CASE ANNOTATIONS: UNCITRAL DIGEST CASES PLUS ADDED CASES
UNCITRAL has identified relevant cases in Digests containing case annotations for each article of the CISG. UNCITRAL cites 90 cases in its Digest of Art. 7 case law:
| Argentina |
1 |
Germany |
31 |
Russian Federation |
2 |
| Australia |
1 |
Hungary |
1 |
Spain |
1 |
| Austria |
7 |
ICC |
5 |
Stockholm Chamber |
1 |
| Belgium |
4 |
Italy |
5 |
Switzerland |
10 |
| Bulgaria |
1 |
Mexico |
2 |
United States |
6 |
| France |
4 |
Netherlands |
8 |
TOTAL |
90 |
Presented below is a composite list of Art. 7 cases reporting UNCITRAL Digest cases and other Art. 7 cases. All cases are listed in chronological sequence, commencing with the most recent. Asterisks identify the UNCITRAL Digest cases, commencing with the 26 November 2002 citation reported below. Cases are coded to the UNCITRAL Thesaurus.
English texts and full-text English translations of cases are provided as indicated. In most
instances researchers can also access from this list UNCITRAL abstracts and link to
Unilex abstracts and full-text original-language case texts sourced from Internet websites
and other data, including commentaries by scholars, to the extent available.
There are scholars who believe that there are circumstances in which the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts may be used to interpret or supplement this Article of the CISG. See match-up of this Article with counterpart provisions of the Principles and commentary on this subject. To the extent this reasoning fits, cases on the counterpart provisions of the UNIDROIT Principles may be relevant. To the extent available, such cases may be found on the Unilex website.
Germany 12 June 2008 Landgericht [District Court] Landshut (Metalic slabs case) 7A3 ; 7C23 [translation available]
United States 28 April 2008 U.S. District Court [Kansas] (Guang Dong Light Headgear Factory Co., Ltd. v. ACI International, Inc.) 7C22
United States 16 April 2008 U.S. District Court [New York] (Macromex Srl. v. Globex International, Inc.)
Germany 31 March 2008 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Stuttgart (Automobile case) 7B1 [translation available]
Netherlands 27 February 2008 Rechtbank [District Court] Breda (Interland Chemie BV v. Tessenderlo Chemie NV)
Netherlands 27 February 2008 Rechtbank [District Court] Zutphen (Frutas Caminito Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana v. Groente-En Fruithandel Heemskerk BV)
Spain 27 December 2007 Audiencia Provincial [Appellate Court] Navarra (Case involving machine to repair bricks)
Spain 19 December 2007 Audiencia Provincial [Appellate Court] Pontevedra (Frozen seafood case) [translation available]
Italy 21 November 2007 Tribunale di Rovereto [District Court] (Takap B.V. v. Europlay S.r.l.)
American Arbitration Association 23 October 2007 [Interim Award] (Macromex Srl. v. Globex International Inc.) 7B1 ; 7C23
Ukraine 6 September 2007 Donetz Appellate Commercial Court (Crucible press case) [translation available]
Argentina 31 May 2007 National Commercial Court of Appeals, Division "A" (Sr. Carlos Manuel del Corazón de Jesús Bravo Barros v. Salvador Martínez Gares) 7C [translation available]
France 13 February 2007 Cour de cassation [Supreme Court] (Computer motherboard case) 7C23 [translation available]
Russia 30 January 2007 Arbitration Award 147/2005 (Metal products case)
Netherlands 17 January 2007 Rechtbank [District Court] Arnhem (Hibro Compensatoren B.V. v. Trelleborg Industri Aktiebolag) 7C2 [translation available]
Netherlands 2 January 2007 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's-Hertogenbosch (G.W.A. Bernards v. Carstenfelder Baumschulen Pflanzenhandel GmbH)
Switzerland 12 December 2006 Obergericht [Appellate Court] Thurgau (Building materials case) [translation available]
United States 23 August 2006 Federal District Court [New York] (TeeVee Tunes v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH)
Netherlands 18 July 2006 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] Arnhem (Potting soil case) [translation available]
Switzerland 23 May 2006 Tribunal cantonal [Higher Cantonal Court] Valais (Suits case) [translation available]
Denmark 3 May 2006 Højesteret [Supreme Court] 7C22
Netherlands 1 March 2006 Rechtbank [District Court] Arnhem (Skoda Kovarny v. B. van Dijk Jr. Staalhandelmaatschappij B.V.) [translation available]
Russia 13 February 2006 Arbitration Award 102/2005 7C23 [translation available]
Germany 8 February 2006 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Karlsruhe (Hungarian wheat case) 7B1 [translation available]
Russia 13 January 2006 Arbitration Award 137/2004 7C23 [translation available]
Italy 10 January 2006 Tribunale [District Court] Padova (Merry-go-rounds case) 7B1 [translation available]
Germany 21 December 2005 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln (Trade usage case) 7A33 [translation available]
Russia 14 December 2005 Arbitration Award 150/2004 [translation available]
Italy 9 December 2005 Tribunale [District Court] di Modena (XX Cucine S.p.A. v. Rosda Nigeria Limited)
China 7 December 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2005/05] (Heaters case) 7A3 ; 7C22 [translation available]
Poland 10 November 2005 Supreme Court (Furniture case)
Austria 8 November 2005 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] [translation available]
Canada 28 October 2005 Superior Court of Justice, Ontario (Chateau des Charmes Ltd v. Sabaté USA Inc. et al.)
