì, 11 December 2008, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081211i3.html>; Oberlandesgericht Linz, 8 August 2005, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050808a3.html>; Rechtbank van Koophandel Tongeren, 25 January 2005, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050125b1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>; Oberlandesgericht München, 9 July 1997, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970709g1.html>; Landgericht München, 29 May 1995, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950529g1.html>.

130. See, e.g., Bell, K., "The Sphere of Application of the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (1996) 8 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 231, at p. 255; Czerwenka, G. B., Rechtsanwendungsprobleme im internationalen Kaufrecht. Das Kollisionsrecht bei grenzüberschreitenden Kaufverträgen und der Anwendungsbereich der internationalen Kaufrechtsübereinkommen, 1988, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, at p. 170; Garro, A. M. and Zuppi, A. L., Compraventa internacional de mercaderias, 1990, Ediciones LaRocca, Buenos Aires, at p. 98; Graffi, L., "L'applicazione della Convenzione di Vienna in alcune recenti sentenze italiane" (2000/2001) European Legal Forum (Eur. L. For.) 240, at p. 241.

131. For this author's view, see Ferrari, F., "Remarks on the UNCITRAL Digest's Comments on Article 6 CISG" (2006) 25 J. L. & Com. 13, at pp. 20 ff.

132. For this conclusion, see, e.g., Achilles, W-A., supra fn 14, at p. 25; Audit, B., La vente Internationale de marchandises, 1990, L. D. G. J., Paris, at p. 38; Bell, K., supra fn 130, at p. 255; Brunner, C, supra fn 115, at p. 68; Cappuccio, J., "La deroga implicita nella Convenzione di Vienna del 1980" (1994) Dir. comm. int. 867, at p. 868; Czerwenka, G. B., supra fn 130, at p. 170; Date-Bah, S. K., (1979) 11 Rev. Ghana L. 50, at p. 54; Garro, A. M., and Zuppi, A. L., supra fn 130, at p. 98; Holthausen, R., "Vertraglicher Ausschluß des UN-Übereinkommens über intemationale Warenkaufverträge" (1989) RIW 513, at p. 515; Lacasse, N., "Le champ d'application de la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente intemationale de marchandises" in Lacasse, N. and Perret, L. (eds.), Actes du colloque sur la vente intemationale, 1989, Wilson & LaFleur, Montreal, 23, at p. 37; Richards, B. J., "Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Applicability of the United Nations Convention", (1983) 69 Iowa L. Rev. 209, at p. 237.

133. Bonell, M. J., "Art. 6", supra fn 27, 51, at p. 52; see also Audit, B., supra fn 132, at p. 38.

134. Ferrari, F., "Art. 6", supra fns. 33 and 123, at pp. 128 ff.

135. For a similar justification of the lack of reference to the possibility of implicitly excluding the CISG's application, see Ebenroth, C. T., "Internationale Vertragsgestaltung im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen ABGB, IPR-Gesetz und UN-Kaufrecht" (1986) Österreichische Juristische Blätter (öJZ) 681, at p. 684; Ferrari, F., supra fn 115, at p. 128; Official Records of the United Nations Conference, supra fn 121, at p. 17; Reifner, C, "Stillschweigender Ausschluss des UN-Kaufrechts im Prozess?" (2002) IHR 52, at p. 55; Schlechtriem, P., Uniform Sales Law. The UN-Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1986, Manz, Vienna, at p. 35.

136. See, apart from the commentators cited supra fn 130, Audit, B., supra fn 132, at p. 38; Grijalva, E. and Imberg, A. P., "The Economic Impact of International Trade on San Diego and the Application of the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods to San Diego/Tijuana Commercial Transactions" (1998) 35 S.D. L. Rev. 769, at p. 776; Kennedy, A. J., "Recent Developments: Nonconforming Goods Under the CISG - What's a Buyer to Do?" (1998) 16 Dick. J. Int'l L. 319, at pp. 321 ff; Magnus, U., supra fn 13, at p. 153; Richards, B. J., supra fn 132, at p. 237.

