Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography


Also available at Pace Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), Kluwer Law International (2000-2001) 1-8

Burden of Proof under the CISG

Franco Ferrari [†]

I.   General Remarks
II.  Burden of Proof and Scholarly Writings
III. CISG Case Law on the Issue of Burden of Proof

I. General Remarks

Despite a recent court decision stating that the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG)[1] constitutes "an exhaustive body of rules,"[2] the contrary is true. The CISG does not deal with all the issues that arise from international sales contracts.[3] This can be easily derived from the text of the CISG itself. For instance, Article 4 states, on the one hand, that the CISG governs only the formation of the contract of sale and the rights and obligations of the seller and the buyer and, on the other hand, except as otherwise expressly provided in it, that it is not concerned with either the validity of the contract, any of its provisions, any usage [4] or the effect the contract may have on the property in the goods sold.[5] This provision is not the only evidence that the CISG is not an exhaustive body of rules. According to Article 5, the CISG does not apply to the liability of the seller for death or personal injury caused by the goods, something a recent German court decision apparently overlooked when it awarded damages to a buyer who had to compensate its own buyer for having been injured by the goods sold.[6]

These issues, as well as all the other issues that are excluded from the CISG's sphere of application (which have been referred to as "external gaps," "lacunae praeter legem" or, simply, "issues not governed by the CISG"),[7] must be distinguished from the matters governed by the CISG but which are not expressly settled in it (which have been referred to as "internal gaps" or "lacunae intra legem").[8] This distinction is necessary since different types of gaps are dealt with differently. Whereas the "external gaps" are to be filled by resorting to the "law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law,"[9] the internal gaps "are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which the Convention is based."[10] Only where internal gaps cannot be settled in conformity with the general principles on which the Convention is based should recourse to the law applicable by virtue of rules of private international law be possible.[11]

Unfortunately the CISG gives only little guidance in order to distinguish between the aforementioned types of gaps.[12] Thus, it is no surprise that in respect to some issues there is a dispute as to whether or not they are governed by the CISG. This is true where burden of proof is concerned, attracting the attention of many legal writers in recent years.[13]

II. Burden of Proof and Scholarly Writings

Some authors claim the issue of burden of proof is not governed by the CISG,[14] which is why one should, apart from very exceptional cases,[15] have recourse to domestic law to solve it.[16] There is, however, no agreement between these legal writers as to how to determine the applicable domestic law. Whereas some legal writers hold the view that recourse should be had to the lex fori on the basis that the issue constitutes one of procedural law,[17] others propose to resort to the domestic law made applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law in the forum.[18]

The prevailing view appears to be that the issue of burden of proof is a matter governed, at least implicitly,[19] by the CISG.[20] This view has been justified on the grounds that the CISG itself provides at least one rule on the burden of proof, namely the one to be found in Article 79,[21] which is why it cannot be asserted that the CISG does not govern the issue at hand.[22] Further, the issue of burden of proof is so closely linked to the substantive law that a rule on its allocation has to necessarily be derived from the CISG.[23] Considering this view, the issue of burden of proof is a matter governed, albeit not expressly, by the CISG.

At this point, one must wonder how the burden of proof is in concreto to be allocated. A close examination of the wording [24] and the legislative history of the various provisions of the CISG has led those legal writers who consider the issue of burden of proof as one governed by the CISG to assert that the allocation is based upon the principle ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat.[25] On one hand, this means that a party has to prove the existence of the factual prerequisites contained in the legal provision from which it wants to derive beneficial legal consequences.[26] On the other hand, this also means that a party claiming an exception has the burden of proving its prerequisites.[27]

III. CISG Case Law on the Issue of Burden of Proof

CISG case law on the issue of burden of proof basically mirrors the situation to be found in legal writing. Even though there are a few voices excluding the issue of burden of proof as being governed by the CISG, the prevailing view is that it is somehow governed by the CISG.

In respect to the former view, it may be sufficient to recall an ICC arbitral award,[28] rendered not too long after the CISG's entry into force, in which the Arbitral Tribunal expressly stated that the issue of burden of proof is not governed by the CISG. It was held rather, the issue is governed by the domestic law to be determined by means of the rules of private international law, in which it is considered to be a substantive issue, or by the lex fori, in which it is considered a procedural one. More recently, a similar view was held by a Swiss court.[29]

These, as previously mentioned, are rather isolated views. Several court decisions expressly state that even though the issue of burden of proof is not one explicitly settled in the CISG, it is implicitly governed by it.[30] In other words, the issue of allocation of the burden of proof is an internal gap which, as expressly stated by a Swiss court in 1993[31] and more recently by an Italian one,[32] has to be settled by resorting to the CISG's general principles. Several courts, including a German [33] and an Austrian one,[34] have expressed their view on the general principles governing the issue de quo.[35] They seem, however, to have best been summarized by recent Swiss [36] and Italian [37] decisions which rightly list, like some legal writers,[38] the following three general principles:

