Reproduced with permission of 5 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration (2/2001) 282-309

1. AN INTRODUCTION TO "DRAGON TAMING"

"Taming the Dragons of Uniform Law" (title purloined from a scholar who coined it in another context) is a report on sharings of judicial reasoning in 225 English texts and English translations of court decisions and arbitral awards on the UN Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods (CISG). Our "dragon taming" paper is also an overture. We invite colleagues to co-venture with us; to serve our profession and the world community by collaborating on case translations.

Courts must have due regard to the "international character" of the CISG "and to the need to promote uniformity in its application;"[2] scholars must be equipped to assist judges struggling to comprehend the ramifications and applications of this uniform international sales law. As Peter Schlechtriem puts it:

In collaboration with persons of many countries, we work to tame Ferrari's "dragons"; to help scholars implement Schlechtriem's counsel.

In collaboration with law firms and centers of learning of Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan and Spain, with centers of China, Denmark, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Sweden and other countries planning to affiliate,[4] we make CISG case law of all countries readily available [5] on the Internet. We currently provide:

• English texts of rulings on the CISG by courts of Australia, Canada, and the United States and texts of arbitral awards on the uniform sales law handed down in English by ICC and Stockholm Chamber of Commerce arbitral tribunals, and by arbitral tribunals of Switzerland;

• English translations of rulings on the CISG by courts of Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Switzerland, including rulings of the Supreme Courts of Argentina, Austria, Colombia, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland, and of arbitral interpretations of the CISG handed down by ICC tribunals and tribunals of Austria, China, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Switzerland and Yugoslavia.

In ruling on an international convention, Lord Denning stated: [page 283]

Compatible views have been expressed by scholars of Latin American, Scandinavian, United States and German legal cultures, and by other jurists. Representatives of many legal cultures favor consideration of decisions of courts of sister signatories. High courts, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court, urge us to give "considerable weight" to such decisions.

Antonio Boggiano of Argentina and Lord Scarman of England state:

Lief Sevón of Finland adds that a judge ought to be:

The U.S. Supreme Court, Boggiano, and Jürgen Schwarze of Germany state that:

CISG Article 7(1) offers guidance to jurists of the 61 countries that have adopted the UN Sales Convention.[13] Article 7(1) imposes a positive obligation on them to consider decisions of other fora and use them in the form of precedents. Article 7(1) calls for comity.[14]

The comity is analogous to traditional practice in other contexts:

• Flechtner calls attention to the fact that Article 7(1) of the CISG "[p]roperly understood ... requires a process or methodology involving awareness of ... interpretations of the CISG from outside one's own legal culture - an approach not unlike the treatment U.S. courts accord decisions of other [U.S.] jurisdictions when applying [the U.S.] Uniform Commercial Code."[15]

• Hackney elaborates. He states that "when interpreting the Convention, a court should look to other courts' interpretations of the Convention, including the interpretation of courts from other countries" and that "[t]he use in the U.S. of case law to interpret the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) can serve as a model for courts using case law to interpret the Convention. No state within the U.S. is bound by an interpretation of the UCC from another state, but the interpretations of the UCC from other jurisdictions are extremely persuasive. While this method does not achieve exact uniformity, the U.S. has achieved a level of uniformity of sales law that is useful to companies transacting business in many states."[16] [page 285]

Global implementations of the jurisconsultorium are commencing.

• Courts of Italy [17] and Switzerland [18] have taken the lead; courts of the United States [19] and Germany [20] have followed suit.

• Applauding a U.S. case, Medical Marketing, Schlechtriem states: "The U.S. federal court regards a foreign court decision as precedent, or at least as 'authority' and thus treats uniform international law similar to American law with the -- for American courts self-understood -- consideration given to decisions of neighboring states under the (American) common law. In other words, it treated the CISG as a kind of international common law, the application and development of which is in the hands of all nations party to the Convention, which courts must therefore also give consideration to decisions in other countries."[21]

• Medical Marketing was followed by an Italian case, Rheinland Versicherungen v. Atlarex S.r.l. It provides a further demonstration of the utility of treatment of the CISG as "international common law". The Tribunale di Vigevano [22] evaluates American, Austrian, Dutch, French, German, Italian and Swiss court rulings as well as arbitral awards. The court draws on national reporters, texts and Internet websites for its case data. Applauding the case, Ferrari states that this court has, "more than any other court before it, taken into account the need to have regard to foreign case law in order to promote uniformity."[23] [page 286]

These are encouraging signs,[24] but there is a long way to go.[25] To stimulate more such comity -- similar to the comity U.S. state courts traditionally accord UCC rulings by courts of sister U.S. states - jurists of all countries should consider decisions handed down in sister jurisdictions.

To consider such decisions, they must be able to read them.[26]

The Institute of International Commercial Law of the Pace University School of Law, in collaboration with the Centre for Commercial Law Studies of Queen Mary, University of London, has inaugurated an English text program and Case translation programme. The programme aims at making available on the Internet a (normally full text) English version of all rulings on the CISG.

• In MCC-Marble, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals advises that <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu>, the cisgw3 database, is "a promising source" for "persuasive authority from courts of other states party to the CISG".[27] Pace and [page 287] Queen Mary draw on this source. As of 15 November 2001, the cisgw3 database reports 886 CISG cases.[28] They are cases from 30 jurisdictions. Each case can be relevant to the interpretation of the CISG in any jurisdiction.