137. See, apart from the decisions cited in supra fn 129, Landgericht Bamberg, 23 October 2006, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/061023g1.html>; Oberlandesgericht Linz, 23 January 2006, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060123a3.html>; Cour de Cassation, 25 October 2005, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051025f1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 31 March 2004, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>; Oberster Gerichtshof, 22 October 2001, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011022a3.html>; Cour de Cassation, 26 June 2001, available at: <http://witz.jura.uni-sb.de/CISG/decisions/2606012v.htm>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; Oberlandesgericht Desden, 27 December 1999, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991227g1.html>; Oberlandesgericht Celle, 24 May 1995, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950524g1.html>.

138. For a similar statement, see Bonell, M. J., supra fn 13, at p. 113 (stating that a 'tacit exception may only be admitted if there are valid elements of indications showing the parties "true" intention'); Enderlein, F. and Maskow, D., supra fn 65, at p. 48 (stating that there must be clear indications that an implicit exclusion is wanted); Erauw, J., supra fn 21, at p. 47 (stating the same); Rovelli, L., "Conflitti tra norme della Convenzione e norme di diritto internazionale privato", in Convegno di studi di S. Margherita Ligure, La vendita internazionale. La convenzione di Vienna dell'll aprile 1980, 1981, Giuffre, Milan, 89, at p. 105 (stating that 'of course, the determination of the applicable law can result from an implicit choice of the parties, but is must be "certain": this means that the intention of implicitly excluding the Convention must be real, not hypothetical').

139. For a similar statement, see Honnold, J., supra fn 17, at p. 80 (stating that '[...] although an agreement to exclude the Convention need not be "express" the agreement may only be implied from fact pointing to real -- as opposed to theoretical or fictitious -- agreement'); for similar statements, see supra fn 135, at p. 55; Wasmer, W., Vertragsfreiheit im UN-Kaufrecht, 2004, Thesis Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tubingen 2003, J. Kovac, Hamburg, at p. 34. Note, however, that according to Murphy, M. T., supra fn 128, at p. 749, the possibility of implicitly excluding the CISG contrasts with the need for certainty of law.

140. See Oberlandesgericht Linz, 23 January 2006, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060123a3.html>; Tribunal Cantonal du Jura, 3 November 2004, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/965.pdf>; Kammergericht Berlin, 24 January 1994, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940124g1.html>.

141. For an overview in legal writing of how the CISG can be implicitly excluded, see Ferrari, F., supra fn 134, at pp. 128 ff; Magnus, U., supra fn 13, at pp. 153 ff; for an overview in case law, see, e.g., Oberlandesgericht Linz, 23 January 2006, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060123a3.html>.

142. On the occasion of the Vienna Diplomatic Conference, a large number of delegations rejected the proposals by Canada and Belgium (for these proposals, see Official Records of the United Nations Conference, supra fn 121, at p. 250) pursuant to which the domestic sales law, and not the CISG, would have to be applied whenever the parties indicated the law of a Contracting State as the proper law for their contract.

143. For this view see, in legal writing, Achilles, W-A., supra fn 14, at p. 25; Audit, B., supra fn 132, at p. 39; Bonell, M. J., supra fn 133, at p. 56; Chiomenti, C, "Does the choice of a-national rules entail an implicit exclusion of the CISG?" (2005) Eur. Leg. For. 141, at p. 144; Enderlein, F., Maskow, D. and Strohbach, H., supra fn 31, at p. 58; Ferrari, F., supra fn 134, at p. 129; Garro, A. M., and Zuppi, A. L., supra fn 130, at p. 95; Lando, O., "The 1985 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Sales" (1987) RabelsZ 60, at p. 84; Lindbach, J., supra fn 115, at p. 308; Thiele, C, "Das UN-Kaufrecht vor US-amerikanischen Gerichten" (2002) IHR 8, at p. 9; Wasmer, W., supra fn 139, at p. 29. In case law, see Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050111i3.html>; Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 2 July 1993, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930702g1.html>.