(1) Any party which wants to derive beneficial legal consequences from a legal provision has to prove the existence of the factual prerequisites of that provision;

(2) Any party claiming an exception has to prove the existence of the factual prerequisites of that exception; and

(3) Those facts that are exclusively in a party's sphere of responsibility and which therefore are, at least theoretically, better known to that party have to be proven by that party, since it is that party who exercises the control over that sphere.

It is upon the aforementioned principles that the courts of several countries have relied in order to in concreto allocate the burden of proof. This led various courts, two Swiss [39] and one Italian,[40] to state that the buyer who asserts the non-conformity of the goods has to prove the non-conformity as well as the existence of a proper notice of non-conformity. Similarly, an Austrian court decided that the buyer had to pay the price and was not entitled to damages or to avoidance of the contract for non-conformity of the goods since it had not proved the non-conformity of the goods according to Article 35.[41] Prior to the Austrian court, a German court had already allocated the burden of proof in the same way.[42] More recently, a Belgian court, in dealing with a dispute relating to an alleged non-conformity, decided that the buyer had lost its right to rely upon the non-conformity since it had not been able to prove that timely notice was given to the seller.[43]

In two Dutch cases, the aforementioned general principles induced the courts to state that under Article 42,[44] the buyer has the burden of proving that the seller knew or could not have been unaware of the third party industrial or intellectual property rights.[45]

The foregoing general principles were also the basis for several decisions dealing with the issue of damages. In this respect, a Swiss court decision [46] and an Italian court decision [47] are worth mentioning since they stated very clearly that according to the CISG the damaged buyer has the burden of proving the objective prerequisites of his claim for damages. Thus, he has to prove the damage, the causal link between the breach of contract and the damage, as well as the foreseeability of the loss.[48] In another Italian case, the court stated more generally that the party claiming damages has to prove the damage suffered.[49] This appears to be the view also held by courts from other countries, such as Germany [50] and Spain.[51]

From what has been said, a conclusion can be drawn: the issue of burden of proof is a matter governed by the CISG, albeit not expressly settled in it. Like all internal gaps, this one has to be dealt with by means of the general principles underlying the CISG. This solution is preferable to the other, whereby one should resort to domestic law, since it is the only one that promotes uniformity - the ultimate goal of any uniform commercial law convention.


FOOTNOTES

† Professor of Comparative Private Law, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg, the Netherlands; J.D. (Honors), University of Bologna, Italy; LL.M., University of Augsburg, Germany.

1. See United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, April 11, 1980, S. TREATY DOC. NO. 98-9 (1984), 1489 U.N.T.S. 3, reprinted as United Nations: Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 19 I.L.M. 668 (1980) [hereinafter CISG].

2. Gerichtspräsident von Laufen (Switz.), UNILEX (7 May 1993).

3. For a similar statement, see MAGNUS WEINER, UN-KAUFRECHT (CISG) 107 (2d ed. 1999).

4. For case law stating that the issue of validity is an issue not governed by the CISG and, thus, left to the applicable domestic law, see AG Nordhorn (F.R.G), No. 3C 75/94, UNILEX (14 June 1994), available at http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/259.htm; HG St. Gallen (Switz.), No. HG 48/1994, UNILEX (24 August 1995); OLG Köln (F.R.G.), No. 22 U 4/96, UNILEX (21 May 1996), available at http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/254.htm; OGH (Aus.), No. 2 Ob 58/97m, UNILEX (20 March 1997), available at http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/269.htm; BGH (F.R.G.), No. VIII ZR 130/96, UNILEX (23 July 1997) (parties chose German law), available at http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/285.htm.

5. For case law appyling domestic law to the proprietary effects of international sales contracts on the basis of their not being governed by the CISG, see OLG Koblenz (F.R.G.), No. 5 U 534/91, UNILEX (16 January 1992), available at http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/47.htm; Roder Zelt- und Hallenkonstruktionen GmbH v. Rosedown Park Pty. Ltd. and Another, 57 FED. CT. REP. 216 (1995), available at http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de./ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/218.htm.

6. See OLG Düsseldorf (F.R.G), No. 17 U 73/93, UNILEX (2 July 1993), available at http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/74.htm. See also Kuhlen, Produkthaftung im internationalen Kaufrecht. Entstehungsgeschichte, Anwendungsbereich und Sperrwirkung des Art. 5 des Wiener UN-Kaufrechts (CISG); Schneider, UN-Kaufrecht und Produkthaftpflicht (1995) (discussion of the CISG, Art. 5).