• In its first year of operation, the Queen Mary programme has provided 225 English texts or translations of texts of CISG cases, including translations of 31 Supreme Court or Highest Constitutional Court decisions. We seek to expand this work. We enlist your help.

• We invite participation in the Case translation programme by all interested persons with language fluencies who believe in advancing the concept of uniform law. Join us. Help serve our profession and the world community. Contacts are: Loukas A. Mistelis [29] or Albert H. Kritzer [30] or, if you are a Mooter, Dijana Kesonja (see below).

  "The certainty of enormous gain to civilised mankind from the unification of law needs no exposition. Conceive the security and the peace of mind of the ship-owner, the banker, or the merchant who knows that in regard to his transactions in a foreign country the law of contract, of movable property, and of civil wrongs is practically identical with that of his own country. ... But I do not think that the advocate of the unification of law is obligated to rely solely upon such material considerations, important as they are. The resulting moral gain would be considerable. A common forum is an instrument for the peaceful settlement of disputes which might otherwise breed animosity and violence ... if the individuals who compose each civilised nation were by the unification of law provided, in regard to their private differences or disputes abroad with individuals of any other nation, not indeed with a common forum (for that is an impossibility); but with a common system of justice in every forum, administered upon practically identical principles, a neighbourly feeling, a sincere sentiment of human solidarity (if I may be allowed the phrase) would thereby gradually be engendered amongst us all - a step onward to the far-off fulfilment of the divine message 'On earth peace, goodwill toward men'."[31] [page 288]

It was in 1909, at the turn of the 20^th century, that Lord Justice Kennedy presented this rationale for steps onward. In November 2001, at the dawn of the 21^st century, Queen Mary and Pace report current steps onward by colleagues.

Examples of current steps onward include:

• Authority granted to Foreign Minister Shimon Peres this past month by his Government to deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations an instrument of accession to the CISG that unites the international sales law of Israel with Iraq, Syria and other countries. These countries are now a common market, to this extent.

• Concurrently,
  • A member of the Faculty of Law of Shahid Beheshti University of Tehran has prepared comparatives of the uniform law with Iranian and Shi'ah law for publication on the cisgw3 database;

  • A scholar at a Beijing law firm is sharing case law interpretations of the CISG in his country. The collection of CIETAC arbitration awards he has provided is being translated for the cisgw3 database by Chinese scholars at a law firm in Australia and a university in Iowa;

  • The Department of Justice of Switzerland has offered to provide to the cisgw3 database - on disk where available, otherwise in hard copy for us to scan - the texts of all Swiss court decisions on the CISG;

  • A colleague on the Faculty of Law of the University of South Africa reports the imminent opening of a Pan-African website on the CISG. His center for international studies is setting this affiliated database in place to share knowledge of the CISG for this region and from this region;

  • The Head of the Department of International Law of the Novi Sad School of Law - she has translated for the database the first CISG case we have received from Yugoslavia - is considering a center sponsored website on the CISG to serve traders of her country, of Bosnia and neighboring countries, and the world community. [page 289]

Further support for the Queen Mary Case Translation Programme is being provided.

• The Moot Alumni Association (MAA)[32] of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot [33] - also regarding uniform international sales law as a step onward - has appointed Dijana Kesonja of Croatia as coordinator of a new MAA "Casenote project".[34] Mooters are law leaders of tomorrow. With Faculty coaches, they have come to the Moot from over thirty countries. There they are joined by Arbitrators from still other countries.

• The object of the MAA Casenote project is to enlist further colleagues in the Case translation programme. "Casenote project" colleagues and other colleagues are most welcome. The cisgw3 database currently reports 886 cases. We must prepare to translate 10,000 CISG cases. Together, we will accommodate them.

The Queen Mary Case Translation Programme is a collaboration. The object of the collaboration is:

• To serve our profession, national and regional markets and the global community;

• To share lessons learned;

• To make uniform law case law readily available to jurists and arbitrators of all countries.

The English texts and translated texts the programme currently provides chart at: [page 290]

Jurisdiction	Lower Court	Appellate Court	Supreme Court	Arbitral Tribunal	Totals
Argentina	2	2			4
Australia	2	1			3
Austria			6	2	8
Belgium	2	1			3
Bulgaria				5	5
Canada	2				2
China				1	1
Colombia			1		1
Finland	1	4			5
France	3	18	8		29
Germany	25	32	11	4	72
Hungary	1		1	1	3
ICC				13	13
Israel			1		1
Italy	5	4		1	10
Mexico	1			3	4
Netherlands	1	2	1		4
Russia				4	4
Spain	1		1		2
Stockholm Chamber of Commerce				1	1
Switzerland	12	5	1	1	19
United States	25	5			30
Yugoslavia				1	1
Totals	83	74	31	37	225

We describe our approach to case translation and identify each case cited in this chart. Two categories of cases are reported on the chart: [QM] cases processed pursuant to the Queen Mary Case Translation Programme,[36] and other cases. [page 291]

• The Queen Mary Case Translation Programme was set in place on 29 September 2000. The report that follows identifies [QM] case translations that have been processed during the first year of this programme. More case translations are being processed.

