Reproduced with permission of 17 Journal of Law and Commerce (1999) 245-261
It is common knowledge  that in order to create legal uniformity it is insufficient to merely create and enact uniform laws or uniform law conventions  because "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."
In order to reduce this danger of diverging interpretations by courts of different countries, the drafters of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods  (CISG)  included Article [page 245] 7(1) which states that when interpreting the CISG "regard is to be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application." Drafters of other uniform law conventions have taken a similar approach to the concern about conflicting interpretations. As many legal writers have pointed out, this means, above all, that one should not read the Convention through the lenses of domestic law, but rather in an autonomous manner. Thus, when interpreting the CISG one should not resort to the meaning generally attached to certain expressions within the ambit of a particular legal system.
However, it has often been stated in legal writing that in view of "the need to promote uniformity in [the CISG's] application . . . ," it is insufficient to consider the CISG an "autonomous body of rules." According [page 246] to many authors, in order to achieve the CISG's ultimate goal of uniform application, it is necessary to consider the practice of other jurisdictions, i.e., "what others have already done." In effect, recourse to decisions rendered by foreign judicial bodies has often been advocated. The same is true as far as legislative history is concerned.
What has been said thus far is not very original. A number of legal writers have suggested recourse to the aforementioned guidelines to avoid diverging interpretations and applications of the CISG. This approach makes it appear that the interpretive problems surrounding the CISG are all solved or, at least, are easily solvable.
This article intends to show that even though the foregoing rules of interpretation promote uniformity, they do not solve all the interpretative problems. There are still some important unanswered questions. This becomes even more evident today, in an era of growing CISG case law.[page 247]
II. Interpreting the CISG in Light of its International Character: General Remarks
As mentioned, many legal writers construe the reference in Article 7(1), to the obligation to have regard to the CISG's international character in its interpretation, to mean that one should have recourse neither to domestic concepts  nor to domestic interpretive techniques  in interpreting the CISG. Similar affirmations can now be found in several recent European court decisions. In a recent Swiss case, the court expressly stated that a uniform interpretation of the CISG required one to take into account its international character and interpret it autonomously and not in light of any domestic law. The German Supreme Court concurred in this approach where it stated that generally it did not matter whether there were differences between the domestic law and the CISG, since one was not allowed to interpret the CISG in light of domestic law anyway. This is merely a different way of saying that the CISG has to be interpreted autonomously.
At this point, one question must be raised: Does the requirement that the CISG be interpreted autonomously encounter any limitations? Many commentators have argued that even where the expressions employed by the CISG are textually the same as expressions  which have a specific meaning within a particular legal system, they must be interpreted autonomously. Such expressions have to be considered to be independent [page 248]  and different  from domestic concepts, since the expressions employed by uniform law conventions, such as the CISG, are intended to be neutral. Indeed, it has often been noted that any choice of one expression rather than another is the result of a compromise  and does not correspond to the reception of a concept peculiar to a specific domestic law. But does this mean that all expressions must be interpreted autonomously?
In my opinion, this question must be answered negatively. There are some expressions which an interpreter must interpret "domestically," despite the negative effect that may have on the uniformity the drafters of the CISG wanted to achieve. One example of such an expression is "private international law," which is the focus of this part of my analysis.
Even though the expression "private international law" is employed only twice by the CISG, its importance should not be underestimated. This importance is due to the fact that the references to the concept de quo relate to the CISG's sphere of application, as well as to its gap-filling,[page 249] two of the most relevant issues under the CISG.
III. Interpreting the CISG in Light of its International Character: A Practical Example
As far as the CISG's applicability is concerned, it is common knowledge that the Convention is "directly"  applicable when the contracting parties have their places of business in different Contracting States, a criterion which is increasingly leading to the CISG's applicability. However, according to Article 1(l)(b), the CISG is also applicable [page 250] where one or both parties do not have their places of business in different Contracting States, as long as the "rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State."
The rule laid down in Article 1(1)(b) evidences the importance of the exact definition of the concept of "private international law" under the CISG, as does the rule on gap-filling set forth in Article 7(2). By virtue of this rule, issues not governed by the CISG, such as the validity of the contract  or standard contract terms, the contract's effect on the title of the goods sold, agency, set off, assignment of claims,[page 251] the statute of limitations, as well as the assumption of debts, novation, the validity of penalty clauses, and the validity of a forum selection clause, are to be settled in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law.
But how exactly is the concept of private international law to be interpreted? The answer to this question becomes even more important if one considers what differences exist between the rules of private international law in different countries. For instance, while the parties' freedom to choose the applicable law has long been accepted in some countries, as in all Member States of the European Union, in other countries, such a choice of law does not produce any effects. Although this may appear to be the most significant difference, it is certainly not the only one. As far as contractual conflicts of law are concerned, many countries have, as have many international conventions, rejected the doctrine of renvoi; nevertheless, there are a few countries, such as Austria, which still accept that doctrine.
But are these differences really relevant? Obviously, such differences would be irrelevant if the concept at hand were to be interpreted autonomously. In my opinion, however, the concept at hand is one of the [page 252] concepts which is to be construed in light of domestic law. And this is why it is not surprising that in some Contracting States, which have accepted the parties' freedom of choice, the CISG has been applied by virtue of a choice of law in cases where it was not applicable by virtue of Article 1(1)(a). What is surprising, however, is the fact that various authors have criticized a recent Austrian court decision  for employing the doctrine of renvoi, on the grounds that the CISG excludes recourse to the renvoi doctrine. Where it is accepted, the doctrine of renvoi is part of the relevant private international law and, thus, must be applied to solve the issues which the CISG aims to solve by resorting to the law made applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law.