Russia 27 October 2005 Arbitration Award 132/2004 [translation available]
Russia 18 October 2005 Arbitration Award 21/2005 (Varnish and paint machine case) 7C23 [translation available]
France 13 October 2005 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] (Versailles)
Netherlands 11 October 2005 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's-Hertogenbosch
Germany 3 August 2005 Landgericht [District Court] Neubrandenburg (Pitted sour cherries case) 7A3 [translation available]
Russia 18 July 2005 Arbitration Award 134/2004 [translation available]
Russia 2 June 2005 Arbitration Award 131/2004 7A3 [translation available]
Russia 27 May 2005 Arbitration Award 95/2004 [translation available]
Austria 24 May 2005 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court]
Austria 23 May 2005 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] [translation available]
United States 23 May 2005 Federal Appellate Court [7th Circuit] (Chicago Prime Packers v. Northam)
Russia 27 April 2005 Arbitration Award 5/2004 7C23 [translation available]
Switzerland 5 April 2005 Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] [translation available]
United States 19 March 2005 Federal District Court [New York] (Genpharm Inc. v. Pliva-Lachena A.S.) 7A11
Mexico 10 March 2005 Primer Tribunal Colegiado en Materia Civil del Primer Circuito [Appellate Court] (Kolmar Petrochemicals v. Idesa Petroquímica) 7A3 [translation available]
Germany 2 March 2005 Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] 7A11 [translation available]
China 24 February 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/08] (Second pork case) 7A3 [translation available]
Netherlands 10 February 2005 Netherland Arbitration Institute (interim award) 7A3 ; 7C22 [English text]
Netherlands 28 January 2005 Hoge Raad [Supreme Court] 7C22
Russia 24 January 2005 Arbitration Award 68/2004 [translation available]
Italy 11 January 2005 Tribunale [District Court] Padova 7B1
Ukraine 2005 Arbitration Award Case no. 48 [translation available]
Russia 12 November 2004 Arbitration Award 174/2003
Russia 2 November 2004 Arbitration Award 188/2003 [translation available]
Germany 6 October 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt
Italy 20 September 2004 Corte Suprema di Cassazione [Supreme Court] [translation available]
Germany 15 September 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln [detailed abstract available]
Germany 15 September 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 7A33 [translation available]
Russia 3 September 2004 Arbitration Award 128/2002 [translation available]
Switzerland 7 July 2004 Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] (Cable drums case) 7C22 ; 7C23 [translation available]
France 30 June 2004 Cour de Cassation [Supreme Court] 7A3 [translation available]
Russia 28 June 2004 Arbitration Award 167/2003 [translation available]
Germany 28 May 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [translation available]
Russia 28 May 2004 Arbitration Award 175/2003 7C2 [translation available]
United States 21 May 2004 U.S. District Court [Illinois] (Chicago Prime Packers v. Norham)
Russia 19 May 2004 Arbitration Award 100/2002 [translation available]
Switzerland 29 April 2004 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] St. Gallen [translation available]
Germany 21 April 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [15 U 88/03] 7A33 [translation available]
Russia 20 April 2004 Arbitration Award 115/2003 [translation available]
Italy 31 March 2004 Tribunale [District Court] Padova [translation available]
Austria 29 March 2004 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7C22 [detailed abstract available]
Netherlands 17 March 2004 Rechtbank [District Court] Arnhem 7C23 [translation available]
Russia 12 March 2004 Arbitration Award 55/2003 [translation available]
Italy 25 February 2004 Tribunale [District Court] Padova 7A33 ; 7B1 ; 7C [translation available]
Russia 19 February 2004 Arbitration Award 65/2003 [translation available]
Switzerland 11 February 2004 Appelationshof [Appellate Court] Bern (Cable case) 7C [translation available]
Russia 2 February 2004 Arbitration Award 56/2003 [translation available]
Switzerland 27 January 2004 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Schaffhausen [translation available]
Germany 8 January 2004 Landgericht [District Court] Trier 7B1 [translation available]
Switzerland 13 November 2003 Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] [translation available]
Switzerland 24 October 2003 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 7A3 ; 7C22 [translation available]
Russia 22 October 2003 Arbitration Award No. 134/2001 7A3 [translation available]
France 24 September 2003 Cour de Cassation [Supreme Court] [translation available]
Spain 22 September 2003 Audiencia Provincial [Appellate Court] Navarra 7A33
Switzerland 19 August 2003 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais [translation available]
Russia 15 August 2003 Arbitration Award No. 57/2001 [translation available]
Germany 25 July 2003 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 7A3 [translation available]
Germany 15 July 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Mönchengladbach 7C23 [translation available]
Argentina 2 July 2003 Juzgado Comercial [Commercial Court] (Arbatax S.A. v. Concurso Preventivo)
Russia 16 June 2003 Arbitration Award No. 135/2002 [translation available]
Germany 11 June 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg [translation available]
Spain 7 June 2003 Audiencia Provincial [Appellate Court] Valencia 7B [translation available]
Switzerland 30 April 2003 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais (Furniture case) [translation available]
Netherlands 23 April 2003 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's-Gravenhage 7A33 [translation available]
Russia 17 February 2003 Arbitration Award No. 168/2001 [translation available]
United States 29 January 2003 U.S. District Court [Illinois] (Ajax Tool Works v. Can-Eng Manufacturing) 7C
Netherlands 22 January 2003 Rechtbank [District Court] Zwolle
ICC 2003 International Court of Arbitration, Case 11849 (Fashion products case) 7A3 ; 7C [English text]
China 27 December 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2002/29] (Medicine manufacturing equipment case) 7C23 [translation available]
Austria 18 December 2002 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7C22 [translation available]
* Italy
26 November 2002 Tribunale [District Court] Rimini 7B1 ; 7C22 [translation available]
United States 19 November 2002 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals [7th Cir.] (Zapata v. Hearthside) 7C22 ; 7C231
Russia
11 November 2002 Arbitration Award No. 52/2002 [translation available]
China 8 November 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2002/05] (Canned asparagus case) 7A3 ; 7C223 [translation available]
Italy 18 October 2002 Court Supremo di Cassazione [Supreme Court] (Janssen Cosmeceutical Care GmbH v. Munda Alberto)
Netherlands 16 October 2002 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's-Hertogenbosch 7A ; 7C
Netherlands 15 October 2002 Netherlands Arbitration Institute Case No. 2319 7A ; 7B ; 7C [English text]
Argentina 21 July 2002 Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial [Appellate Court] [translation available]
* United States 21 June 2002 U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals [4th Cir.] (Schmitz-Werke v. Rockland) 7A ; 7C1
Russia 7 June 2002 Arbitration Award No. 116/2001 [translation available]
* Belgium 15 May 2002 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Gent 7A3 [translation available]
Switzerland 12 May 2002 Obergericht [Appellate Court] Luzern
United States 10 May 2002 U.S. District Court [Southern Dist. NY] (Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc.) 7A ; 7B ; 7C
* United States 28 March 2002 U.S. District Court [Illinois] (Usinor Industeel v. Leeco Steel Products) 7B1 ; 7C231
United States 26 March 2002 U.S District Court [Southern Dist. NY] (St. Paul Insurance v.