7. See Franco Ferrari, Interprétation Uniforme de la Convention de 1980 Sur la Vente Internationale [Uniform Interpretation of the CISG], 1996 REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE DROIT COMPARÉ 813 (for a reference to the different names given by the various authors to the gaps at hand).

8. See Franco Ferrari, Jurisprudence concernant les questions non abordées par la CVIM [Implementation of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods CISG], 1998 REVUE DE DROIT DES AFFAIRS INTERNATIONALES 835 (for a detailed reference to the issues not dealt with, even implicitly, by the CISG). See also Franco Ferrari, Die Schuldübernahme als vom UN-Kaufrecht nicht geregelte Rechtsmaterie [Assumption of Debts as a Subject Matter Excluded from the UN Sales Convention, Commentary on OGH (Aus.) 24 April 1997], 1997 FORUM DES INTERNATIONALEN RECHTS 89, available at http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/ferrar.html.

9. CISG, 1, art. 7(2).

10. Id. See also Trib Pavia, 29 December 1999, CORRIERE GIURIDICO (2000) 932-933 (for a reference in recent case law to the different consequences referred to in the text).

11. See Franco Ferrari, Das Verhältnis zwischen den UNIDROIT-Grundsätzen und den allgemeinen Grundsätzen internationaler [The Relationship Between the UNIDROIT Principles and the General Principles of International Conventions Unifying Private Law], 53 JURISTEN ZEITUNG 9 (1998) (for a detailed examination of the issue of gap-filling under the CISG). See also Ulrich Magnus, Währungsfragen im Einheitlichen Kaufrecht. Zugleich ein Beitrag zu seiner Lückenfüllung und Auslegung [Currency Issues in Uniform Sales Law. Also a Contribution to Filling of its Gaps and its Interpretation], in 1989 RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 116; Mark N. Rosenberg, The Vienna Convention: Uniformity in Interpretation for Gap-Filling - An Analysis and Application, 20 AUSTL. BUS. L. REV. 442, 459 (1992); Paul Volken, The Vienna Convention: Scope, Interpretation and Gap-Filling, in International Sale of Goods, in INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS, DUBROVNIK LECTURES 19 (Sarcevic & Volken eds., 1985).

12. See CISG, supra note 1, arts. 4, 5.

13. See, e.g., ANTWEILER, BEWEISLASTVERTEILUNG IM UN-KAUFRECHT, INSBESONDERE BEI VERTRAGSVERLETZUNGEN DES VERKÄUFERS (1995) ; Chiara Giovannucci Orlandi, Procedural law issues and Uniform Law Conventions, 2000 UNIFORM LAW REVIEW/REVUE DE DROIT UNIFORME 23-42; Oskar Hartwieg, Die "autonome Beweislast" der Wiener Konvention der Vereinten Nationen über den Internationalen Warenkauf von 1980 (CISG), in 2 GRIECHISCHES RECHT IM WANDEL (1991); HENNINGER, DIE FRAGE DER BEWEISLAST IM RAHMEN DES UN-KAUFRECHTS: ZUGLEICH EINE RECHTSVERHLEICHENDE GRUNDLAGENSTUDIE ZUR BEWEISLAST (1995); ALEXANDER IMBERG, BEWEISLASTVERTEILUNG BEIM GEFAHRÜBERGANG NACH UN-KAUFRECHT 43 (Peter Lang ed., 1998); REIMERS-ZOCHER, BEWEISLASTFRAGEN IM HAAGER UND WIENER KAUFRECHT (1995).

14. See GERT REINHART, UN-KAUFRECHT, KOMMENTAR ZUM ÜBEREINKOMMEN DER VEREINTEN NATIONEN VOM 11. APRIL 1980 ÜBER VERTRÄGE ÜBER DEN INTERNATIONALEN WARENKAUF [UN-SALES LAW, COMMENTARY ON THE CISG] 288 (1991).

15. See MAX HUTTER, DIE HAFTUNG DES VERKAUFERS FÜR NICHTLIEFERUNG BZW. LIEFERUNG VERTRAGSWIDRIGER WARE NACH DEM WIENER UNCITRAL - ÜBEREINKOMMEN ÜBER INTERNATIONALE WARENKAUFVERTRAGE VOM 11. APRIL 1980 [SELLER'S LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER AND DELIVERY OF NONCONFORMING GOODS UNDER THE CISG] art. 35(2)(b) (1988) (for an author who states that the issue of burden of proof is generally not governed by the CISG, but who claims that there are exceptions to the rule).