Consequently, one must conclude that where the CISG makes reference to "private international law", it refers to a "domestic" concept of "private international law." More particularly, the CISG refers to the private international law of the forum. One important conclusion can be [page 253] drawn from this: The obligation to interpret the CISG in an autonomous manner is not absolute. This conclusion causes a new problem, that is, how does one identify the concepts which are not to be interpreted autonomously? Unfortunately, the CISG does not offer any guidance, as it does not offer any guidance on the different, albeit related issue of how to determine which interpretation should be preferred when the Convention itself gives rise to different autonomous interpretations. One must therefore conclude that the CISG's autonomous interpretation cannot, by itself, guarantee uniformity.
IV. Recourse to Foreign Case Law: Practical Issues
According to many legal writers, uniformity can only be achieved if one also considers foreign case law. The interpreter must consider decisions rendered by judicial bodies of foreign jurisdictions, because it is possible that the same or similar questions have already been examined by other States' courts.
However, requiring interpreters to consider foreign decisions creates practical difficulties, for two main reasons: (1) foreign case law is not readily available, i.e., it cannot easily be retrieved; and (2) even where it can be retrieved, it is often written in a language unknown to the interpreter. This is why many decisions exist which refer to decisions from judicial bodies of the same country, as opposed to only one decision in which detailed reference is made to decisions rendered by foreign judicial bodies. In that case, an Italian court  had to decide whether a notice [page 254] of non-conformity given to the seller 23 days after delivery of sporting clothes which turned out to be of bigger sizes than the ones ordered, was timely or not. In deciding this issue, the Italian court referred not only to a Swiss case, rendered in Italian (which may have been the reason why this case was quoted), but also to a German case which had decided an analogous matter. Even though there are hundreds of cases, this appears to be the only one in which a court has referred to decisions from foreign jurisdictions to validate their argument. This demonstrates just how far we are from achieving a uniform application of the CISG.
This does not mean, however, that no steps are being taken to remedy this situation. The Pace University Institute of International Commercial Law, for instance, has developed a website  which at no cost provides not only the text of the CISG, a current list of Contracting States, and the most up-to-date bibliography on the CISG, but also provides case law from all over the world. Similar web-sites have been created in Germany  and in France. In addition, the Centre for Comparative and Foreign Law Studies in Rome has put together UNILEX, a "reasoned collection of case law and an international bibliography on the CISG," which presents, both on disk and on paper, features similar to those found on the internet under the foregoing sites.
However, the most "official" efforts to neutralize the danger of diverging interpretations and applications of the CISG by making foreign decisions available, or at least abstracts of such decisions, are the efforts [page 255] made by UNCITRAL. After rejecting the idea of creating an international tribunal to which all cases should be referred, which some considered to be the only way to ensure uniformity, UNCITRAL, in its twenty-first working session, decided to adopt a procedure in which the decisions rendered in the application of the CISG in the various States are all gathered by "national correspondents" who then have to "send to the UNCITRAL Secretariat the full text of the decisions in their original languages; the Secretariat will make these decisions accessible to any interested person"  by, among others means, preparing abstracts of them, translating them into the various official languages of the United Nations and distributing the papers in which they are published, called CLOUTs, to the interested parties.
V. Recourse to Foreign Case Law: Substantive Issues
One must wonder, however, whether the knowledge of foreign case law is sufficient to solve all the substantive issues. Would more information [page 256] really guarantee substantive uniformity in the CISG's application?
Could the knowledge of foreign case law have avoided, for instance, the dispute, which has arisen both in state courts  and arbitral tribunals, as to whether the parties' choice of the law of a Contracting State excludes the CISG's applicability? Could the knowledge of foreign case law have prevented the dispute regarding how far Article 3(1) extends the CISG's substantive sphere of application to contracts for the production or manufacture of goods? Could it have avoided the conflict existing between the decision of one court  that found that supplying the technical specifications which the producer of the ordered goods had to comply with led to the CISG's inapplicability, thus analogizing technical specifications to "the material necessary" for the production and manufacture of the goods, and a contrary decision, in which a court stated that "the Convention (was] applicable to a contract for the supply of shoes in the manufacture of which the seller was required to observe the design laid [page 257] down by the buyer"?
Furthermore, could the knowledge of foreign case law have prevented the dispute as to whether the CISG can be applied to contracts concluded even before the CISG's drafting, as suggested by some arbitral awards, but contradicted by others? And what about the well-documented dispute  relating to the rate of interest to be applied to sums paid in arrears? Could this dispute have been avoided?
The foregoing questions must be answered negatively. In my opinion, the knowledge of foreign case law cannot per se suffice to avoid diverging interpretations and, thus, guarantee uniformity, as the knowledge of domestic case law does not exclude diverging interpretations in the courts of countries which do not accept the stare decisis doctrine. If the knowledge of foreign case law was actually sufficient to create uniformity in the CISG's application, this would mean, if taken to an extreme, that the first position taken on a specific issue by any court would be the one shaping all the successive case law. This can hardly be true.
Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn. The knowledge of foreign case law does not solve all of the CISG's substantive and interpretive problems. On the contrary, it actually creates some new problems, namely, methodological ones.
VI. Recourse to Foreign Case Law: Methodological Issues
The basic methodological problem created by the knowledge of foreign case law concerns the degree of its authority. Is foreign case law to be treated as binding or as having merely persuasive value?
According to one author, foreign case law should have the value of precedent "[i]f there is already a body of international case law." Another [page 258] author even speaks of a "supranational stare decisis"  which can be achieved if "common law and civil law judges . . . alter their approaches in a number of ways." That means, for example, if the civil law judge starts to "search other cases throughout the world and follow precedent in much the same way the common law judge does within her national system." Although one must agree that in order to obtain uniformity civil law judges should start to "approximate their common law counterparts in increasing their reliance on [case law]," and common law judges should increasingly take into account legal writing as well as legislative history, one cannot attribute the value of binding precedent to uniform foreign case law, much less advocate a doctrine of "supranational stare decisis."