Neuromed) 7A1
Russia 22 March 2002 Arbitration Award No. 225/2000 [translation available]
France 19 March 2002 Cour de Cassation [Supreme Court] 7A3 [translation available]
* Belgium 6 March 2002 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court Hasselt [A.R. 2671/01] 7B1
Russia 28 February 2002 Arbitration Award No. 2/2001 [translation available]
Switzerland 25 February 2002 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Schaffhausen 7C22 [translation available]
Russia 11 February 2002 Arbitration Court [Appellate Court] for Moscow Region (Case No. KG-A40/274-02) 7C22 ; 7C23 [translation available]
Denmark 31 January 2002 Sø og Handelsretten [Maritime Commercial Court] 7B [translation available]
* Germany 9 January 2002 Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] [translation available]
Italy 13 December 2001 Tribunale [District Court] Busto Arsizio 7A3
Germany 12 November 2001 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm (Memory module case) 7A ; 7A3 [translation available]
Russia 8 November 2001 Arbitration Court [Appellate Court] for Moscow Region (Case No. KG-A40/6314-01) [translation available]
* France 6 November 2001 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Paris 7C
* Germany 31 October 2001 Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] 7A11 ; 7A3 ; 7C223 [translation available]
* Austria 22 October 2001 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] [1 Ob 49/01i] 7A ; 7A33 [translation available]
New Zealand 3 October 2001 Court of Appeal (Bobux Marketing Ltd v. Raynor Marketing Ltd) 7A3
Italy 28 September 2001 Milan Arbitration proceeding (Steel wire case) 7A3 [English text]
United States 28 August 2001 U.S. District Court [Illinois] (Zapata v. Hearthside) 7A1
Russia 30 July 2001 Arbitration Award No. 198/2000 [translation available]
Russia
17 July 2001 Arbitration Award No. 419/1995 [translation available]
Netherlands 12 July 2001 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Rotterdam [translation available]
Belgium 27 June 2001 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Antwerpen 7A3 [translation available]
Russia 25 June 2001 Arbitration Court [Appellate Court] for Moscow Region (Case No. KG-A40/3057-01 7C22 ; 7C23 [translation available]
France
12 June 2001 Cour d’appel [Appellate Court] Colmar [translation available]
Bulgaria 12 March 2001 Bulgaria Chamber of Commerce Arbitration award, Case 33/98 7C231 [translation available]
China 19 February 2001 Jiangsu Higher People's Court [Appellate Court] (Tai Hei v. Shun Tian) [translation available]
Denmark 15 February 2001 Højesteret [Supreme Court] [translation available]
* Belgium 29 January 2001 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court Ieper 7C2
Russia 25 January 2001 Arbitration Award No. 88/2000 [translation available]
Russia 10 January 2001 Arbitration Award No. 101/2000 7C223 [translation available]
Germany 14 December 2000 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Hamburg-Altona
Australia 17 November 2000 Supreme Court of Queensland (Downs Investments v. Pertwaja Steel) 7B1
China 6 November 2000 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2000/12] (Marble building materials case) 7A3 [translation available]
Australia 3 November 2000 Federal Court (South Sydney District Rugby League v. News Ltd) 7A3
Finland 26 October 2000 Helsingin hoviokeus [Helsinki Court of Appeals] 7C223 [translation available]
* Germany 12 October 2000 Landgericht [District Court] Stendal 7C2 [translation available]
* Austria 7 September 2000 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7C22 [translation available]
Russia 24 August 2000 Arbitation Court [Appellate Court] for the Moscow Region [translation available]
* Italy 12 July 2000 Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 7B ; 7C21 [translation available]
Switzerland 11 July 2000 Bundesgericht [Federal Supreme Court] [translation available]
Russia 21 June 2000 Arbitration Court [Appellate Court] for Moscow Region (Case No. KG-A40/2396-00) 7C [translation available]
Russia 13 June 2000 Arbitration Award No. 280/1999 [translation available]
Russia 6 June 2000 Arbitration Award 406/1998 7C [translation available]
Colombia 10 May 2000 Corte Constitucional [Constitutional Court] 7A ; 7A3 ; 7C22 [translation available]
* Argentina 24 April 2000 Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial [Appellate Court] 7C231
* Austria 13 April 2000 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7B1 [translation available]
* Germany 13 April 2000 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Duisburg 7C231 [translation available]
Spain 27 March 2000 Audiencia Provincial [Appellate Court] Navarra
* Austria 9 March 2000 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7C22 [translation available]
China 11 February 2000 CIETAC Arbitration Award 7A3 [translation available]
Germany 26 January 2000 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamburg [translation available]
Russia 24 January 2000 Arbitration Award No. 54/1999 7C22 ; 7C23 [translation available]
China 7 January 2000 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2000/06] (Cysteine case) 7C ; 7C232 [translation available]
ICC 2000 International Court of Arbitration, Case 9781 7A [English text]
* Italy 29 December 1999 Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 7B1 ; 7C231 [translation available]
* Germany 26 November 1999 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamburg 7C2 [translation
available]
Germany 28 October 1999 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Braunschweig 7C2 [translation available]
Russia 2 August 1999 Arbitration Award 516/1996 [translation available]
ICC August 1999 International Court of Arbitration, Case 9887 [English text]
* Russia 27 July 1999 Arbitration Award 302/1996 7A3 [translation available]
* Austria 29 June 1999 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7C21 [translation available]
* Switzerland 11 June 1999 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau 7A3 [translation available]
Russia 10 June 1999 Arbitration Award 55/1998 7A3 [translation available]
China 4 June 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/28] (Industrial raw material case) 7A3 [translation available]
Germany 25 May 1999 Landgericht [District Court] Berlin [translation available]
* United States 17 May 1999 Federal District Court [Louisiana] (Medical Marketing v. Internazionale Medico Scientifica) 7A2
* Germany 24 March 1999 Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] 7A11 ; 7B1 [translation available]
Russia 22 March 1999 Arbitration Award 227/1996
* Germany 19 March 1999 Landgericht [District Court] Zwickau
China 13 January 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/05] (Latex gloves case) 7C221 [translation available]
ICC 1999 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8547 7C [English text]
Russia 30 December 1998 Arbitration Award 62/1998 [translation available]
Germany 29 December 1998 Hamburg Arbitration Award 7B [translation available]
Russia 18 December 1998 Arbitration Award 288/1997 7A3 [translation available]
* Italy 11 December 1998 Corte di Appello [Appellate Court] Milano 7A3 [translation
available]
* Belgium 2 December 1998 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt
* ICC December 1998 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8908 [English text]
* Mexico 30 November 1998 Compromex Arbitration proceeding 7A3 [translation available]
* Switzerland 30 November 1998 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 7A33 [translation available]
Germany 25 November 1998 Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] [translation
available]
Russia 24 November 1998 Arbitration Award 96/1998 7A3 [translation available]
Austria 12 November 1998 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court]
Switzerland 5 November 1998 Bezirksgericht [District Court] Sissach 7A33 ; 7C22 [translation available]