144. For this conclusion see, in legal writing, Achilles, W-A., supra fn 14, at p. 25; Audit, B., supra fn 132, at p. 39; Dokter, D., "Interpretation of exclusion-clauses of the Vienna Sales Convention", (2004) 68 RabelsZ 430, at p. 435; Erauw, J., supra fn 21, at pp. 25 and 48; Farnsworth, E. A., "Review of Standard Forms or Terms under the Vienna Convention" (1988) 21 Cornell Int'l L. J. 439, at p. 442; Grijalva, E. and Imberg, A. P., supra fn 136, at p. 777; Winship, P., "International Sales Contracts under the 1980 Vienna Convention", (1984) 17 UCC L. J. 55, at p. 65. In case law, see, e.g., OLG Stuttgart, 31 March 2008, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/080331g1german.pdf>; ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral award n. 11333, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021333i1.html>; ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral award n. 9187, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/999187i1.html>; Arbitral Tribunal of the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce, 21 March 1996, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960321g1.html>; Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 17 November 1995, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=217&step=FullText>; ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral award n. 8324, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958324i1.html>.

145. For this conclusion, see Bonell, M. J., (1989) supra fn 14, at p. 18; Brunner, C, supra fn 115, at p. 70; Cappuccio, J., supra fn 132, at p. 873; Chiomenti, C, supra fn 143, at p. 144; Erauw, J., supra fn 21, at p. 49; Ferrari, F., supra fn 134, at p. 131; Reifner, C, supra fn 135, at p. 56. In case law, see OLG Stuttgart, 31 March 2008, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/080331g1german.pdf>; Oberlandesgericht Linz, 23 January 2006, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060123a3.html>; Hof Leeuwarden, 31 August 2005, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050831n1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>; Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, 30 August 2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/000830g1german.html>; Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, 15 March 1996, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/284.htm>.

146. See Ad Hoc Arbitral Tribunal Florence, 19 April 1994, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940419i3.html>; Tribunale di Monza, 14 January 1993, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930114i3.html>.

147. See Ferrari, F., "Nuove e vecchie questioni in materia di vendita internazionale tra interpretazione autonoma e ricorso alia giurisprudenza straniera" (2004) Giur. it. 1405, at p. 1416; Ferrari, F., "Zum vertraglichen Ausschluss des UN-Kaufrechts" (2002) ZEuP 737, at pp. 744 ff

148. See also Bazinas, S. V., "Uniformity in the Interpretation and the Application of the CISG: The Role of CLOUT and the Digest" in UNCITRAL-SIAC Conference (2005: Singapore), Celebrating Success: 25 Years United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 2006, SIAC, Singapore, 18, at p. 26; Graffi, L., supra fn 130, at p. 241; Grijalva, E. and Imberg, A. P., (1998) 35 S.D. L. Rev. 769, at p. 776; Mazzotta, F. G., "The International Character of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: An Italian Case Example" (2003) 15 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 437, at p. 442; Piltz, B., "Neue Entwicklungen im UN-Kaufrecht" (2000) NJW 553, at p. 555; Schlechtriem, P., "Aufrechnung durch den Käufer wegen Nachbesserungsaufwand -- deutsches Vertragsstatut und UN-Kaufrecht" (1996) IPRax 256, at p. 256; Spiegel, N., "Exclusion tacite de la Convention de Vienne par les parties et dénonciation des défaits de conformité" (2002) Recueil Dalloz-Sirey Jurisprudence 395, at p. 395; Wasmer, W., supra fn 139, at pp. 31 ff.

149. See Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, 31 March 2008, unpubl.; Landgericht Bamberg, 23 October 2006, available in English at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/061023g1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Landgericht Saarbriicken, 2 July 2002, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020702g1.html>; Oberlandesgericht Rostock, 10 October 2001, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011010g1.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; Kantonsgericht Nidwalden, 3 December 1997, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971203s1.html>; Oberlandesgericht Hamm, 9 June 1995, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950609g1.html>; Landgericht Landshut, 5 April 1995, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950405g1.html>.

150. Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>.

151. Cour de Cassation, 25 October 2005, available in English at: <http://www.cisg-france.org/decisions/251005v.htm>; Cour de Cassation, 26 June 2001, available at: <http://witz.jura.uni-sb.de/CISG/decisions/2606012v.htm>.

152. See, most recently, Sheaffer, C, supra fn 78, at p. 477.

153. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. et al. v. Neuromed Medical Systems & Support GmbH et al., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 26 March 2002, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020326u1.html>.

154. MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino, S.p.A., U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (11th Circuit), 29 June 1998, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980629u1.html>.

155. Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 10 May 2002, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html>.

156. Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 10 May 2002, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html>; for the statement referred to in the text, see most recently Hilaturas Miel, S.L. v. Republic of Iraq, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 20 August 2008, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080820u1.html#c>; Genpharm Inc. v. Pliva-Lachema A.S., U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District Court of New York, 19 March 2005, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050319u1.html>; Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food Trading Co., et al., U.S. Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 21 May 2004, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040521u1.html>; Orbisphere Corp. v. United States, U.S. Court of International Trade, 24 October 1989, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/891024u1.html>.

157. Cahaturificio Claudia S.n.c. v. Olivieri Footwear Ltd., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 6 April 1998, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941005b1.html>.

158. Gerichtspräsident Laufen, 7 May 1993, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930507s1.html>.

159. Handelsgericht Aargau, 26 September 1997, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=404&step=FullText>.

160. See Audiencia Provincial de Valencia, 7 June 2003, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030607s4.html>, stating that '[s]cholars maintain that the international character of the Convention obliges an autonomous interpretation of the Convention independent of domestic law, for this purpose, it is necessary to adopt a different methodology than used to apply domestic law. The only way to assure the uniformity of the Convention is to take into account decisions from tribunals of other countries when applying the Convention and to consult expert opinions of scholars in the subject, in order to achieve uniformity.' For a favourable comment on this decision when discussing the uniform interpretation of the CISG, see Perales Viscasillas, M. P., supra fn 21, at pp. 240-241.

161. See Oberster Gerichtshof, 23 May 2005, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050523a3.html>, stating that '[t]he CISG creates substantive law [...] and is to be interpreted autonomously in accordance with CISG Art. 7. Therefore, discussions on the Austrian legal situation [...] have to be omitted'.

162. Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.

163. Tribunale di Modena, 9 December 2005, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/1398.pdf>.

164. See, e.g., Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, 20 April 1994, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/125.htm>.

165. Bundesgerichtshof, 3 April 1996, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960403g1.html>.

166. Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, 25 June 1997, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970625g1.html>.

167. Bundesgerichtshof, 2 March 2005, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050302g1.html>.

168. Netherlands Arbitration Institute, Arbitral award no. 2319, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021015n1.html>.

169. Gillette, C. P and Scott, R. E., supra fn 42, at p. 472.

170. See, apart from the author cited in supra fn 56, Halverson Cross, K., (2007) 68 Ohio St. L. J. 133, at p. 136; Harjani, S., "The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods in United States Courts" (2000) 23 Hous. J. Int'l L 49, at p. 50; Honnold, J., supra fn 59, at p. 1; Honnold, J., (1988) 8 J. L. & Com. 207, at p. 208; Sondahl, E., "Understanding the Remedy of Price Reduction -- a Means to Fostering a More Uniform Application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (2003) 7 Vindobona Journal 255, at p. 274; Van Alstine, M. P., supra fn 75, at p. 693.

171. Honnold, J., Uniform Law for the International Sale of Goods, 3rd ed., 1999, Kluwer Law International, Deventer, at p. 476; see also Flambouras, D., "The Doctrines of Impossibility of Performance and clausula rebus sic stantibus in the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Principles of European Contract Law: A Comparative Analysis" (2001) 13 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 261, at pp. 266-267.