The aforementioned statements can be criticized for two different reasons. First, from a substantive point of view, stating that uniform foreign case law should be treated as binding precedent does not take into account that a uniform body of case law does not per se guarantee the correctness of a substantive result, as evidenced by the criticism towards the large body of CISG case law which has applied the rate of interest of the domestic law designated by the rules of private international law of the forum.
Second, from a methodological point of view, the suggestion to create a "supranational stare decisis" similar to that existing in common law countries must be criticized, since it does not take into account the rigid hierarchical structure of the various countries' court systems in which the "national" stare decisis doctrine is embedded. It is the lack of a similar hierarchy on an international level that does not allow for the [page 259] creation of a "supranational stare decisis" doctrine. Indeed, how should one decide whether a specific court is, from a hierarchical point of view, a lower court in respect to the court of a different country? And where in the scheme of things would arbitral tribunals fit into the hierarchy? Are they to be considered hierarchically superior to courts of first instances, appellate courts or even supreme courts? And what about the courts of Non-Contracting States? Should their decisions be taken into account at all? In a German court decision, this question seems to have been answered negatively; however, the German court did not provide any rationale as to why such a decision was made. But even if the decisions of courts of Non-Contracting States were to be considered, would they prevail over decisions of Contracting States and/or arbitral tribunals?
In my opinion, which, I have to admit, has changed since the CISG case law has begun to arise, foreign case law should always be considered as having merely persuasive value. This result is, in essence, what Article 7(1) of the CISG imposes when it provides that "regard is to be had . . . to the need to promote uniformity in its application." Foreign case law should be used as a source from which to draw either arguments or counter-arguments. Thus, it can be helpful in solving a specific problem. Consequently, an arbitral award could have more influence on a specific solution than a decision of a supreme court of a country whose judges are not accustomed to dealing with international issues in general, and the CISG in particular. Similarly, a court decision of a Non-Contracting State could be more influential than that of a Contracting State. Furthermore, the obiter dicta to be found in one decision could impact [page 260] the outcome of a specific case more than the rationes decidendi of other court decisions.
But independently of which position one takes, either the one just suggested, foreign case law as a mere aid, or any other one, each conceivable position will require that foreign case law be known and understood. Therefore, as we celebrate the tenth anniversary of the CISG coming into force, we should also celebrate all of the efforts undertaken to promote the aforementioned knowledge. Ten years from now, the reasons for this will be even more evident than they are today.[page 261]
* The Journal of Law and Commerce adheres to The Bluebook Uniform System of Citation, but the Journal of Law and Commerce has created uniform citations for certain sources not addressed by The Bluebook. Moreover, with respect to foreign language sources for which the Journal of Law and Commerce was not provided an English translation, the editors have relied on the author for the veracity of statements drawn from such sources.
** Professor of Comparative Private Law, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg, the Netherlands. The author gratefully acknowledges the help of Ms. Daniella J. Silbersher and Mr. Sean William Schembri in editing this paper.
1. See, e.g., Dieter Martiny, Autonome und einheitliche Auslegung im Europäischen Internationalen Zivilprozeßrecht, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 427, 427 (1981).
2. See Lisa M. Ryan, The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Divergent Interpretations, 4 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 99, 101 (1995) (stating that "textual uniformity . . . is insufficient.").
3. R.J.C. Munday, Comment, The Uniform Interpretation of International Conventions, 27 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 450, 450 (1978).
4. It has often been stated that it is only possible to reduce the danger of diverging interpretations, it is not possible to eliminate them as such. See, e.g., Joseph M. Lookofsky, Consequential Damages in Comparative Context 294 (1989).
5. See United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Apr. 11, 1980, S. Treaty Doc. No. 98-9 (1983), 19 I.L.M. 668 (1980) [hereinafter CISG] (entered into force on Jan. 1, 1988), available in 15 U.S.C.A. app. at 49 (West Supp. 1996), 52 Fed. Reg. 6262-80, 7737 (1987), U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 97/18 (1980).
6. Many abbreviations have been used for the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods; for a court decision which lists several, see OLG Frankfurt, April 20, 1994, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 593, 593 (1994). For a discussion in legal writing of the various abbreviations, see Axel Flessner & Thomas Kadner, CISG? Zur Suche nach einer Abkürzung für das Wiener Übereinkommen über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 347 (1995).
7. See CISG, supra note 5, art. 7(1).
8. See, e.g., Article 18 of the European Economic Community Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (reprinted in 19 I.L.M. 1492, 1496 (1980)); Article 4 of the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring (reprinted in 27 I.L.M. 922, 945-46 (1988)); Article 6 of the UNIDROIT Convention on International Financial Leasing (reprinted in 27 I.L.M. 922, 933-34 (1988)).
9. Several papers have been written on the interpretation of the CISG. See, e.g., Michael J. Bonell, L'interpretazione del diritto uniforme alla luce dell'art. 7 della convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale, 2 Rivista di diritto civile 221 (1986); Franco Ferrari, Interprétation uniforme de la Convention de 1980 sur la vente internationale, Revue internationale de droit comparé 813 (1996); Jorge Adame Goddard, Reglas de interpretacion de la Convencion sobre Compraventa Internacional de Mercaderias, Revista de investigaciones juridicas 9 (1990); Maria d.P. Perales Viscasillas, Una aproximacion al articulo 7 de la Convencion de Viena de 1980 sobre compraventa internacional de mercaderias, 16 Quadernos de derecho y comercio 55 (1995); V. Susanne Cook, Note, The Need for Uniform Interpretation of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 50 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 197 (1988).
10. See John Honnold, The Sales Convention in Action -- Uniform International Words: Uniform Application?, 8 J.L. & Com. 207, 208 (1988) ("One threat to international uniformity in interpretation is a natural tendency to read the international text through the lenses of domestic law."); see also Andrew Babiak, Comment, Defining "Fundamental Breach" Under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 6 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J. 113, 117 (1992) ("[I]nterpretations based on domestic law should be avoided.").