* Switzerland 28 October 1998 Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] (Meat case) 7C22 [translation available]
Russia 22 October 1998 Arbitration Award 196/1997 [translation available]
Austria 15 October 1998 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7B1 [translation available]
Germany 5 October 1998 [Appellate Court] Hamburg [translation available]
Russia 14 September 1998 Arbitration Award 131/1996 [translation available]
Switzerland 30 June 1998 Kantonsgericht Wallis / Tribunal cantonal Valais [Canton Appellate Court] (Granite stones case) [translation available]
Switzerland 29 June 1998 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais
* United States 29 June 1998 Federal Appellate Court [11th Circuit] (MCC-Marble Ceramic
Center v. Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino) 7A
Russia 9 June 1998 Arbitration Award 263/1997 7C23 [translation available]
* Stockholm Chamber of Commerce 5 June 1998 Arbitration Award (Beijing Light Automobile Co. v. Connell) [English text]
* United States 6 April 1998 Federal District Court [Southern Dist. NY] (Calzaturificio Claudia v. Olivieri Footwear) 7A11
Russia 25 March 1998 Arbitration Award 491/1997 [translation available]
* Germany 24 March 1998 Landgericht [District Court] Berlin (Knitwear case) 7C22 [translation available]
* Germany 11 March 1998 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 7C23 [translation
available]
Russia 2 March 1998 Arbitration Award 201/1997
* ICC March 1998 International Court of Arbitration, Case 9117 7C22 [English text]
Russia 18 February 1998 Arbitration Award 243/1996[translation available]
Russia 16 February 1998 Arbitration Award 33/1997
Austria 12 February 1998 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7C [translation available]
* Bulgaria 12 February 1998 Arbitration Case 11/1996 7C22 [translation available]
Russia 26 January 1998 Arbitration Award No. 76/1997 7A3 [translation available]
* Switzerland 23 January 1998 Kantonsgericht [Canton Court] Freiburg 7C23 [translation available]
* Germany 21 January 1998 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München [translation available]
Russia 16 January 1998 Arbitration Award 309/1996 [translation available]
* Switzerland 15 January 1998 Tribunale d'appello [Appellate Court] Lugano 7C22 [translation
available]
* France 14 January 1998 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Paris 7C2 ; 7C22 ; 7C23
Russia 10 January 1998 Arbitration Award 65/1997 [translation available]
Hungary
1998 Fovárosi Biróság [Metropolitan Court] Budapest
France 18 December 1997 Tribunal de commerce [District Court] Colmar [translation available]
China 15 December 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/34] (Hot rolled coils case) 7C223 [translation available]
China 15 December 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/34] (Hot rolled coils case) [translation available]
ICC December 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8817 7C22 [translation available]
Russia 6 November 1997 Arbitration Award 451/1996 [translation available]
Germany 5 November 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm [translation
available]
Switzerland 28 October 1997 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais 7C22
* Germany 15 October 1997 Landgericht [District Court] Hagen 7C23 [translation available]
* Switzerland 26 September 1997 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau (Cutlery case) [translation available]
Germany 18 September 1997 Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg
Germany 15 September 1997 Landgericht [District Court] Heilbronn 7C [translation available]
* Netherlands 17 July 1997 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Arnhem
Netherlands 7 July 1997 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Arnhem 7A3
Switzerland 3 July 1997 Bezirksgericht [District Court] St. Gallen [translation available]
* Germany 25 June 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Karlsruhe 7A33 ; 7C22 [translation available]
* Netherlands 29 May 1997 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Zutphen 7C23
Russia 29 May 1997 Arbitration Award 439/1995 [translation available]
* Germany 6 May 1997 Landgericht [District Court] München
* Germany 24 April 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [translation available]
Netherlands 15 April 1997 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] Arnhem
* Russia 28 March 1997 Arbitration Award 38/1996 7C23 [translation available]
* Netherlands 5 March 1997 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Zwolle 7A3
* Germany 28 February 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamburg 7A33 [translation available]
* Switzerland 20 February 1997 Bezirksgericht [District Court] Saane [translation available]
Russia 27 January 1997 Arbitration Award 94/1996 7C22 [translation available]
* ICC 23 January 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8611 7A3 ; 7C2 [translation available]
Germany 8 January 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln 7A33 [translation
available]
Switzerland 8 January 1997 Obergericht [Appellate Court] Luzern 7A2 [translation available]
ICC January 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8786 7A33 [English text]
ICC 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8855
Russia 1997 High Arbitration Court [Ruling No. 4, case 7]
Austria 25 October 1996 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Wien (Vienna) [3 R 167/96t-33]
* France 23 October 1996 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 7C22 [translation available]
China 17 October 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/47] (Tinplate case) 7A33 [translation available]
Russia 26 September 1996 Arbitration Award 433/1994 7C231 [translation available]
Russia 16 September 1996 Arbitration Award 74/1995 7C [translation available]
* Germany 11 July 1996 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [translation available]
Switzerland 31 May 1996 Arbitration ZHK 273/1995 [Zürich Chamber of Commerce] [English text]
China 22 May 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/25] (Broadcasting equipment case) 7C2 [translation available]
* Germany 21 May 1996 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln 7A33 [translation available]
Netherlands 15 May 1996 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Amsterdam
China 2 May 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/21] ("FeMo" alloy case) 7A3 [translation available]
* Mexico 29 April 1996 Compromex Arbitration proceeding (Conservas La Costeña v. Lanin) 7C22 [translation available]
Russia 25 April 1996 Arbitration Award 72/1995 [translation available]
Bulgaria 24 April 1996 Bulgaria Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Award 56/1995 7C23 [translation available]
* Germany 17 April 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Duisburg 7C23 [translation available]
China 3 April 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/17] (Plastic bags case) 7C22 [translation available]
* Germany 3 April 1996 Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] 7A11 [translation
available]
* Germany 26 March 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Saarbrücken 7A3 [translation available]
* Germany 21 March 1996 Hamburg Arbitration Award 7A3 ; 7C23 [translation available]
Russia 12 March 1996 Arbitration Award 218/1995 [translation available]
* Austria 6 February 1996 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7C22 [translation available]
* Italy 31 January 1996 Tribunale Civile [District Court] Cuneo 7B1 [translation available]
Germany 25 January 1996 Landgericht [District Court] München [translation available]
Russia 19 December 1995 Arbitration Award 133/1994 [translation available]
Russia 13 December 1995 Arbitration Award 364/1994 [translation available]
* United States 6 December 1995 Federal Appellate Court [2nd Circuit] (Delchi Carrier v.