16. See, e.g., Warren L. Khoo, Article 2, in COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW, THE 1980 VIENNA SALES CONVENTION 34 (C. M. Bianca & M. J. Bonell eds., 1987) [hereinafter COMMENTARY ON INT'L SALES LAW]; Ulrich Huber, Der UNCITRAL-Entwurf eines Übereinkommens über internationale Warenkaufverträge [The UNCITRAL Draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods], 43 RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 413 (1979); Arthur Rosett, Critical Reflections on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 45 OHIO ST.L.J. 265 (1984).

17. See GRITLI RYFFEL, DIE SCHADENERSATZHAFTUNG DES VERKÄUFERS NACH DEM WIENER ÜBEREINKOMMEN ÜBER INTERNATIONALE WARENKAUFVERTRÄGE VOM 11. APRIL 1980 [THE SELLER'S LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE CISG] 155 (1992).

18. See Shivbir S. Grewal, Risk of Loss in Goods Sold During Transit: A Comparative Study of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the Uniform Commercial Code, and the British Sale of Goods Act, 14 LOY. L.A. INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 93, 102 (1991).

19. See Rolf Herber, Article 4, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT 77 (2d ed., 1995); ROLF HERBER & BEATE CZERWENKA, INTERNATIONALES KAUFRECHT, KOMMENTAR ZU DEM ÜBEREINKOMMEN DER VEREINTEN NATIONEN VOM 11, APRIL 1980 ÜBER VERTRÄGE ÜBER DEN INTERNATIONALEN WARENKAUF, KOMMENTAR 32-33 (1991).

20. See ANTWEILER, supra note 13, at 74; JOACHIM AUE, MÄNGELGEWÄHRLEISTUNG IM UN-KAUFRECHT UNTER BESONDERER BERÜCKSICHTIGUNG STILLSCHWEIGENDER ZUSICHERUNGEN [WARRANTY FOR CONFORMITY UNDER THE CISG; IMPLIED WARRANTIES] 110 (1989); C.M. Bianca, Article 36, in COMMENTARY ON INT'L SALES LAW, supra note 16, at 287; FRANCO FERRARI, VENDITA INTERNAZIONALE DI BENI MOBILI, TOMO 1 - ART. 1-13, AMBITO DI APPLICAZIONE - DISPOSIZIONI GENERALI [THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS] 101 -102 (Scialoja & Branca eds., 1994); HENNINGER, supra note 13, at 153; Rolf Herber, Anwendungsbereich des UNCITRAL-Kaufrechtsübereinkommens [Sphere of application of the UNCITRAL - Sales Law Convention], in DAS UNCITRAL-KAUFRECHT IM VERGLEICH ZUM ÖSTERREICHISCHEN RECHT 28, 41 (Doralt ed., 1985); IMBERG, supra note 13, at 19-20; V. Knapp, Article 74, in COMMENTARY ON INT'L SALES LAW, supra note 16, at 541; Ulrich Magnus, Stand und Entwicklungen des UN-Kaufrechts [Current status and development of UN-Sales Law], 1995 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 202, 207; KONSTANTINOS NOUSSIAS, DIE UGANGSBEDÜRFTIGKEIT VON MITTEILUNGEN NACH DEN EINHEITLICHEN HAAGER KAUFGESETZEN UND NACH DEM UN-KAUFGESETZ [THE REQUIREMENT OF RECEIPT OF NOTICES UNDER ULIS AND THE CISG] 105-06 (1982); REIMERS-ZOCHER, supra note 13, at 148; KURT SIEHR, KOMMENTAR ZUM UN-KAUFRECHT [COMMENTARY ON THE CISG] art. 4, at 71 (Honsell ed., 1997); K. Sono, Article 44, in COMMENTARY ON INT'L SALES LAW, supra note 16, at 327.

21. For this justification, see e.g., REIMERS-ZOCHERS, supra note 13, at 146.

22. See MAGNUS, supra note 3, at 122.

23. See generally Oskar Hartwieg, Prozessuale Aspekte einheitlicher Anwendung der Wiener UN-Konvention über den Internationalen Warenkauf (CISG), Eine komparative Fallstudie zur einheitlichen Rechtsanwendung [Procedural aspects of uniform application of the CISG: A comparative case-study on uniform application of law], 92 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR VERGLEICHENDE RECHTSWISSENSCHAFT 282 (1993) (discussing the importance of a uniform interpretation matters relating to the CISG).