11. See, e.g., Bernard Audit, La vente internationale de marchandises 47 (1990); Michael J. Bonell, Commento all'art. 7 della Convenzione di Vienna, Nuove Leggi civili commentate 21, 21 (1989); Frank Diedrich, Maintaining Uniformity in International Uniform Law via Autonomous Interpretation: Software Contracts and the CISG, 8 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 303 (1996).
12. See John O. Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nations Convention 136 (2d ed. 1991) [hereinafter Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales] (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.'").
13. See CISG, supra note 5, art. 7(1).
14. But see Michael J. Bonell, Article 7, in Commentary on the International Sales Law: The 1980 Vienna Sales Convention 65, 74 (C.M. Bianca & M.J. Bonell eds., 1987) [hereinafter Bonell, Article 7] ("[T]o have regard to the 'international character' of the Convention also implies the necessity of interpreting its terms and concepts autonomously.").
15. It has often been pointed out that the CISG's ultimate goal is uniformity. See, e.g., Susie A. Malloy, Note, The Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts: Another Piece of the Puzzle of the Law Applicable to International Contracts, 19 Fordham Int'l L.J. 662, 667 n.17 (1995).
16. See Rolf Herber, Art. 7, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht 94, 94 (Peter Schlechtriem ed., 2d ed. 1995); Peter Winship, Changing Contract Practices in the Light of the United Nations Sales Convention: A Guide For Practitioners, 29 Int'l Law, 525, 528 (1995).
17. Dietrich Maskow, The Convention on the International Sale of Goods from the Perspective of the Socialist Countries, in La Vendita Internazionale. La convenzione di Vienna dell'11 aprile 1980 39, 54 (1981).
18. See, e.g., Vincent Heuzé, La vente internationale de marchandises. Droit uniforme 79 (1992); Joanne M. Darkey, 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? 15 J.L. & Com. 139, 142 (1995); Helen Elizabeth Hartnell, Rousing the Sleeping Dog: The Validity Exception to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 18 Yale J. Int'l L. 1, 7 (1993).
19. See, e.g., Fritz Enderlein et al. Internationales Kaufrecht: Kaufrechtskonvention, Verjährungskonvention. Vertretungskonvention. Rechtsanwendungskonvention 61 (1991); Dennis J. Rhodes, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Encouraging the Use of Uniform International Law, 5 Transnat'l Law. 387, 395-96 (1992).
20. See Fritz Enderlein, Die Interpretation internationalen Einheitsrechts, DDR-Außenwirtschaft 1 (1987, Supp. No. 98); Franco Ferrari, Uniform Interpretation of the 1980 Uniform Sales Law, in Essays in European Law and Israel 511 (Alfredo Mordechai Rabello ed., 1997); Jorge Adame Goddard, Reglas de interpretacion de la Convencion sobre Compraventa Internacional de Mercaderias, Diritto del commercio internazionale 103 (1990); Tomas Vazquez Lepinette, The Interpretation of the 1980 Vienna Convention on International Sales, Diritto del commercio internazionale 377 (1995).; Mark N. Rosenberg, The Vienna Convention: Uniformity in Interpretation for Gap-Filling - An Analysis and Application, Australian Bus. L. Rev. 442 (1992). See generally sources cited supra note 9.
21. See sources cited supra notes 10-11.
22. See Franco Ferrari, The Relationship Between the UCC and the CISG and the Construction of Uniform Law, 29 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1021 (1996) [hereinafter Ferrari, The Relationship Between the UCC and the CISG] (using several concrete examples to illustrate the negative consequences that can arise from the use of domestic concepts).
23. See, e.g., Bonell, Article 7, supra note 14, at 72-73 ("To have regard to the 'international character' of the Convention means first of all to avoid relying on the rules and techniques traditionally followed in interpreting ordinary domestic legislation.").
24. See Franco Ferrari, Uniform Interpretation of the 1980 Uniform Sales Law, 24 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 183, 202 (1994) [hereinafter Ferrari, Uniform Interpretation].
25. See Delchi Carrier SpA v. Rotorex Corp., 71 F.3d 1024, 1028 (2d Cir. 1995) (a recent American case in which the court referred to the need to interpret the CISG in light of its international character).
26. See Gerichtspräsident von Laufen, May 7, 1993, reprinted in Unilex; see also Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht (1993) (abstract).
27. Cf. BGH, April 3, 1996, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2364 (1996).
28. Some examples of expressions that are textually the same are: "avoidance"; "reasonable"; "good faith"; and "trade usages."
29. This is generally true for any uniform law convention. For a detailed discussion on the issue of how to interpret uniform law conventions other than the CISG and a reference to the issues referred to in the text, see generally Stefania Bariatti, L'interpretazione delle convenzioni internazionali di diritto uniforme (1986); and Bernardine W.M. Trompenaars, Pluriforme unificatie en uniforme interpretatie - in het buzonder de budrage van UNCITRAL aan de internationale unificatie van het privaatrecht (1989).
30. See, e.g., Rolf Herber & Beate Czerwenka, Internationales Kaufrecht. Kommentar zum Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom 11. April 1980 über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf 47 (1991).
31. See Ferrari, The Relationship Between the UCC and the CISG, supra note 22, at 1026.
32. See Alessandra Lanciotti, Norme uniformi di conflitto e materiali nella disciplina convenzionale della compravendita 287 (1992).
33. See Bonell, Article 7, supra note 14, at 74 ("When drafting the single provisions these experts had to find sufficiently neutral language on which they could reach a common understanding.").