Rotorex) 7A ; 7C
Hungary 5 December 1995 Budapest Arbitration proceeding Vb 94131[translation available]
Russia 1 December 1995 Arbitration Award 369/1994 [translation available]
Russia 1 December 1995 Arbitration Award 22/1995 [translation available]
Russia 22 November 1995 Arbitration Award 99/1994 7C23 [translation available]
* Hungary 17 November 1995 Budapest Arbitration Award Vb 94124 7A32 ; 7A33
France 13 September 1995 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 7C23 [translation
available]
Netherlands 22 August 1995 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] Arnhem 7A33 ; 7C231
* Germany 21 August 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Stuttgart 7C23 [translation available]
* Germany 20 July 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 7C2 ; 7C3 [translation available]
Germany 7 July 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Koblenz
* Germany 9 June 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 7C23 [translation available]
* Germany 24 May 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Celle [translation available]
Germany 12 May 1995 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Alsfeld 7C23 [translation available]
Netherlands 27 April 1995 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Zutphen
* Switzerland 26 April 1995 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 7C22 [translation available]
Germany 5 April 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Landshut 7C23 [translation available]
Germany 31 March 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 7A3 ; 7C221
[translation available]
Germany 20 March 1995 Landgericht [District Court] München 7C [translation available]
Russia 16 March 1995 Arbitration Award 155/1994 [translation available]
Russia 3 March 1995 Arbitration Award 304/1993 [commentary available]
Russia 3 March 1995 Arbitration Award 309/1993
ICC March 1995 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7645 7A33 ; 7B1 [English text]
* France 22 February 1995 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 7A33 [translation available]
Germany 8 February 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München [7 U 1720/94] 7A33 [translation available]
Germany 8 February 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 7C221
* Netherlands 25 January 1995 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Middelburg 7C23
* ICC 1995 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8128 7C22 [translation available]
Switzerland 20 December 1994 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais [translation
available]
Russia 14 December 1994 Arbitration Award 171/1994
Russia 14 December 1994 Arbitration Award 172/1994
China December 1994 Fujian Higher People's Court [Appellate Court] [translation available]
Russia 17 November 1994 Arbitration Award 493/1993
* Netherlands 5 October 1994 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Amsterdam 7C23
United States 9 September 1994 Federal District Court [Northern Dist. NY] (Delchi Carrier
v. Rotorex) 7A ; 7C
* Germany 6 September 1994 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Mayen
* Germany 6 July 1994 Landgericht [District Court] Frankfurt 7C22
* Austria 1 July 1994 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Innsbruck
Switzerland 29 June 1994 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais
Russia 28 June 1994 Arbitration Award 76/1993
* Austria 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration Award SCH-4318 7A33 ; 7C2 [translation available]
* Austria 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration Award SCH-4366 7C22 [translation available]
Netherlands 15 June 1994 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Amsterdam 7C231
* Germany 20 April 1994 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt
Russia 6 April 1994 Arbitration Award 224/1993
* Germany 24 January 1994 Kammergericht [Appellate Court] Berlin 7C22 [translation available]
ICC 1994 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7331 7A3 ; 7C22 ; 7C232 [English text]
ICC 1994 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7565 7C231 [English text]
ICC 1994 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7660 7C23 [English text]
Netherlands 30 December 1993 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Arnhem 7C231
* Germany 17 September 1993 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz 7C23 [translation available]
* Switzerland 9 September 1993 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich (Furniture case) 7C22 [translation available]
Israel 22 August 1993 Supreme Court (Examin v. Textile and Footware) 7A3
Germany 14 July 1993 Landgericht [District Court] Dortmund
* Germany 2 July 1993 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 7C22 [translation
available]
* Switzerland 7 May 1993 Richteramt [District Court] Laufen 7A11 [translation available]
* Netherlands 6 May 1993 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Roermond 7C23
China 30 March 1993 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1993/07] (Talcum block case) 7C2 [translation available]
* Netherlands 25 February 1993 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Arnhem 7C231
* ICC 1993 International Court of Arbitration, Case 6653 [translation available]
* Switzerland 27 April 1992 Pretore della giurisdizione [District Court] Locarno Campagna [translation available]
United States 14 April 1992 Federal District Court [Southern Dist. NY] (Filanto v. Chilewich)
7A33 ; 7C22 ; 7C223
* Australia 12 March 1992 Appellate Court New South Wales (Renard Construction v.
Minister for Public Works) 7A3
* Netherlands 26 February 1992 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's Hertogenbosch 7C22
ICC 1992 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7197 7C23
ICC 1992 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7585 7C22 [English text]
Netherlands 23 September 1991 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Breda
Netherlands 13 September 1991 Hoge Raad [Supreme Court]
* Germany 13 August 1991 Landgericht [District Court] Stuttgart (Women's clothes case) 7C22 [translation available]
Argentina 20 May 1991 Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Comercial [National Commercial Court of First Instance] 7C23 [translation available]
Germany 18 January 1991 Landgericht [District Court] Bielefeld
Germany 31 August 1989 Landgericht [District Court] Stuttgart [translation available]
Netherlands 5 January 1978 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] Amsterdam [ULIS precedent] 7A33
; 7C221 [translation available]
CASE DIGEST AND ANALYSIS
- UNCITRAL's case law digest; and
- An analysis of CISG jurisprudence
The UNCITRAL Digest of case law on the United
Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods [*]
A/CN.9/SER.C/DIGEST/CISG/7 [8 June 2004]
Reproduced with the permission of UNCITRAL
[Text of Article 7
Digest of Article 7 case law
- Interpretation of the Convention
- Observance of good faith in international trade
- Gap-filling and general principles]
| ARTICLE 7
(1) In the interpretation of this Convention, regard is to be had to its
international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its
application and the observance of good faith in international trade. (2) Questions concerning matters governed by this Convention which are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which it is based or, in the absence of such principles, in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law.
|
DIGEST OF ARTICLE 7 CASE LAW
Interpretation of the Convention
1. As national rules on the law of sales are subject to sharp divergences in approach and concept, it is important to avoid an interpretation of the Convention that is influenced by the concepts used in the legal system of the country of the forum.[1] It is for this reason that article 7(1) provides that in the interpretation of the Convention "regard is to be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application".
2. In effect, according to some courts the reference to the Convention's international character [2] is to be understood as preventing courts from resorting to an interpretation of the concepts used in the Convention that is based on national law;[3] rather, courts should interpret the Convention "autonomously."[4] Nevertheless, there are courts that have stated that case law interpreting analogous domestic law provisions may also inform a court where the language of the relevant provisions of the Convention tracks that of the domestic law, even though the domestic law "is not per se applicable".[5] According to case law, reference to the Convention's legislative history is admissible [6]
as well as to international scholarly writing.[7]
3. As far as the further obligation to promote uniform application of the Convention is concerned, it has been interpreted in the sense that courts should also take into account decisions rendered by foreign courts.[8] In one case, one court quoted forty foreign court decisions as well as arbitral awards.[9] In other
cases, two courts quoted two foreign court decisions,[10] while there are several cases in which one foreign court decision is referred to.[11] More recently, one court referred to 37 foreign court decisions and arbitral awards.[12]
4. What value foreign court decisions should have was dealt with by two courts both of which stated that foreign court decisions merely have persuasive, non-binding value.[13]
Observance of good faith in international trade
5. Article 7(1) also requires that the Convention be interpreted in such a manner that the observance of good faith in international trade is promoted.[14] Although an
express reference to the good faith principle is to be found solely in the
provision relating to the Convention's interpretation, there are numerous
applications of that principle throughout the Convention. Among the
manifestations of that principle are the rules contained in the following
provisions:
- Article 16(2)(b) on the non-revocability of an offer where it was reasonable for the offeree to rely upon the offer being held open and the offeree acted in reliance on the offer;
-
Article 21(2) on the status of a
late acceptance which was sent in such circumstances that if its
transmission had been normal it would have reached the offeror in due
time;
-
Article 29(2) in relation to the
preclusion of a party from relying on a provision in a contract that
modification or abrogation of the contract must be in writing;
-
Articles 37 and 46 on the rights of
a seller to remedy non-conformities in the goods;
-
Article 40 which precludes the
seller from relying on the fact that notice of non-conformity has not been
given by the buyer in accordance with articles 38 and 39 if the lack of
conformity relates to facts of which the seller knew or could not have
been unaware and which he did not disclose to the buyer;
-
Articles 47(2), 64(2) and 82 on the
loss of the right to declare the contract avoided;
-
Articles 85 to 88 which impose on the parties obligations to take steps to preserve the goods.[15]
Gap-filling and General Principles
6. Paragraph (2) makes sure that gaps, i.e. matters the Convention governs but which it does not expressly solve, are filled, if possible, without resorting to domestic law, but rather in conformity to the Convention's general principles. Only where no such general principles can be identified should one resort to the applicable national law.[16] Matters the Convention does not govern at all are to be solved directly by
having recourse to the applicable national law.[17] As for the
issues considered to fall outside the Convention's scope, they have been listed
under the comments to article 4.