172. See, e.g., Tuggey, T. N., supra fn 35, at p.544, stating that 'one true test of the CISG's success as a uniform law will be the extent to which it may implicitly permit national variations in its application.' For a different measure of the CISG's success, see Gillette, C. P. and Scott, R. E., supra fn 42, at p. 447, where the authors suggest that the success is to be measured on the basis of whether the rules of the CISG 'do for the parties what the parties cannot as easily do for themselves' and thus, lead to the parties not wanting to opt-out of the CISG (Ibid, at p. 454).

173. Flechtner, H., supra fn 54, at p. 146.

174. Gillette, C. P. and Scott, R. E., supra fn 42, at p. 474.

175. For some examples, see, e.g., Gillette, C. P. and Scott, R. E., supra fn 42, at pp. 474 ff.

176. See also Bell, K., "Review of 'International Sales Law: A Critical analysis of CISG Jurisprudence"' (2005/2006) Bar News 105, at p. 105, stating that the CISG's 'open ended language, however, opens up the possibility of varying interpretations which is anathema for a Convention which was adopted to promote uniformity and certainty in an important area of commercial law'; Note by Law Student, "Unification and Certainty: The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (1984) 97 Harv. L. Rev. 1984, at p. 1999, stating that: 'indeterminate rules permit judicial interpretation guided by diverse national doctrines and values.'

177. It may suffice to recall that CISG does, for instance, not define the sales contract, as often pointed out both in legal writing (see Bell, K., supra fn 130, at p. 250; Chiomenti, C., supra fn 143, at p. 142; Gottlieb Grieser, S., Die Behandlung von atypischen Kaufvertrdgen im UN-Kaufrecht, 2004, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, at p. 35; Kahn, P., "Qu'est-ce que la vente?" (2001) Int'l Bus. L. J. 241, at p. 242 Niemann, C, Einheitliche Anwendung des UN-Kaufrechts in Italienischer und deutscher Rechtsprechung und Lehre: Eine Untersuchung zur einheitlichen Auslegung unbestimmter Rechtsbegriffe und intemer Luckenfullung im CISG, 2006, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, at p. 82; Richards, B. J., supra fn 132, at p. 227) and case law (see, e.g., Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>; Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen, 25 February 2002, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020225s1.html>; Cour d'appel de Colmar, 12 June 2001, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010612f1.html>; Tribunal cantonal de Vaud, 11 March 1996, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960311s2.html>), nor does it define 'goods' (in this respect see, e.g., Bailey, J. E., supra fn 97, at p. 306; Niemann, C. Einheitliche Anwendung des UN-Kaufrechts, (this fn), at p. 89; Rudolph, H., Kaufrecht der Export- und Importverträgs -- Kommentierung des UN-übereinkommens über Internationale Warenkaufverträge mit Hinweisen für die Vertragspraxis, 1996, Haufe, Freiberg, at p. 103; Wulf, H. M., UN-Kaufrecht und e-Commerce: Problembereiche bei der Anwendung des Wiener Übereinkommens auf Internet-Vertrdge, 2003, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, at p. 37).

178. See supra text accompanying fn 30.

179. Tuggey, T. N., supra fn 35, at p. 554.

180. See supra text accompanying fns 56 and 170.

181. Harjani, S., "The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (2000) 23 Hous. J. Int'l L. 49, at p. 70.

182. Ibid. For a similar definition of the homeward trend, see Schwenzer, I., "National Preconceptions that Endanger Uniformity" (2007) Pace Int'l L. Rev. 103, at p. 103.

183. For an analysis of the effects of the failure to incorporate the CISG into law school curricula, see supra fn 111, at pp. 72 ff. For the integration of transnational legal perspectives into law school curricula in general, see Association of American Law Schools, Workshop on Integrating Transnational Legal Perspectives Into the First Year Curriculum (4 January 2006), at: <http://www.aals.org/am2006/program/transnational/index.html>.


©Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated January 19, 2010
Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography
Comments/Contributions