34. See Diedrich, supra note 11, at 310 ("The [entire] text of the CISG consists of unique, supranational collective terms formed out of compromises between state delegates based on several systems of laws."). For references to the provisions of the CISG that result in a compromise, see, e.g., Eva Diederichsen, Commentary to Journal of Law & Commerce Case I, Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main, 14 J.L. & Com. 177, 177 (1995); Ferrari, Uniform Interpretation, supra note 24, at 201; Phanesh Koneru, The International Interpretation of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: An Approach Based on General Principles, 6 Minn. J. Global Trade 105, 105 (1997); and Barton S. Selden, Lex Mercatoria in European and U.S. Trade Practice: Time to Take a Closer Look, 2 Ann. Surv. Int'l & Comp. L. 111, 121 (1995).
35. See Enderlein et al., supra note 19, at 61; Herber, supra note 16, at 94.
36. One of the risks that results from diverging interpretations of the CISG is forum shopping. See, e.g., Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales, supra note 12, at 142 ("The 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.").
37. For a detailed discussion of the CISG's sphere of application, See, e.g., Franco Ferrari, The Sphere of Application of the Vienna Sales Convention (1995); Kevin Bell, The Sphere of Application of the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 8 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 237 (1996); Giorgio De Nova, L'ambito di applicazione "ratione materiae" della convenzione di Vienna, Rivista Trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 749 (1990); Rolf Herber, Anwendungsvoraussetzungen und Anwendungsbereich des Einheitlichen Kaufrechts, in Einheitliches Kaufrecht und nationales Obligationenrecht 97 (Peter Schlechtriem ed., 1987); Hans Hoyer, Der Anwendungsbereich des UNCITRAL-Einheitskaufrechts, Wirtschaftsrechtliche Blätter 70 (1988); Hans Hoyer, Der Anwendungsbereich des Einheitlichen Wiener Kaufrechts, in Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht 31 (Hans Hoyer & Willibald Posch eds., 1992); Martin Karollus, Der Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts im Überblick, Juristische Schulung 378 (1993); Nicole Lacasse, Le champ d'application de la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises, Actes du colloque sur la vente internationale 23 (Nicole Lacasse & Francois Perret eds., 1989); and Burghard Piltz, Der Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts, Anwaltsblatt 57 (1991).
38. For an exhaustive discussion of the issue of gap-filling under the CISG, see, e.g., Bettina Frigge, Externe Lücken und Internationales Privatrecht im UN-Kaufrecht (Art. 7(2)) (1994); James J. Callaghan, U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Examining the Gap-Filling Role of CISG in Two French Decisions, 14 J.L. & Com. 183 (1995); Jan Hellner, Gap-Filling by Analogy: Art. 7 of the U.N. Sales Convention in Its Historical Context, in Studies in International Law 219 (Jan Ramberg ed., 1990); Ulrich Magnus, Währungsfragen im Einheitlichen Kaufrecht. Zugleich ein Beitrag zu seiner Lückenfüllung und Auslegung, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 116 (1989); Hans Stoll, Regelungslücken im Einheitlichen Kaufrecht und IPR, Praxis des internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 75 (1993); Paul Volken, The Vienna Convention: Scope, Interpretation and Gap-Filling, in International Sale of Goods: Dubrovnik Lectures 19 (Petar Sarcevic & Paul Volken eds., 1985).
39. It has often been pointed out that the CISG is "directly" or "immediately" applicable where the criterion mentioned in the text is met. See, e.g., Peter Schlechtriem, Internationales UN-Kaufrecht 8 (1996); Ulrich Magnus, Zum räumlich-internationalen Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts und zur Mängelrüge, in Praxis des internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 390, 390 (1993).
40. The following recent court decisions have applied the CISG by virtue of its Article 1(1)(a): LG Aachen, April 19, 1996, UNILEX; LG Aachen, May 14, 1993, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 760 (1993); AG Augsburg, January 29, 1996, UNILEX; BG, January 18, 1996, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichts 122 III 43; BGH, December 11, 1996, Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 519 (1997); BGH, December 4, 1996, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report 690 (1997); BGH, March 8, 1995, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 595 (1995); BGH, February 15, 1995, Wertpapier-Mitteilungen 1103 (1995); LG Bochum, January 24, 1996, Int'l Legal F. 93 (1996); Metropolitan Court Budapest, March 24, 1992, Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts, case 52; Tribunal of Buenos Aires, May 20, 1991, Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts, case 21; Compromex, May 4, 1993, Diario Oficial 17 (1993); OLG Düsseldorf, July 11, 1996, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 958 (1996); LG Frankfurt, July 13, 1994, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report 1264 (1994); LG Gießen, July 5, 1994, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 438 (1994); Cour d'Appel Grenoble, May 15, 1996, UNILEX; LG Hamburg, June 17, 1996, UNILEX; OLG Hamm, January 1997, unpublished; LG Heidelberg, July 3, 1992, Diritto del commercio internazionale 655 (1993); Hof s'Hertogenbosch, April 24, 1996, UNILEX; OLG Koblenz, January 21, 1997, UNILEX; OLG Köln, January 8, 1997, UNILEX; OLG Köln, May 21, 1996, unpublished; OG Luzern, January 8, 1997, UNILEX; OLG München, March 2, 1994, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report 1075 (1994); OGH, February 6, 1996, Recht der Wirtschaft 203 (1996); LG Oldenburg, November 9, 1994, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report 438 (1995); LG Paderborn, June 25, 1996, UNILEX; Federal Court South Aust. Dist. Adelaide, April 28, 1995, 57 Fed. Ct. Rep. 216 (1995); and HG Zürich, July 10, 1996, unpublished.
41. See Enderlein et al., supra note 19, at 29; Peter Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law: The UN-Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 24 n.45 (1986). But see Kenneth C. Randall & John E. Norris, A New Paradigm for International Business Transactions, 71 Wash. U. L.Q. 599, 614-15 (1993).
42. See CISG, supra note 5, art. 1(1) ("This Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States: (a) when the States are Contracting States; or (b) when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State.").