7. According to several courts, one of the general principles upon which the Convention is based is that of the "prevalence of party autonomy".[18]
8. The principle of good faith has also been found to be one of the general principles upon which the Convention is based.[19] In one case,
that general principle has led a court to even state that an explicit
declaration of avoidance of the contract was not necessary once the seller had
refused to perform its obligations and that to insist on such a declaration
would be against the principle of good faith, even though the Convention
expressly requires a declaration of avoidance of contract.20] In another case, a court justified the order to one party to pay damages on the basis that that party's conduct was "contrary to the principle of good faith in international trade laid down in article 7 CISG"; in doing so, the court also stated that the abuse of process violates the good faith principle.[21]
9. A more recent court decision referred to the general principle of good faith and stated that it leads to the parties having to both cooperate with each other and exchange the information relevant for the performance of their respective obligations.[22]
10. According to some decisions, estoppel is also one of the general principles upon which the Convention is based; more specifically, it is a manifestation of the
principle of good faith.[23]
According to one court, however, estoppel is a matter the Convention is not
concerned with.[24]
11. Decisions opting for the existence of a general principle upon which the Convention is based in respect of the place of performance of monetary obligations are more numerous. Thus, in determining the place of payment of compensation due for
non-conformity of the goods one court stated that "if the purchase price is
payable at the place of business of the seller", under article 57 of the
Convention, then "this indicates a general principle valid for other monetary
claims as well".[25]
In a comparable situation, another court, considering an action for restitution of an excess in the price received by the seller, stated that there was a general principle under which "payment is to be made at the creditor's domicile, a principle that is be extended to other international trade contracts under article 6.1.6 of the UNIDROIT Principles".[26] The Supreme Court of another State, which had previously adopted the reverse principle,
decided that the gap of the Convention in respect of the legal consequences of
avoidance, particularly with regard to the performance of restitution
obligations, were to be filled by means of a general principle of the
Convention, according to which "the place for performance of restitution
obligations should be determined by transposing the primary obligations —
through a mirror effect — into restitution obligations".[27] It should be
noted, however, that there is also one decision which denies the existence of a
general principle under the Convention on the basis of which to determine the
place of performance for all monetary obligations.[28]
12. As far as the currency of payment is concerned, one court observed that it is a question governed by, albeit not expressly settled in, the Convention.[29]
The court first referred to the view that according to a general principle
underlying CISG, the seller's place of business governs all questions
relating to payment, at least where the parties did not agree otherwise, and
therefore also governs the question of currency. The court, however, also
mentioned the view that the question cannot be solved by applying a general
principle of the Convention but rather by the domestic law applicable. The
Court did not choose between the alternatives since in the case at hand the
result was the same (currency of the seller's place of business).
13. According to some decisions,[30]
the issue of burden of proof is a matter governed by, albeit not explicitly
settled in, the Convention. Therefore, the issue is to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which the Convention is based.[31]
According to various decisions, it is article 79(1)[32] and, at
least according to one court decision, article 2(a) that evidence general
principles of the Convention in respect of this issue. These general principles have been
summarized as follows: the party which wants to derive beneficial legal
consequences from a legal provision has to prove the existence of the factual
prerequisites of the provision,[33]
any party claiming an exception has to prove the factual prerequisites of that
exception.[34]
It must be noted, however, that according to some courts, the issue of burden of
proof is one not governed by the Convention, which is why domestic law is
supposed to be applied to that issue.[35]
14. According to some arbitral tribunals, the Convention is also based upon the principle of full compensation.[36] One court restricted this general principle to cases in which, as a result of a breach of contractual obligations, a contract is declared void.[37]
15. Several tribunals expressly stated that the principle of informality, laid down in
article 11, also constitutes a general principle upon which the Convention is
based;[38]
from this principle it follows, among other things, that the parties are also
free to modify or terminate their contract in any form be it either in writing
or orally or in any other form. Even an implied termination of the contract has
been held possible;[39]
furthermore, it has been held that a written contract may be orally changed.[40]
16. The dispatch principle appears to be the general principle of the Convention concerning communications after the parties have concluded their contract. According to
the principle a notice, request or other communication becomes effective as
soon as the declaring party releases it from its own sphere by an appropriate
means of communication. This rule applies to the notice of non-conformity or of
third-party claims (arts. 39, 43), to requests of specific performance (art.
