LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1980 Vienna Diplomatic Conference

  [...]

CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLES 1-82 OF THE DRAFT CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS AND OF DRAFT ARTICLE "DECLARATIONS RELATING TO CONTRACTS IN WRITING" IN THE DRAFT PROVISIONS PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION, DECLARATIONS, RESERVATIONS AND OTHER FINAL CLAUSES FOR THE DRAFT CONVENTION (agenda item 3) (A/CONF.97/5) (continued)

[...]
 

4

31. Mr. ROGNLIEN (Norway), introducing his delegation's amendment (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.14), said that it was intended to deal with the problem that arose when the seller, having reserved property rights in the goods, wished to take them back. The background to the proposal was explained on pages 15 and 16 of document A/CONF.97/8. If a contractual clause existed reserving the right of property in goods for the purpose of securing payment due under the contract, and the seller wished to take back the goods because the, buyer had not paid the full price (all instalments), the question to be decided was whether or not that constituted avoidance of contract. If it did not, there was no provision in the Convention to deal with the problem. If it did, then settlement between the parties would be covered by articles 66 et seq. [became CISG article 81 et seq.]. While article 69 [became CISG article 84 ] covered the refunding by the seller of the price of the goods and the accounting by the buyer for benefits derived from the goods, no reference was made in it to the valuation of the used goods to be restituted. The rules of the Convention were unsatisfactory for regulating the settlement of accounts between the parties in such cases, while most national laws had special provisions for instalment sales and the settlement between the parties where the seller exercised his reserved property rights. He also referred to ULIS 1964 article 5, paragraph 2 and article 4 (a) and (b) of the present draft Convention [became CISG article 4(a) and (b) ].

32. The CHAIRMAN asked whether there was any support for the Norwegian amendment.

33. Mr. PLANTARD (France) said that although the Norwegian amendment was a reasonable one, he considered the question was already covered by article 5 [became CISG article 6 ] of the Convention. The proposed addition to article 4 was therefore not necessary.

34. Mr. ROGNLIEN (Norway) said that on that understanding and with reference to article 4 (a) and (b) [became CISG article 4(a) and (b) ] he would withdraw his proposal.

[...]