43. For a detailed analysis of the concept of private international law under the CISG, see Franco Ferrari, Der Begriff des "internationalen Privatrechts" nach Art. I Abs. I lit. b) des UN-Kaufrechts, Zeitschrift für Europaisches Privatrecht (in print) [hereinafter Ferrari, Der Begriff].
44. For a recent overview of the case law identifying the issues not governed by the CISG, see Franco Ferrari, Die Schuldübernahme als vom UN-Kaufrecht nicht geregelte Rechtsmaterie, Forum des internationalen Rechts 89 (1997).
45. See HG St. Gallen, August 24, 1995, UNILEX.
46. See LG München, May 29, 1995, UNILEX; AG Nordhorn, June 14, 1994, UNILEX.
47. See Federal Court, South Australia District Adelaide, April 28, 1995, 57 Fed. Ct. Rep. 216 (1995) (stating "in particular, the Convention is not concerned with the effect which the contract may have on the property in the goods sold"); OLG Koblenz, January 16, 1992, Praxis des internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 46 (1994) (stating that the validity of a reservation of title clause is not governed by the CISG).
48. See AG Alsfeld, May 12, 1995, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report 120 (1996); KG Berlin, January 24, 1994, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 683 (1994); LG Hamburg, September 26, 1990, Praxis des internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 400 (1991); AG Tessin, February 21, 1996, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und Europäisches Recht 135 (1996).
49. See RB Arnhem, February 25, 1993, UNILEX; OLG Düsseldorf, July 11, 1996, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 958 (1996); OLG Hamm, June 9, 1995, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report 179 (1996); OLG Koblenz, September 17, 1993, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 934 (1993); RB Middelburg, January 25, 1995, UNILEX; AG München, June 23, 1995, UNILEX; RB Roermond, May 6, 1993, UNILEX; OLG Stuttgart, August 21, 1995, Praxis des internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 139 (1996).
50. See OLG Hamm, February 8, 1995, Praxis des internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 197 (1996); BG Arbon, December 9, 1994, UNILEX.
51. See LG Düsseldorf, October 11, 1995, UNILEX; OLG Hamm, June 9, 1995, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report 179 (1996); ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award 7660, ICC Int'l Ct. Arb. Bull. 69 (Nov. 1995).
52. See OGH, April 24, 1997, Forum des internationalen Rechts 93 (1997).
53. See ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award 7331, ICC Int'l Ct. Arb. Bull. 73 (Nov. 1995).
54. See Hof Arnhem, August 22, 1995, UNILEX; ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award 7331, ICC Int'l Ct. Arb. Bull. 73 (Nov. 1995).
55. See Camara Nacional en lo Comercial, October 14, 1993, El Derecho 4 (April 25, 1994).
56. See, e.g., Patrick R. Williams, The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, 35 Int'l Comp. L.Q. 1, 11 (1986).
57. See, e.g., P.M. North & J.J. Fawcett, Cheshire and North's Private International Law 476 (12th ed. 1992).
58. For a reference to a country (Brazil) which does not acknowledge the parties' freedom to choose the applicable law, see Ferrari, Der Begriff, supra note 43.
59. In this respect, see, e.g., Article 15 of the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (reprinted in 19 I.L.M. 1492, 1496 (1980)) ("The application of the law of any country specified by this Convention means the application of the rules of law in force in that country other than its rules of private international law."). See also Article 15 of the 1985 Hague Conference on Private International Law Draft Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (reprinted in 24 I.L.M. 1573, 1577 (1985)) ("In the Convention, "law" means the law in force in a State other than its choice of law rules.").
60. For a reference to Austria's acceptance of the doctrine of renvoi even in the area of contract law, see Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien, February 20, 1992, österreichisches Recht der Wirtschaft 239 (1992).
61. See Ferrari, Der Begriff, supra note 43.
62. See, e.g., Cour de Cassation, December 17, 1996, Revue critique de droit international privé 72 (1997) (annulling the appellate court's decision not to apply the CISG to a contract concluded between a French seller and an Irish buyer which contained a choice of law clause leading to the law of a Contracting State); OLG Düsseldorf, January 8, 1993, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Recht-spreschungs-Report 999 (1993) (applying the CISG -- by virtue of the choice of German law -- to a contract concluded between a Turkish seller and a German buyer on a date when Germany was a Contracting State but Turkey was not); OLG Köln, February 22, 1994, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 972 (1994) (applying the CISG to a contract concluded between a Dutch seller and a German buyer by virtue of the parties' choice of German law as the applicable law and, thus, the law of a Contracting State).
63. See Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien, February 20, 1992, österreichisches Recht der Wirtschaft 239 (1992).
64. According to some authors, the CISG's rejection of the renvoi doctrine can be derived from its legislative history. Indeed, according to the United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods Official Records: Documents of the Conference and Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Main Committees (Vienna, 10 March - 11 April 1980) 15 (United Nations ed., 1981), it appears that the "law" to which the rules of private international law have to refer in order to make the CISG applicable by virtue of Article 1(1)(b) is the "substantive law" of a Contracting State.
65. For this conclusion with reference to the problem discussed in the text, see Franco Ferrari, Specific Topics of the CISG in the Light of Judicial Application and Scholarly Writing, 15 J.L. & Com. 1, 38 n.242 (1995) [hereinafter Ferrari, Specific Topics]. See also Peter Winship, The Scope of the Vienna Convention on International Sales Contracts, in International Sales: The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods § 1.1, 1-29 (Nina M. Galston & Hans Smit eds., 1984) ("The drafting history also suggests that the forum should apply the convention if its own conflicts rules lead to a Contracting State."). But see id. at 1-28 to 1-29 (contrasting statement by the same author, where the author appears to argue that the "law" referred to in Article 1(1)(b) is "substantive law" on the grounds that, "[t]here is a general reluctance to inquire into the conflict-of-laws rules recognized by another jurisdiction, as suggested, for example, by the general disapproval of the doctrine of renvoi.").
66. Apart from the authors quoted supra notes 16-18, see Elizabeth H. Patterson, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Unification and the Tension Between Compromise and Domination, 22 Stan. J. Int'l L. 263, 283 (1986).
67. See V. Susanne Cook, The U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Mandate to Abandon Legal Ethnocentricity, 16 J.L. & Com. 257, 261 (1997).
68. See Gert Reinhart, UN-Kaufrecht. Kommentar zum Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom 11. April 1980 über den internationalen Warenkauf 30 (1991).
69. At this point it may be useful to point out that the interpreters are not only the judges, but the contracting parties as well. See, e.g., Fritz Enderlein & Dietrich Maskow, International Sales Law 55 (1992) ("To have regard to the international character of the Convention means, above all, not to proceed in interpreting it from national juridical constructions and terms . . . . This does not only refer to judges but also to the parties which in settling their differences of opinion first and foremost have to interpret the applicable rules.") (second emphasis added).
70. For court decisions quoting prior CISG case law rendered by tribunals of the same country, see, e.g., OLG Düsseldorf, July 11, 1996, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 958 (1996); LG Kassel, June 22, 1995, UNILEX; OLG Hamm, February 8, 1995, Praxis des internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 197 (1996); OLG Koblenz, September 17, 1993, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 934 (1994); OLG Oldenburg, November 9, 1994, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report 438 (1995).
71. See Tribunale Cuneo, January 31, 1996, UNILEX.
72. Id., quoting Pretura Locarno-Campagna, April 27, 1992, reprinted in Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht 665 (1993).
73. Id. (reprinted in Praxis des internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 317 (1990)) (quoting LG Stuttgart, August 31, 1998).
74. For a list of nearly 300 hundred cases, see Michael R. Will, International Sales Law under CISG: The First 284 or so Decisions (4th ed. 1996).
75. See UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (last modified Feb. 9, 1998) (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu).
76. For a description on how this, as well as other Internet sites dealing with the CISG, are to be used, see Claire M. Germain, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Guide to Research and Literature, in Cornell Rev. of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 117 (1995); Albert H. Kritzer, The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Scope, Interpretation and Resources, in Cornell Rev. of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 147 (1995).
77. See CISG Online (visited Mar. 19, 1998) "http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/iprl/cisg".
78. See CISG-France (visited Feb. 9, 1998) "http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/FB/LS/Witz/cisg.htm".
79. For a comment on UNILEX as a tool to promote the CISG's uniform application, see Fabio Liguori, "UNILEX": A Means to Promote Uniformity in the Application of CISG, in Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 600 (1996).
80. Michael J. Bonell & Fabio Liguori, The U.N. Convention on the International Sale of Goods: A Critical Analysis of Current International Case Law (Part I), Uniform L. Rev. 147, 147 n.1 (1996).
81. This issue arose under the 1964 Hague Conventions as well. For a discussion of this issue see R.H. Graveson, The International Unification of Law, 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 4, 12 (1968), where the author states that, "[a]llowing for the necessary and inevitable divergence of human decision, a problem still remains of ensuring that any tendencies towards divergence in the application of uniform laws shall be corrected at appropriate times and in suitable ways. How then shall continuing uniformity be ensured? Shall it be done by giving ultimate jurisdiction to an international court, such as the International Court of Justice?" (emphasis added). Id. However, "a similar solution can hardly be conceived with respect to [the Vienna Sales] Convention. This Convention, like other international conventions elaborated under the auspices of the United Nations or other international organizations, . . . is intended to receive a world-wide acceptance. To expect that all adhering States, notwithstanding their different social, political and legal structure, could even agree on conferring to an international tribunal the exclusive competence to resolve divergences between the national jurisdictions in the interpretation of the uniform rules, would be entirely unrealistic." Bonell, Article 7, supra note 14, at 89.
82. See Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the Work of its Twenty-First Session 98 (1988).
83. Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales, supra note 12, at 145.
84. Note that the CLOUTS (Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts) can be found on the Internet as well: see The International Trade Law Branch of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) (last modified Jan. 14, 1998) "http//www.unor.at/uncitral/".
85. See, e.g., Herber & Czerwenka, supra note 30, at 48; Michael J. Bonell, International Uniform Law in Practice - Or Where the Real Trouble Begins, 38 Am. J. Comp. L. 865, 878 (1990).
86. For the most recent papers discussing judicial applications of the CISG in different countries, see Franco Ferrari, La vendita internazionale di beni mobile. Applicabilità ed applicazioni della Convenzione di Vienna (1997); Claude Witz, Les premières applications jurisprudentielles du droit uniforme de la vente internationale. Convention des Nations Unies du 11 avril 1980 (1995); Bonell & Liguori, supra note 80, at 147; Callaghan, supra note 38, at 183; Louis F. Del Duca & Patrick Del Duca, Practice Under the Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG); A Primer for Attorneys and International Traders, 27 UCC L.J. 331 (1995) (part I), 29 UCC L.J. 99 (1996) (part II); Ferrari, Specific Topics, supra note 65, at 1; Harry M. Flechtner, More U.S. Decisions on the U.N. Sales Convention: Scope, Parol Evidence, "Validity" and Reduction of Price Under Article 50, 14 J.L. & Com. 153 (1995); Martin Karollus, Judicial Interpretation and Application of the CISG in Germany 1988-1994, in Cornell Rev. of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 51 (1995); Fabio Liguori, La Convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale di beni mobili nella pratica: un'analisi critica delle prime cento decisioni, 5 Foro italiano 145 (1996); Ulrich Magnus, Das UN-Kaufrecht: Fragen und Probleme seiner praktischen Bewährung, in Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 823 (1997); Ulrich Magnus, Stand und Entwicklungen des UN-Kaufrechts, in Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 202 (1995); Burghard Piltz, Neue Entwicklungen im UN-Kaufrecht, in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2768 (1996); Claude Witz, La Convention de Vienne sur la vente internationale de marchandises à l'épreuve de la jurisprudence naissante, in Dalloz Chronique 143 (1995); Claude Witz & Gerhard Wolter, Die ersten Entscheidungen französischer Gerichte zum Einheitlichen Kaufrecht, in Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 810 (1995); The U.N. Convention on the International Sale of Goods: A Critical Analysis of Current International Case Law (Part II), Uniform L. Rev. 359 (1996).
87. For cases rendered by state courts holding that the CISG is inapplicable where the parties chose the law of a Contracting State to govern their contract, see Cour d'Appel Colmar, September 26, 1995, UNILEX. For cases applying the CISG where the parties chose the law of a Contracting State, see Hof Arnhem, May 7, 1996, Nederlands International Privaatrecht 508 (1996); LG Düsseldorf, October 11, 1995, UNILEX; OLG Celle, May 24, 1995, UNILEX; Hof Leeuwarden, June 5, 1996, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 521 (1996); OLG München, February 8, 1995, UNILEX.
88. For an arbitral tribunal that found the CISG inapplicable where the parties had chosen the law of a Contracting State as the applicable law, see Ad Hoc Tribunal of Florence, April 19, 1994, Diritto del commercio internazionale 861 (1994). For a favorable comment to this arbitral award, See, e.g., Jacomo Cappuccio, La deroga implicita nella Convenzione di Vienna del 1980, Diritto del commercio internazionale 867 (1994). But see ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award 8324, J. du droit Int'l 1019 (1996); Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft Wien, Arbitral Award 4366, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 590 (1995); ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award 7660, ICC Int'l Ct. Arb. Bull. 69 (Nov. 1995).
89. See Cour d'Appel Chambéry, May 25, 1993, Revue de jurisprudence commerciale 242 (1995).
90. See CISG, supra note 5, art. 3(1) ("Contracts for the supply of goods to be manufactured or produced are to be considered sales unless the party who orders the goods undertakes to supply a substantial part of the materials necessary for such manufacture or production.").
91. Bonell & Liguori, supra note 80, at 151.
92. See ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award 5713, 15 Y.B. Com. Arb. 70 (1990); Iran-United States Tribunal, Arbitral Award 370, 15 Y.B. Com. Arb. 220 (1990).
93. See ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award 6281, J. du droit Int'l 1054 (1991).
94. For scholarly writings on which rate of interest is to be applied on sums paid in arrears, see, e.g., Peter Kindler, Gesetzliche Zinsansprüche im Zivil-und Handelsrecht 95 (1996); Hans Adam & Peter Kindler, Ersatz des Zins-und Geldentwertungsschadens nach dem Wiener Kaufrechtsüber-einkommen vom 11.4.1980 bei deutsch-italienischen Kaufverträgen, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 841 (1989); Franco Ferrari, Tasso degli interessi ed applicazione uniforme della Convenzione di Vienna sui contratti di vendita internazionale, 2 Rivista di diritto civile 277 (1995); Franco Ferrari, Uniform Application and Interest Rates Under the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention, 24 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 467 (1995); Maria d.P. Perales Viscasillas, La determinacion del tipo de interes en la compraventa internacional, Cuadernos Juridicos 5 (1996).
95. Bonell, Article 7, supra note 14, at 91. See also Ferrari, Specific Topics, supra note 65, at 12.
96. Larry A. Dimatteo, An International Contract Law Formula: The Informality of International Business Transactions Plus the Internationalization of Contract Law Equals Unexpected Contractual Liability, L=(II)2, 23 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 67, 79 (1997).
97. Larry A. Dimatteo, The CISG and the Presumption of Enforceability: Unintended Contractual Liability in International Business Dealings, 22 Yale J. Int'l L. 111, 133 (1997).
99. Vivian Grosswald Curran, The Interpretive Challenge to Uniformity, 15 J.L. & Com. 175, 177 (1995).
100. For similar remarks, albeit with reference to a different uniform law convention, see Claus-Wilhelm Canaris, Die Bedeutung allgemeiner Auslegungs-und Rechtsfortbildungskriterien im Wechselrecht, JuristenZeitung 543 (1987).
101. For cases applying the rate of interest of the domestic law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law, see AG Augsburg, January 29, 1996, UNILEX; Tribunal Civil de la Gane, May 20, 1996, UNILE, LG München, January 25, 1996, UNILEX; HG St. Gallen, December 5, 1995, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internatioanles und europäisches Recht 53 (1996); AG Tessin, February 12, 1996, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht 135 (1996); ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award 8611, UNILEX.
102. See OLG Frankfurt, April 20, 1994, Recht der intenrationalen Wirtschaft 593 (1994). In deciding a dispute regarding the sale of New Zealand mussels by a Swiss seller to a German buyer, the court expressly referred to the need to interpret the CISG by having regard to its international character and the need for the promotion of the CISG's uniform application in Contracting States.
103. See, e.g., Ferrari, Uniform Interpretation, supra note 24, at 204-05 (stating that foreign case law can have the value of precedent where there is a uniform trend.)
104. See also Ernst A. Kramer, Uniforme Interpretation von Einheitsprivatrecht-mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Art. 7 UNKR, Juristische Blätter 137, 146 (1996).
105. See CISG, supra note 5, art. 7(1) (emphasis added).
106. See Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 69, at 56 (stating, "[w]hat matters . . . is not a prejudicial effect of rulings by foreign courts or arbitrational tribunals and not that the decision taken by an organ, which by accident was entrusted first to deal with a specific legal issue, is attached a particularly great importance; rather, the existing material in regard to relevant rulings has to be taken account of when giving the reason for a decision.").