46), price reduction (art. 50), damages (art. 45 (1)(b)) or interest (art. 78), to the declaration of avoidance
(arts. 49, 64, 72, 73), to the fixing of an additional period for performance
(arts. 47, 63) and other notices as in articles 32(1), 67(2) or 88. As stated
in case law, as a general principle for Part III of the Convention, the
dispatch principle applies as well to any other communication the parties may
have provided for in their contract unless they have agreed that the
communication has to be received to be effective.[41]
17. The
mitigation principle set forth in article 77, pursuant to which a party who
relies on a breach of contract must take such measures as are reasonable in the
circumstances to mitigate the loss, including loss of profit, resulting from
the breach, in order to avoid entitling the party in breach to be able to claim
a reduction in the damages in the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated,
has also been considered a general principle upon which the Convention is
based.[42]
18. Another
general principle, recognized by case law, is that unless otherwise agreed, the
parties are bound by a usage of which the parties knew or ought to have known
and which in international trade is widely known to, and regularly observed by,
parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade concerned.[43]
19. One court
suggested that the issue of set-off was governed, albeit not expressly settled,
in the Convention, and that the Convention contained a general principle within
the meaning of article 7(2) that permitted reciprocal claims arising under the
Convention (here, the buyer's claims for damages and the seller's claim for the
balance of the sale proceeds) to be offset.[44] According to
other courts, however, the issue of set-off is not governed at all by the
Convention.[45]
20. An arbitral tribunal stated that the entitlement to interest on all sums in arrears also constitutes a general principle of the Convention.[46] According to
some tribunals, the Convention is based upon the general principle pursuant to
which the entitlement to interest does not require a formal notice to the
debtor in default.[47]
There are, however, decisions that state that a formal notice must be given to
the debtor before one is entitled to interest on sums in arrears.[48]
21. Commentators have also suggested that the Convention is based upon the favor contractus
principle, pursuant to which one should adopt those solutions that favor the
contract's existence rather than its avoidance. This view appears to have been
adopted by two courts; one court expressly referred to the principle of favor
contractus,[49]
whereas the other court stated that the avoidance of the contract merely constitutes
an "ultima ratio" remedy.[50]
22. Several decisions have identified Article 40 as embodying a general principle of the Convention applicable to resolve unsettled issues under the Convention. According to an arbitration panel, "Article 40 is an expression of the principles of fair trading that underlie also many other provisions of the Convention, and it is by its very nature a codification of a general
principle".[51]
Thus, the decision asserted, even if Article 40 did not directly apply to a
lack of conformity under a contractual warranty clause, the general principle
underlying Article 40 would be indirectly applicable to the situation by way of Article 7(2). In another decision, a court derived from Article 40 a general principle of the Convention that even a very negligent buyer deserves more protection than a fraudulent seller, and then applied the principle to find that a seller could not escape liability under Article 35(3)[52] for misrepresenting the age and mileage of a car even if the buyer could not have been unaware of the lack of conformity.[53]
23. One arbitral tribunal,[54] when having to decide what rate of interest to apply to the sums in arrears, applied the average bank short-term lending rate to prime borrowers, being the solution adopted both by Art. 7.4.9 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and by Art. 4.507 of the Principles of European Contract Law; the arbitral tribunal adopted that solution on the grounds that such rules had to be considered general principles on which the Convention is based. In other cases,[55]
arbitral tribunals referred to the UNIDROIT Principles of International
Commercial Contracts to find corroboration of the results reached by applying
the rules of the Convention; one State court also referred to the UNIDROIT
Principles of International Commercial Contracts to corroborate a solution
adopted on the basis of the Convention.[56] Furthermore according to a State court, the UNIDROIT Principles can also help to determine the exact meaning of a general principles upon which the CISG is based.[57]
FOOTNOTES
* The present text was prepared using the full text of the decisions cited in the Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts (CLOUT) abstracts and other citations listed in the footnotes. The abstracts are intended to serve only as summaries of the underlying decisions and may not reflect all the points made in the digest. Readers are advised to consult the full texts of the listed court and arbitral decisions rather than relying solely on the CLOUT abstracts.
[Citations to cisgw3 case presentations have been substituted [in brackets] for the case citations provided in the UNCITRAL Digest. This substitution has been made to facilitate online access to CLOUT abstracts, original texts of court and arbitral decisions, and full text English translations of these texts (available in most but not all cases). For citations UNCITRAL had used, go to <http://www.uncitral.org/english/clout/digest_cisg_e.htm>.]
1. See United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 10
March - 11 April 1980, Official Records, Documents of the Conference and
Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Main
Committee, 1981, p. 17.
2. For references in case law to the need to take the Convention's international character into account in the interpretation of the Convention, see
CLOUT case No. 418 [UNITED STATES Medical Marketing v. Internazionale Medico Scientifica Federal District Court [Louisiana] 17 May 1999 available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990517u1.html>], (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 138 [UNITED STATES Delchi Carrier v. Rotorex Federal Appellate Court [2nd Circuit] 6 December 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 84 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 20 April 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940420g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 201 [SWITZERLAND Laufen [District Court] Canton Berne 7 May 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930507s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).
3. See
CLOUT case No. 222 [UNITED STATES MCC-Marble Ceramic Center v. Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino [Federal Court of Appeals] [11th Circuit] 29 June 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980629u1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 413 [UNITED STATES Calzaturificio Claudia v. Olivieri Footwear [Federal District Court] Southern District of New York 6 April 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980406u1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 230 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Karlsruhe 25 June 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970625g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 171 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof [Supreme Court] 3 April 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960403g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 201 [SWITZERLAND Richteramt [District Court] Laufen Canton Berne 7 May 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930507s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).
4.
CLOUT case No. 333 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau 11 June 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990611s1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 271 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] 24 March 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990324g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 217 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgreicht [Commercial Court] Aargau 26 September 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970926s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).
5.
CLOUT case No. 138 [UNITED STATES Delchi Carrier v. Rotorex Federal Appellate Court [2nd Circuit] 6 December 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
for a more recent case stating the same, see [UNITED STATES Schmitz-Werke v. Rockland Federal Appellate Court [4th Circuit] 21 June 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020621u1.html>]
6. [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 20 July 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950720g1.html>] (referring to the legislative history of article 78);
CLOUT case No. 84 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 20 April 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940420g1.html>].
7. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 13 April 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413a3.html>].
8. [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial [Appellate Court] Valencia 7 June 2003, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030607s4.html>].
9. See CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>].
10. [BELGIUM Rechtbank [District Court] Hasselt 2 December 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981202b1.html>];
[ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Cuneo 31 January 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960131i3.html>].
11. [UNITED STATES Usinor Industeel v. Leeco Steel Products Federal District Court [Illinois] 28 March 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020328u1.html>];
[BELGIUM Rechtbank [District Court ] Hasselt 6 March 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020306b1.html>];
[AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 13 April 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413a3.html>];
CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 29 December 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 205 [FRANCE Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 23 October 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961023f1.html>] (see full text of the decision).
12. [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Rimini 26 November 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html.html>].
13.
CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>];
CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 29 December 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>].
[ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Rimini 26 November 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html.html>]
14. See United
Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 10
March - 11 April 1980, Official Records, Documents of the Conference and
Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Main
Committee, 1981, p. 18.
15. United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 10 March - 11 April 1980, Official Records, Documents of the Conference and Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Main Committee, 1981, p. 18.
16. [ICC Court of Arbitration case No. 8611/HV/JK of 23 January 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/978611i1.html.html>].
17. [FRANCE Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Paris 6 November 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011106f1.html>], expressly referring to article 7 of the Convention when stating that issues not governed by the Convention have to be solved by means of the applicable law;
for a similar statement, [ARGENTINA Mayer Alejandro v. Onda Hofferle [Appellate Court] Cámara 24 April 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000424a1.html>] (stating the same);
CLOUT case No. 333 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau 11 June 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990611s1.html>];
[NETHERLANDS Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Zutphen 29 May 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970529n1.html>] (stating the same);
[RUSSIA Arbitration Award case No. 38/1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970328r1.html>]
[GERMANY Amtsgericht [ Lower Court] Mayen 6 September [1994], available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940906g1.html>]
(stating the same);
CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 9 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930909s1.html>] (stating the same) (see full text of the decision).
18. [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Gent [15] May 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020515b1.html>];
[BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Ieper 29 January 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010129b1.html>];
[GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Stendal 12 October 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001012g1.html>];
[ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Rimini 26 November 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html.html>]
19. [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Gent [15] May 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020515b1.html>];
[GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof [Supreme Court] 9 January 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020109g1.html>];
[GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof [Supreme Court] 31 October 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011031g1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 297 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 21 January 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980121g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 251 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 30 November 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981130s1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
[ITALY Corte di Appello [Appellate Court] Milano 11 December 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981211i3.html>];
[MEXICO Compromex Arbitration Award 30 November 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981130m1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 277 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamburg 28 February 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970228g1.html>];
[NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Arnhem 17 July 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970717n1.html>];
[GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] München 6 May 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970506g1.html>] (stating the same);
CLOUT case No. 337 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Saarbrücken 26 March 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960326g1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 166 [GERMANY Schiedsgericht [Arbitral Tribunal] Hamburg 21 June 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960621g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 136 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Celle 24 May 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950524g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
[ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 8128/1995 of 17 November 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958128i1.html>]; [HUNGARY Court of Arbitration Award No. Vb 94124 of 17 November 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951117h1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 154 [FRANCE Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 22 February 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950222f1.html>].
20. See CLOUT case No. 277 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamburg 28 February 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970228g1.html>].
21. CLOUT case No. 154 [FRANCE Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 22 February 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950222f1.html>].
22. [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof [Supreme Court] 31 October 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011031g1.html>].
23. [RUSSIA Arbitration Award case No. 302/1996 of 27 July 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990727r1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 230 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Karlsruhe 25 June 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970625g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 94 [AUSTRIA Vienna Arbitration Award,
case No. SCH-4318 of 15 June 1994; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a4.html>];
CLOUT case No. 93 [AUSTRIA Vienna Arbitration Award,
case No. SCH-4366 of 15 June 1994; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>] (see full text of the decision);
[NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's-Hertogenbosch 26 February 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920226n1.html>].
24. [NETHERLANDS Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Amsterdam 5 October 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941005n1.html>].
25. CLOUT case No. 49 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 2 July 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930702g1.html>].
26. [FRANCE Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble, 23 October 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961023f1.html>].
27. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 29 June 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990629a3.html>].
28. CLOUT case No. 312 [FRANCE Cour d'appel [Court] Paris 14 January 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980114f1.html>].
29. [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Berlin 24 March 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980324g1.html>].
30. See CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>];
CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 29 December 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>];
CLOUT case No. 196 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 26 April 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426s1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 9 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930909s1.html>].
31. See CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 9 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930909s1.html>].
32. CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>];
[GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof [Supreme Court] 9 January 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020109g1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 29 December 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>].
33. For references to this principle, see
CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>];
[GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Frankfurt 6 July 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940706g1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 107 [AUSTRIA Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Innsbruck 1 July 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940701a3.html>] (see full text of the decision).
34. See CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>].
35. See CLOUT case No. 261 [SWITZERLAND Berzirksgericht [District Court] Sanne 20 February 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970220s1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 103 [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 6653 of 26 March 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/956653i1.html>]; in one case, a state court referred to the problem of whether the Convention is based upon a particular general principle in respect of the issue of burden of proof or whether the issue is one not governed by the Convention, but left the issue open;
see CLOUT case No. 253 [SWITZERLAND Tribunale d'appello [Appellate Court ] Lugano 15 January 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980115s1.html>].
36. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 9 March 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000309a3.html>];
CLOUT cases Nos. 93 [AUSTRIA Vienna Arbitration Award,
case No. SCH-4366 of 15 June 1994; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>] and
94 [AUSTRIA Vienna Arbitration Award,
case No. SCH-4318 of 15 June 1994; available at
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a4.html>].
37. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 9 March 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000309a3.html>].
38. [MEXICO Compromex Arbitration Award 29 April 1996 , available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960429m1.html>].
39. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 29 June 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990629a3.html>].
40. CLOUT case No. 176 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 6 February 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960206a3.html>] (see full text of the decision).
41. [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Stuttgart 13 August 1991, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910813g1.html>] (according to the contract the notice of non-conformity had to be by registered
letter. The court held that that meant that the notice had to be received by
the other party. Moreover, the declaring party had also to prove that the
notice had been received by the other party).
See also CLOUT case No. 305 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 30 June 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980630a3.html>].
42. [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Zwickau 19 March 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990319g1.html>];
[ICC Court of Arbitration case No. 8817 of December 1997 , available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/978817i1.html>];
[ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Rimini 26 November 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html.html>].
43. [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel [District Court] Ieper 29 January 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010129b1.html>].
44. CLOUT case No. 348 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamburg 26 November 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991126g1.html>].
45. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 22 October 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011022a4.html>];
CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>] (see full text of the decision);
[GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Duisburg 13 April 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413g1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 232 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 11 March 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980311g1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 259 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [Canton Court] Freiburg 23 January 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980123s1.html>];
[GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Hagen 15 October 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971015g1.html>];
[GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] München 6 May 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970506g1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 275 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 24 April 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970424g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 169 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 11 July 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960711g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
[GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Duisburg 17 April 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960417g1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 289 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Stuttgart 21 August 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950821g1.html>];
[GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] München 20 March 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950320g1.html>];
[NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Middelburg 25 January 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950125n1.html>];
[GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Mayen 6 September 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940906g1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz 17 September 1993; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930917g1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 125 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 9 June 1995; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950609g1.html>];
[NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Roermond 6 May 1993; available at http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930506n1.html>];
CLOUT case No. 99 [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court ] Arnhem 25 February 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930225n1.html>].
46. [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 8908 of September 1998 , available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/988908i1.html>].
47. CLOUT case No. 217 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgreicht [Commercial Court] Aargau 26 September 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970926s1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 80 [GERMANY Kammergericht [Appellate Court] Berlin 24 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940124g1.html>] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 56 [ SWITZERLAND Pretore della giurisdizione [District Court] Locarno Campagna 27 April 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920427s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).
48. [BULGARIA Arbitration Award case No. 11/1996 of 12 February 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980212bu.html>];
[GERMANY Landgericht [ District Court ] Zwickau 19 March 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990319g1.html>].
49. CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] 28 October 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981028s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).
50. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7 September 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000907a3.html>].
51. CLOUT case No. 237 [STOCKHOLM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Arbitration Award of 5 June 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980605s5.html>] (see full text of the decision).
52. Article 35(3) provides that a seller is not liable for a lack of conformity under Article 35(2) "if at the time of the conclusion of the contract the buyer knew or could not have been unaware of such lack of conformity".
53. CLOUT case No. 168 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln 21 May 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960521g1.html>].
54. [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 8128/1995 pf 17 November 1995, available online at <