• Three levels of scholars review each [QM] case translation prior to its publication as an integrated part of an Internet case presentation. Researchers can link to these case translations. The cisgw3 database also offers links to additional data on each case. As a general rule, the contents of the case presentations include an abstract of the case (usually an UNCITRAL abstract), a link to the original text of the case - a case text generally entered on the Internet by the center for international studies of a collaborating university, a member of the Autonomous Network of CISG Websites.[38] The typical linked table of contents to a cisgw3 case presentation reads:

  Case identification UNCITRAL case abstract Classification of issues present Editorial remarks

  Citations to other case abstracts, texts and commentaries Text of case English translation of text of case

• By jumping from the links in the case presentations, researchers can access additional information on each case, often including full texts of scholarly commentaries on the case. Other case presentation features include links to key provisions of the CISG at issue, links that enable researchers to jump to other interpretations of the provisions of the uniform law that are reviewed in the cases they are considering. These are links to judicial and arbitral interpretations of these provisions by tribunals of different countries. The case presentations also link to Annotated Texts of Articles of the CISG.[38] The Annotated texts offer researchers additional information on provisions of the CISG of interest: data on their legislative history, on doctrine associated with these provisions, etc.

• The listings in the report below identify final texts of case translations and [QM] case translations that are still "second-iteration" texts, i.e., draft translations. These are underlined listings preceded by asterisks. Researchers may enter the Internet URLs provided and jump to these draft translations too. Such translations are, of [page 292] course, accompanied by the caveat associated with any draft. Even so, we regard it as helpful to share our translation drafts with researchers anxious to access the most current information we have because, due to the caliber of scholars the [QM] programme has attracted, it has been our experience that further edits to second-iterations translations such as these have generally proved to be modest.

The following report also identifies still other [QM] case translations, case translations in process. Those listings are not underlined; researchers cannot now jump from URLs to the texts of in-process translations. These are "coming-attractions" we provide to identify case translations that have not yet progressed to the "second-iteration" stage of the [QM] Case Translation Programme. For such listings, in lieu of providing links to drafts of translated texts, we simply report the cases to identify translations that will be made available at a future date. The cisgw3 database does, however, provide links to presentations that contain other information on these cases: generally an abstract of the case, a link to the text of the case in its original language, and other relevant material on the case.

The entries in the cisgw3 country-by-country schedule of case presentations number 886.[39] The entries in the following report on English case texts and case translations number 225. This, of course, means we have many more cases to translate. With your help, we will increase the number of translated case texts offered to our profession and the world community.

The date of the following report is 15 November 2001.[40] Each of the 225 cases we report is identified by URL; researchers who enter these Internet URLs on their computers may jump to these case texts and case translations by clicking the URLs.

2. THE "DRAGON TAMING" PROGRAMME: WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE

For persons unfamiliar with the courts we cite -- drawing on material developed by Autonomous Network colleagues, the cisgw3 database presents court hierarchy charts for many of these jurisdictions.[41] This collection of court hierarchy charts will be expanded. [page 293]

ARGENTINA

• * 20 May 1991, Elastar Sacifia v. Bettcher Industries Inc., Juzgado Nacional [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910520a1.html>

• 14 October 1993, Inta v. MCS Officina Meccanica, Cámera National [editorial remarks with relevant excerpts] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/931014a1.html>

• 6 October 1994, Bermatex S.r.l v. Valentin Rius, Juzgado Nacional [QM-mh] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941006a1.html>

• 31 October 1995, Bedial S.A. v. Paul Müggenburg GmbH, Cámara Nacional [QM-mh] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951031a1.html>

AUSTRALIA

• 12 March 1992, Renard v. Minister, New South Wales Court of Appeal [editorial remarks with relevant excerpt] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920312a2.html>

• 28 April 1995, Roder v. Rosedown, Adelaide Federal District Court <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950428a2.html>

• 17 November 2000, Downs Investments v. Perwaja Steel, Supreme Court of Queensland <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001117a2.html>

AUSTRIA

• 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration No. SCH-4318 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a4.html>

• 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration No. SCH-4366 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>

• 6 February 1996 Oberster Gerichshof <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960206a3.html>

• 11 September 1997 Oberster Gerichtshof [QM-pf] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970911a3.html>

• * 12 February 1998 Oberster Gerichtshof [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980212a3.html>

• * 19 May 1999 Oberster Gerichtshof [PK-BK] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990519a3.html>

• * 13 April 2000 Oberster Gerichtshof [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413a3.html> [page 294]

• * 28 April 2000 Oberster Gerichtshof [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000428a3.html>

BELGIUM

• 13 November 1992 , Maglificio Dalmine S.r.l. v. S.C. Covires, Tribunal commercial de Bruxelles [QM-pm] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/921113b1.html>

• 19 September 1995, Gantry v. Research Consulting Marketing, Tribunal de commerce Nivelles [QM-pm] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950919b1.html>

• * 6 October 1997, Wonderfil v. Depraetere Industries, Rechtbank van Koophandel Kortrijk [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/casea/971006bi.html>

BULGARIA

• 24 January 1994 Arbitration Case 39/93 [QM-pk] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940124bu.html>

• 24 April 1996 Arbitration Case 56/1995 [QM-pk] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960424bu.html>

• 29 September 1997 Arbitration Case 71-94 [QM-pk] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970929bu.html>

• 12 February 1998 Arbitration Case 11/1996 [QM-pk] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980212bu.html>

• 16 February 1998 Arbitration Case 59/1995 [QM-pk] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980216bu.html>

CANADA

• 16 December 1998, Nova Tool v. London Industries, Ontario Court, General Division <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981216c4.html>

• 31 August 1999, San Guiseppe v. Forti Moulding, Ontario Superior Court of Justice <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990831c4.html>

CHINA

• 30 October 1991 [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/91030c1.html> [page 295]

COLOMBIA

• 6 May 2000 Corte Contitucional [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000510c7.html>

FINLAND

• 5 November 1996 District Court of Kuopio [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961105f5.html>

• 18 February 1997 Turku Court of Appeal <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970218f5.html>

• 29 January 1998 Helsinki Court of Appeal [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980129f5.html>

• 30 June 1998 Helsinki Court of Appeal [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980630f5.html>

• 26 October 2000 Helsinki Court of Appeal [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001026f5.html>

FRANCE

• 16 June 1993, Ytong v. Lasaosa, Cour d'appel Grenoble <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930616f1.html>

• 4 January 1995, Fauba v. Fujitsu, Cour de Cassation <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950104f1.html>

• 22 February 1995, "BRI Production "Bonaventure" v. Pan African Export, Cour d'appel Grenoble <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950222f1.html>

• 29 March 1995, Société Cámara Agraria v. André Margaron, Cour d'appel Grenoble [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950329f1.html>

• 6 April 1995, Société Thyssen Stahlunin GmbH v. Maaden General, Cour d'appel Paris [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950406f1.html>

• 19 April 1995, Société Hughes Electronic v. SA Souriau Cluses, Cour d'appel Versailles [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950419f1.html>

• 26 April 1995, Enterprise Alain Veyron v. Société E. Amrrosio, Cour d'appel Grenoble [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426f1.html>

• 26 April 1995, Marques Roque Joachim v. La Sarl Holding Manin Rivière, Cour d'appel Grenoble [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426f2.html>

• * 13 September 1995, Caiato v. S.F.F., Cour d'appel Grenoble [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950913f1.html> [page 296]

• 13 December 1995, ISEA Industrie S.p.A. v. Lu S.A., Cour d'appel Paris [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951213f1.html>

• 23 January 1996, Société Sacovini v. Sté Les fils de Henri Ramel, Cour de Cassation [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960123f1.html>

• 15 May 1996, Thermo King v. Cigna Insurance Company, Cour d'appel Grenoble [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960515f1.html>

• 9 September 1996, Flippe Christian v. La SARL Douet Sport Collections, Tribunal de commerce Besançon [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960909f1.html>

• 21 November 1996, Schreiber v. Thermo Dynamique, Cour d'appel Aix-en-Provence [translation with <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990526f1.html>]

• *17 December 1996, Ceramique Culinaire v. Musgrave, Cour de Cassation [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961217f1.html>

• 2 December 1997, Société Mode jeune diffusion v. SNC Maglificio, Cour de Cassation [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971202f1.html>

• 18 December 1997, Société Romay AG v. Société Behr France SARL, Tribunal de grande instance Colmar [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971218f1.html>

• 19 January 1998, Filippe Christian v. La SARL Douet Sport Collections, Tribunal de commerce Besançon [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980119f1.html>

• 27 January 1998, Hughes v. Société Technocontact, Cour de Cassation [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980127f1.html>

• 29 January 1998, Société Giustina International v. Société Perfect Circle Europe, Cour d'appel Versailles [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980129f1.html>

• 4 March 1998, Société Laborall v. SA Matis, Cour d'appel Paris [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980304f1.html>

• 18 March 1998, Sté Franco-africaine de distribution textile v. Sté More Textilfabrik GmbH, Cour d'appel Paris [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980318f1.html>

• 16 July 1998, Les Verreries de Saint Gobain v. Martinswerk, Cour de Cassation <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980716f1.html>

• 5 January 1999, Thermo King v. Cigna Insurance Company, Cour de Cassation [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990105f1.html>

• 4 February 1999, SARL Ego Fruits v. Sté La Verja Begastri, Cour d'appel Grenoble [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990204f1.html> [page 297]

• 26 May 1999, Schreiber v. Thermo Dynamique, Cour de Cassation <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990526f1.html>

• 21 October 1999, Sté Calzados Magnanni v. SARL Shoes International, Cour d'appel Grenoble [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991021f1.html>

• 24 October 2000, SARL Pelliculest v.GmbH Morton International, Cour d'appel Colmar [QM-cs] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001024f1.html>

• *29 March 2001, TCE Diffusion v. Elettrotecnica Ricci, Cour d'appel Orleans [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010329f1.html>

GERMANY

• * 25 May 1977 Landgericht Münster [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/770525g1.html>

• *23 March 1978 Oberlandesgericht Hamm [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases780323g1.html>

• * 24 October 1979 Bundesrichtshof [case commentary with relevant excerpts only] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/791024g1.html>

• * 10 June 1980 Landgericht Essen [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/800610g1.html>

• * 26 June 1980 Oberlandesgericht Hamm [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/800626g1.html>

• * 27 January 1981 Landgericht Heidelberg [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/810127g1.html>

• * 3 June 1983 Landgericht Konstanz [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/830603g1.html>

[These are ULIS cases, not CISG cases: ULIS cases on damages. For the rationale, go to the Editorial remarks section of the Case presentation for 6 October 1992 Landgericht Berlin.]

• 3 July 1989 Landgericht München <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/890703g1.html>

• 31 August 1989 Landgericht Stuttgart <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/890831g1.html>

• 14 August 1991 Landgericht Baden-Baden <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910814g1.html> [page 298]

• 17 September 1991 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910917g1.html>

• * 6 October 1992 Landgericht Berlin [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/921006g1.html>

• 2 July 1993 Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930702g1>

• 18 January 1994 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>

• 10 February 1994 Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, [6 U 32/93] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940210g1.html>

• 22 February 1994 Oberlandesgericht Köln <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940222g1.html>

• 15 February 1995 Bundesgerichtshof <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950215g1.html>

• 8 March 1995 Bundesgerichtshof <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950308g3.html>

• 24 May 1995 Oberlandesgericht Celle <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950524g1.html>

• 9 June 1995 Oberlandesgericht Hamm <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950609g1.html>

• 21 August 1995 Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950821g1.html>

• * 21 August 1995 Landgericht Elwangen [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950821g2.html>

• 6 October 1995 Amstergericht Kehl <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951006g1.html>

• 25 January 1996 Landgericht München [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960125g1.html>

• * 3 April 1996 Bundesgerichtshof [QM-pf] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960403g1.html>

• 21 June 1996 Hamburg Arbitration <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960621g1.html>

• * 25 June 1996 Landgericht Paderborn <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960625g1.html>

• * 2 August 1996 Landgericht Bielefeld [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960802g1.html>

• 30 August 1996 Hamburg Arbitration <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960830g1.html>

• 4 September 1996 Hamburg Arbitration [excerpt] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960904g1.html> [page 299]

• * 12 November 1996 Amstergericht Koblenz [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961112g1.html>

• 4 December 1996 Bundesgerichtshof <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961204g1.html>

• * 25 June 1997 Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970625g1.html>

• 25 June 1997 Bundesgerichtshof [QM-pf] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970625g2.html>

• 23 July 1997 Bundesgerichtshof, VIII ZR 134/90 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970723g1.html>

• * 28 January 1998 OLG München [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980128g1.html>

• * 12 February 1998 Bundesgerichtshof [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980212g1.html>

• * 11 March 1998 Oberlandesgericht München [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980311g1.html>

• * 26 May 1998 Oberlandesgericht Thüringer [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980526g1.html>

• * 3 June 1998 Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980603g1.html>

• * 23 June 1998 Oberlandesgericht Hamm [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980623g1.html>

• * 9 July 1998 Oberlandesgericht Dresden [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980709g1.html>

• * 29 July 1998 Landgericht Erfurt [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980729g1.html>

• * 2 September 1998 OLG Celle [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980902g1.html>

• * 11 September 1998 Oberlandesgericht Koblenz [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980911g1.html>

• * 22 September 1998 Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980922g1.html>

• * 24 September 1998 Landgericht Regensburg [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980924g1.html> [page 300]

• * 5 October 1998 Oberlandesgericht Hamburg [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981005g1.html>

• * 24 November 1998 Landgericht Bielefeld [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981124g1.html>

• * 25 November 1998 Bundesgerichtshof [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981125g1.html>

• * 26 November 1998 Landgericht Mainz [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981126g1.html>

• 29 December 1998 Hamburg Arbitration [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981229g1.html>

• * 13 January 1999 OLG Bamberg [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990113g1.html>

• 24 March 1999 Bundesgerichtshof <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990324g1.html>

• * 24 March 1999 Landgericht Flensburg [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990324g2.html>

• * 16 April 1999 Landgericht Bonn [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990416g1.html>

• 25 May 1999 Landgericht Berlin [QM-ca] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990525g1.html>

• 27 April 1999 Oberlandesgericht Naumburg [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990427g1.html>

• 28 October 1999 Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991028.html>

• 3 November 1999 Bundesgerichtshof <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991103g1.html>

• 26 November 1999 Oberlandesgericht Hamburg [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991126g1.html>

• * 30 November 1999 Landgericht Köln [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991130g1.html>

• * 3 December 1999 Oberlandesgericht München [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991203g1.html>

• 27 December 1999 Oberlandesgericht Dresden [QM-ca] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991227g1.html>

• * 28 February 2000 Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000228g1.html> [page 301]

• * 13 April 2000 Amtsgericht Duisburg [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413g1.html>

• * 9 May 2000 Landgericht Darmstadt [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000509g1.html>

• * 30 August 2000 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000830g1.html>

• * 12 October 2000 Landgericht Stendal [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001012g1.html>

• * 13 November 2000 Oberlandesgericht Köln [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001113g1.html>

• * 14 February 2001 Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010214g1.html>

• * 13 July 2001 Oberlandesgericht Köln [QM] http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010713g1.html>

HUNGARY

• 10 January 1992, United Technologies v. Malev, Fovarosi Birosag <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920110h1.html>

• 25 September 1992, United Technologies v. Malev, Legfelsobb Birosag <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920925h1.html>

• 10 December 1996 Budapest Arbitration <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961210h1.html>

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COURT OF ARBITRATION

• ICC Arbitration No. 5713 of 1989 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/895713i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 6281 of 1989 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/896281i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 7153 of 1992 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927153i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 7645 of March 1995 [case digest] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/957645i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 8213 of March 1995 [case digest] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958213i1.html> [page 302]

• ICC Arbitration No. 8453 of October 1995 [case digest] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958453i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 8247 of June 1996 [case digest] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/968247i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 8574 of September 1996 [case digest] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/968574i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 8482 of December 1996 [case digest] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/968482i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 8769 of December 1996 [case digest] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/968769i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 8611 of 1997 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/978611i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 8817 of December 1997 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/978817i1.html>

• ICC Arbitration No. 9574 of August 1998 [case digest] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/989574i1.html>

ISRAEL

• 2 November 1988, Adras v. Harlow & Jones, Supreme Court [relevant excerpts only] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/881102i5.html>

ITALY

• * 24 November 1989, Foliopack AG v. Daniplast S.p.A., Pretura circondariale di Parma [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/891124i3.html>

• 14 January 1993, Nuova Fucinati v. Fondmetall, Tribunale Civile di Monza http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930114i3.html

• * 19 April 1994 Florence Arbitration proceeding [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940419i3.html>

• 24 March 1995, Marc Rich v. Iritecna, Corte di Appello di Genova [QM-ys] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950324i3.html>

• 31 January 1996, Sport d'Hiver v. Etw. Louys et Fils, Tribunale Civile di Cuneo <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960131i3.html> [page 303]

• 30 January 1997, C & M v. Bankintzopoulos, Pretura di Torino <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970130i3.html>

• * 14 January 1998, ,Corte di Appello di Milano [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980114i3.html>

• 20 March 1998, Italdecor S.a.s. v. Yiu's Industries (H.K.) Limited, Corte di Appello di Milano [QM-at] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980320i3.html>

• * 11 December 1998, Bielloni Castello S.p.A. v. EGO S.A., Corte di Appello di Milano [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981211i3.html>

• 29 December 1999, Tessile 21 v. Ixela, Tribunale di Pavia [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>

MEXICO

• 4 May 1993, Morales v. Nez Marketing, Compromex Arbitration <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930504m1.html>

• 29 April 1996, Costeña v. Lanin, Compromex Arbitration <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960429m1.html>

• 30 November 1998, Dulces Luisi v. Seoul International, Compromex Arbitration <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981130m1.html>

• 14 July 2000 Civil Court of First Instance, Tijuana <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000714m1.html>

NETHERLANDS

• 5 January 1978, Amram v. Tesa, Gerichtshof Amsterdam <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/780105n1.html>

• 20 February 1998, Bronneberg v. Belvédère, Hoge Raad [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980220n1.html>

• * 2 October 1998, Malaysia Dairy Industries v. Dairex Holland, Arrondissementsrechtbanks'Hertogenbosch [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981002n1.html>

• * 27 April 1999, Mainzer Raumzellen v. Van Keulen, Gerichtshof Arnem [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990427n1.html> [page 304]

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

• 3 March 1995 Russian Arbitration Award No. 304/1993 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950303r2.html>

• * 3 April 1995, Arbitral Award, Moscow Arbitration Court [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950403r1.html>

• * 25 December 1996, Review Letter, Higher Arbitration Court [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961225r1.html>

• * 18 December 1998, Arbitral Award, Maritime Commission [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981218r1.html>

SPAIN

• 4 February 1997 Audiencia Provincial Barcelona [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970204s4.html>

• * 28 January 2000 Tribunale Supremo [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000128s4.html>

STOCKHOLM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

• 5 June 1998 Stockholm Chamber Arbitration Award <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980605s5.html>

SWITZERLAND

• 27 April 1992 Pretore Locarno Campagno [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/draft/920427case.html>

• * 21 December 1992 Zivilgericht Basel [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/921221s1.html>

• 26 April 1995 Handelsgericht Zürich [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426s1.html>

• 24 August 1995 Handelsgericht St. Gallen[QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950824s1.html>

• 12 February 1996 Tribunale d'appelo Lugano [QM-fm] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960212s1.html>

• 31 May 1996 Zürich Arbitration Award <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960531s1.html> [page 305]

• * 8 January 1997 Obergericht Luzern [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970108s1.html>

• 20 February 1997 Bezirksgericht der Saane [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970220s1.html>

• 3 July 1997 Bezirksgericht St. Gallen [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970703s1.html>

• 26 September 1997 Handelsgericht Aargau [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970926s1.html>

• 3 December 1997 Kantonsgericht Nidwalden [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971203s1.html>

• *15 January 1998 Pretore Lugano, Cantone del Ticino [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980115s1.html>

• 23 January 1998 Kantonsgericht Freiburg [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980123s1.html>

• 21 September 1998 Handelsgericht Zürich [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980921s1.html>

• 28 October 1998 Bundesgericht [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981028s1.html>

• 30 November 1998 Handelsgericht Zürich [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981130s1.html>

• 10 February 1999 Handelsgericht Zürich [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990210s1.html>

• 8 April 1999 Handelsgericht Zürich [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990408s1.html>

• 5 October 1999 Obergericht Basel [QM] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991005s1.html>

UNITED STATES

• 24 October 1989, Orbisphere v. U.S., U.S. Court of International Trade <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/891024u1.html>

• 22 May 1990, Interag v. Stafford Phase Corp., U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900522u1.html>

• 14 April 1992, Filanto v. Chilewich, U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920414u1.html> [page 306]

• 15 June 1993, Beijing Metals v. American Business Center, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (5th Cir.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930615u1.html>

• 6 April 1994, Brawn v. Alitalia, U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940406u1.html>

• 9 September 1994, Delchi v. Rotorex. U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940909u1.html>

• 22 September 1994, Graves v. Chilewich, U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940922u1.html>

• 12 April 1995, GPL Treatment v. Louisiana-Pacific, Oregon Appellate Court <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950412u1.html>

• 6 December 1995, Delchi v. Rotorex, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (2nd Cir.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>

• 20 August 1996, Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Products, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960820u1.html>

• 21 July 1997, Helen Kaminski v. Marketing Australian Products, U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970721u1.html>

• 11 August 1997, Kahn Lucas v. Lark International, U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970811u1.html>

• 6 April 1998, Calaturificio Claudia v. Olivieri Footwear, U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980406u1.html>

• 29 June 1998, MCC-Marble v. Ceramica Nuova, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (11th Cir.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980629u1.html>

• 27 October 1998, Mitchell Aircraft v. European Aircraft Service, U.S. District Court (N.D. Illinois) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981027u1.html>

• 9 March 1999, KSTP-FM v. Specialized Communications, Minnesota District Court <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990309u1.html>

• 17 May 1999, Medical Marketing v. Internazionale Medico, U.S. District Court (E.D. Louisiana) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990517u1.html>

• 7 December 1999, Magellan International v. Salzgitter Handel, U.S. District Court (N.E. Illinois) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991207u1.html>

• 8 August 2000, Fercus v. Mario Palazzo, U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000808u1.html> [page 307]

• 29 August 2000, Viva Vino Import Corporation v. Farnese Vini S.r.l., U.S. District Court (E.D. Pennsylvania) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000829u1.html>

• 30 January 2001, Supermicro Computer v. Digitechnic, U.S. District Court (N.D. California) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010130u1.html>

• 10 April 2001, Victoria Alloys v. Fortis Bank, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (N.D. Ohio) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010410u1.html>

• 27 July 2001, Asante Technologies, Inc. v. PMC-Sierra, Inc, U.S. District Court (N.D. California, San Jose Division <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010727u1.html>

• Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. v. Hearthside Baking Co., Inc., etc., U.S. District Court (N.E. Illinois).

  Seven parts of the record of these proceeding have been published:

  1. 11 December 2000, Ruling on pre-trial motions <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001211u1.html>

  2. 18 July 2001, Memorandum opinion and judgment order [Court's opinion following return of jury verdict] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010718u1.html>

  3. 19 July 2001, Memorandum opinion and judgment order [Court's ruling on buyer's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010719u1.html>

  4. 20 July 2001, Supplement to Memorandum opinion and judgment order [Supplement to Court's opinion dated 18 July 2001] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010720u1.html>

  5. 16 August 2001, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on second motion by buyer attacking the judgment] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010816u1.html>

  6. 22 August 2001, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on seller's motion for an award of attorney's fees: ruling on seller's motion advanced against buyer's litigation counsel] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010822u1.html> [page 308]

  7. 29 August 2001, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on seller's motion for an award of attorney's fees: ruling on seller's motion advanced against buyer] <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010829u1.html>

YUGOSLAVIA

• 15 April 1999 Yugoslav Chamber of Economy arbitration proceeding <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990415y1.html> [page 309]

With your help, we will expand the Queen Mary Case Translation Programme. Other elements of the cisgw3 database are also being expanded.

FOOTNOTES

* Albert H. Kritzer, Executive Secretary, Institute of International Commercial Law, Pace University School of Law

** Dr Loukas A. Mistelis, Clive M Schmitthoff Senior Lecturer in International Commercial Law, School of International Arbitration, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London.

1. Franco Ferrari, "Applying the CISG in a Truly Uniform Manner", Uniform Law Review (2001-1) 206 [citations omitted].

2. CISG Article 7(1).

3. Peter Schlechtriem, "Uniform Sales Law - The Experience with Uniform Sales Law in the Federal Republic of Germany", 3 Juridisk Tidskrift 1 (1991-92) 16 (emphasis added).

4. See <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/network.html>.

5. See <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu>.

6. James Buchanan & Co Ltd v. Babco Forwarding and Shipping (U.K.) Ltd [1977] 1 All ER 518 (CA) at 522, 524, [1977] 2 WRL 107 (CA) at 113, 113-14; reinforced by Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines [1981] AC 252 (HL), [1980] All ER 696 (HL) and Antwerp United Diamonds BVBA and another v. Air Europe (a firm) [1995] 3 All ER 424 (CA).

7. Antonio Boggiano, "The Experience of Latin American States", in : International Uniform Law in Practice / Le droit uniform international dans la pratique, Oceana: New York (1988) 47.

8. Lord Scarman, [1980] 2 All E.R 696, 715.

9. Lief Sevón [Finland], "Observations", in: International Uniform Law in Practice, supra note 7, at 135.

10. Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 404 [1985] (defining the word "accident" as used in the Warsaw Convention.

11. Bogianno, supra. note 7, at 47.

12. Jürgen Schwarze, "The Role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Interpretation of Uniform Law among the Member States of the European Communities", in: International Law and Practice, supra. note 7, at 221.

13. See <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/countries/cntries.html> for a table of the Contracting States.

14. In the sense of Huber (1636-1694). see Joel Paul, "Comity in International Law (Private International Law)", Harvard International Law Journal (1991) 1; and the erudite Alan Watson, Joseph Story and the Comity of Errors. A Case Study in the Conflict of Laws, University of Athens Press: Athens and London (1992).

15. Harry M. Flechtner, "Several Texts of the CISG in a Decentralized System: Observations on Translations, Reservations and Other Challenges to the Uniformity Principle in Article 7(1)", 17 Journal of Law & Commerce (1998) 187 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/flecht1.html>.

16. Philip T. Hackney, "Is the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods Achieving Uniformity?", 61 Louisiana Law Review (2001) 479.

17. See Tribunale di Cuneo 31 January 1996, Sport d'Hiver v. Etw. Louys et Fils, <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960131i3.html>

18. See Obergericht Luzern 8 January 1997, <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970108s1.html>

19. See Medical Marketing v. International Medico Scientifica, 17 May 1999, U.S. District Court (E.D. Louisiana) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990517u1.html>; and MCC-Marble v. Ceramica Nuova, 29 June 1998, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (11th Cir.) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980629u1.html> (reference to the Internet by a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to ensure thorough research of case law from other jurisdictions).

20. See Bundesgerichtshof 24 March 1999, <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990324g1.html>, a German Supreme Court ruling that cites CISG authorities from England, France, Switzerland and the United States. See also Cour d'appel Grenoble 23 October 1996 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961023f1.html>, a French case that quotes a German court decision.

21. Peter Schlechtriem, IPRax - Praxis des International Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (1999) 791 [translated text of commentary <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990517u1.html>].

22. See Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>.

23. Franco Ferrari, "Applying the CISG in a Truly Uniform Manner", supra note 1, at 208.

24. We have also seen other cases, e.g., from the United States: Filanto v. Chilewich , 789 F. Supp. 1229, 1237 (S.D.N.Y. 14 April 1992) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920414u1.html> ("there is as yet virtually no U.S. case law interpreting the Sale of Goods Convention"); Beijing Metals v. American Business Center, 993 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 15 June 1993) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930615u1.html> (citing Filanto "there is as yet virtually no U.S. case law interpreting the Sale of Goods Convention"); Delchi v. Rotorex, 71 F.3d 1024, 1028 (2nd Cir 1995) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html> ("there is virtually no case law under the Convention"); Helen Kaminski v. Marketing Australian Products, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10630 (S.D.N.Y. 23 July 1997) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970723u1.html> ("there is little to no case law on the CISG . . ."); Calzaturificio Claudia v. Olivieri Footwear, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4586 (S.D.N.Y. 6 April 1998) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980406u1.html> ("The case law interpreting and applying the CISG is sparse", citing and quoting Kaminski "there is 'little to no case law on the CISG . . .' " and Filanto "there is virtually no United States case law interpreting the CISG"); Mitchell Aircraft Spares v. European Aircraft Service, 25 F. Supp. 2d 915 (N.D. Ill. 27 October 1998) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981027u1.html> (" 'there is virtually no case law under the Convention' ", quoting Delchi); and, as recently as this year, Supermicro Computer v. Digitechnic, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7620 (N.D. Cal. 30 January 2001) <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010130u1.html> ("the case law interpreting and applying the CISG is sparse", citing Delchi).

25. Camilla Baasch Andersen, Uniformity in the CISG in the First Decade of Its Application", in Fletcher, Mistelis and Cremona (eds.), Foundations and Perspectives of International Trade Law, Sweet & Maxwell: London (2001), 289, 295-297.

26. Franco Ferrari, "Applying the CISG in a Truly Uniform Manner", Uniform Law Review, supra note 1, at 208. UNCITRAL's multi-lingual case law collection system ("CLOUT") has been very useful. Gerold Herrmann, "The Role of UNCITRAL", in Fletcher, Mistelis and Cremona (eds.), Foundations and Perspectives of International Trade Law, supra note 25, at 28, 33. But see Camilla Baasch Andersen, supra note 25, at 297. UNCITRAL offers a unique collection of case digests on CISG case law. However, the current reporting system does not made all rulings on the CISG readily available to the Bar and the Bench.

27. Supra note 19, at n. 14.

28. See <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/casecit.html>.

29. See <L.Mistelis@qmul.ac.uk> or via <http://www.ccls.edu/eclu>.

30. See <akritzer@law.pace.edu>.

31. Lord Justice Kennedy, The Unification of Law, 10 J. Soc'y of Comp. Legis. 21, 214-215 (1909).

32. For data on the MAA, go to <http://www.maa.net>.

33. For data on the Moot, go to <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/vis.html>.

34. For data on the Casenote project, contact MAA coordinator Dijana Kesonja <dijanakesonja@hotmail.com>.

35. For Internet updates of this chart, go to <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/schedule.html>.

36. See <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/queenmary.html>.

37. See <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/network.html>.

38. See <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/cisg-toc.html>.

39. See <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/casecit.html>.

40. For Internet updates of this report, go to <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/schedule.html>.

41. See <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/casecit.html>.