24. See Rolf Herber, Article 4, in COMMENTARY ON THE UN CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS (CISG) 47 (Peter Schlechtriem ed. & Geoffrey Thomas trans, 2d ed. 1998) (referencing wording as an element to be taken into account in allocating the burden of proof). Herber states, "wording can give clues in that regard, but is not solely decisive." Id.

25. See Franco Ferrari, Article 4, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT (CISG) 104 (Peter Schlechtriem ed., 3rd ed., 2000) (for similar, if not identical, assertions); Leonardo Graffi, Overview of Recent Italian Court Decisions on the CISG, 2000/2001 EUROPEAN LEGAL FORUM 240, 243.

26. See MAGNUS, supra note 3, at 123; REIMERS-ZOCHER, supra note 13, at 146.

27. See Ulrich Magnus, General Principles of UN-Sales Law, 3 INT'L TRADE & BUS. L. ANN. 33, 52 (1997).

28. See Maaden v. Thyssen (ICC Arbitral Award n. 6653), JOURNAL DU DROIT INTERNATIONAL 1040 (Int'l Comm. Arb. 1993).

29. See Tribunal de la Sane, 20 February 1997, SCHWIZERISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR INTERNATIONALES UND EUROPÄISCHES RECHT 195-96 (1999).

30. See, e.g., HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG930138 U/HG93, UNILEX (9 September 1993); Repubblica e Cantone del Ticino, Tribunale d'appello (seconda Camera civile), 15 January 1998, No. 12.97.00193, 1999 SCHWEIZERISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR INTERNATIONALES UND EUROPÄISCHES RECHT/REVUE SUISSE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL ET DE DROIT EUROPÉEN 189-90.

31. See HG Zürich (Switz.), supra note 30.

32. See Tribunale di Vigevano (Italy), 12 July 2000, 2001 GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA 280-288, available at http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html; for a first comment on this decision, see Franco Ferrari, Problematiche tipiche della Convenzione di Vienna sui contratti di vendita internazionale di beni mobili risolti in una prospettiva uniforme [Typical problems of the Vienna Convention on contracts for the international sale of goods solved in a uniform light], 2001 GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA 281-285.

33. See LG Frankfurt (F.R.G), No. 2/1 O 7/94, UNILEX (6 July 1994).

34. See OLG Innsbruck (Aus.), No. 4R 161/94, UNILEX (1 July 1994), available at http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/107.htm.

35. For affirmation of this principle, see LG Frankfurt (F.R.G), No. 2/1 O 7/94, supra note 33.

36. See HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG 930634/O, 1999 SCHWEIZERISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR INTERNATIONALES UND EUROPÄISCHES RECHT/REVUE SUISSE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL ET DE DROIT EUROPÉEN 186, 188; HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG 920670, UNILEX (26 April 1995).

37. See Tribunale di Vigevano, supra note 32.

38. See Ferrari, supra note 25, at 104; Magnus, supra note 27, at 52.

39. See HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG 930634/O, 1999 SCHWEIZERISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR INTERNATIONALES UND EUROPÄISCHES RECHT/REVUE SUISSE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL ET DE DROIT EUROPÉEN 186, 188; HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG 920670, UNILEX (26 April 1995).

40. See Tribunale di Vigevano, supra note 32.

41. See OLG Innsbruck (Aus.), supra note 34.

42. See LG Düsseldorf (F.R.G.), No. 31027/92, UNILEX (25 August 1994).

43. See Kh Hasselt (Belg.), No. A.R. 1972/96, UNILEX (21 January 1997).

44. See CISG, supra note 1, art. 42. Article 42 states, "[T]he seller must deliver goods which are free from any right or claim of a third party based on industrial property or other intellectual property, of which . . . the seller knew or could not have been unaware." Id.

45. See Rb Zwolle (Neth.), No. HA ZA 92-1180, UNILEX (1 March 1995); Hof Arnhem (Neth.), No. 95/246, UNILEX (21 May 1996).

46. See HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG 920670, supra note 39. See also, HG Zürich (Switz.), HG 950347, UNILEX (5 February 1997) (another Swiss case dealing with the issues of damages and burden of proof which states that a buyer is generally entitled to interest on the loss of profit, but that in the case at hand the buyer lost his right to interest as he did not prove the time in which the profit would have been made).

47. See Tribunale di Vigevano, supra note 32.

48. See Id.

49. See Trib. Pavia, supra note 10.

50. See LG Düsseldorf (F.R.G.), No. 31027/92, UNILEX (25 August 1994).

51. See Audencia de Barcelona (Spain), No. 755/95-C, 1997 REVISTA JURIDICA DE CATALUNYA 110, available at http://www.uc3m.es/cisg/sespan2.htm.


Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated November 5, 2002
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography