Go to Database Directory|| See also UNCITRAL Digest Cases + Added Cases
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

2012 UNCITRAL Digest of case law on the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods

Digest of Article 1 case law [reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL] [*]

[Text of article
Overview
Convention prevails over recourse to private international law
Internationality and place of business
Autonomous applicability]

Article 1

1. This Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States:
(a) When the States are Contracting States; or
(b) When the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State.

2. The fact that the parties have their places of business in different States is to be disregarded whenever this fact does not appear either from the contract or from any dealings between, or from information disclosed by, the parties at any time before or at the conclusion of the contract.

3. Neither the nationality of the parties nor the civil or commercial character of the parties or of the contract is to be taken into consideration in determining the application of this Convention.

Overview

1. This article sets forth some of the Convention's applicability requirements. To determine whether the Convention applies in a given case, it is, however, equally important to look to other provisions which also help to define the Convention's sphere of application. In this respect, it is worth pointing to articles 2 and 3, which respectively narrow and extend the Convention's substantive sphere of application. As for the Convention's temporal sphere of application, it is defined by article 100.

Convention prevails over recourse to private international law

2. Whenever a contract for the sale of goods is international (in some sense of that term), courts cannot simply resort to their own substantive law to solve disputes arising out that contract. Rather, courts must determine which substantive rules to resort to in order to do so. Traditionally, when a situation is international, courts resort to the private international law rules in force in their country to determine which substantive rules to apply. In those countries, however, where international uniform substantive rules are in force, such as those set forth by the Convention, courts must determine whether those international uniform substantive rules apply before resorting to private international law rules at all.[1] This means that recourse to the Convention prevails over recourse to the forum's private international law rules.[2] This approach has been justified on the grounds that, as a set of uniform substantive law rules,[3] the Convention is more specific insofar as its sphere of application is more limited and leads directly to a substantive solution,[4] whereas resort to private international law requires a two-step approach -- that is, the identification of the applicable law and the application thereof.[5]

Internationality and place of business

3. The Convention does not apply to every kind of contracts for the international sale of goods; rather, its sphere of application is limited to contracts for the sale of goods that meet a specific internationality requirement set forth in article 1(1). Pursuant to that provision, a contract for the sale of goods is international when the parties have -- at the moment of the conclusion of the contract [6 -- their relevant places of business in different States.[7] One court stated that the relevant places of business of the parties are their "principal places of business".[8]

4. The concept of "place of business" is critical in the determination of internationality. The Convention, however, does not define it, although it does address the problem of which of a party's multiple places of business is to be taken into account in determining internationality (article 10).[10]

5. According to several courts, "place of business" can be defined as "the place from which a business activity is de facto carried out [...]; this requires a certain duration and stability as well as a certain amount of autonomy".[11] Similarly, one tribunal stated that there is a place of business where there is "a permanent and stable business organisation and not the place where only preparations for the conclusion of a single contract have been made".[12] According to one court, for there to be a "place of business", "it suffices that there exists an organization of certain continuance".[13] A different court simply stated that the "[p]lace of business in the meaning of article 1 and 10 CISG is the actual place of business".[14] One court stated that the place where goods are merely stored does not constitute a "place of business" for the purpose of the Convention.[15] The same is true as regards a booth at an exhibition.[16] An arbitral tribunal stated that "[t]he mere place of contracting does not constitute a place of business; neither does the locality where the negotiations have taken place."[17] Another court has concluded that a liaison office cannot be considered a "place of business" under the Convention.[18]

6. The internationality requirement is not met where the parties have their relevant places of businesses in the same country.[19] This is true even where they have different nationalities, as article 1(3) states that "the nationality of the parties [...] is [not] to be taken into consideration in determining the application of this Convention".[20] Also, the fact that the place of the conclusion of the contract is located in a different State from the State in which the performance takes place does not render the contract "international".[21] For the purposes of the Convention's applicability, the parties' civil or commercial character is also irrelevant.[22]

7. Where a contract for the sale of goods is concluded through an intermediary, it is necessary to establish who the parties to the contract are in order to determine whether the contract is international. As the issue of who is party to a contract is not dealt with in the CISG,[23] the question must be answered by reference to the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law of the forum. The places of business of the parties as determined in this fashion are the ones relevant to analysing whether the contract is international.[24]

8. According to article 1(2), internationality is irrelevant where "the fact that the parties have their places of business in different States [...] does not appear either from the contract or from any dealings between, or from information disclosed by, the parties at any time before or at the conclusion of the contract".[25] Thus, the Convention protects the parties' reliance upon what appears to be a domestic setting for a transaction. The party that asserts that the Convention is not applicable because the internationality of the contract was not apparent must prove its assertion.[26]

Autonomous applicability

9. The internationality of a contract for the sale of goods, by itself, is not sufficient to make the Convention applicable.[27] Article 1(1) lists two additional alternative criteria for applicability, one of which has to be met in order for the Convention to apply as part of the law of the forum.[28] According to the criterion set forth in article 1(1)(a), the Convention is "directly"[29] or "autonomously"[30] applicable, i.e., without the need to resort to the rules of private international law,[31] when the States in which the parties have their relevant places of business are Contracting States.[32] As the list of Contracting States grows, this criterion is leading to application of the Convention in an increasing number of cases.[33]

10. In order for the Convention to be applicable by virtue of article 1(1)(a), the parties must have their relevant place of business in a Contracting State. "If the two States in which the parties have their places of business are Contracting States, the Convention applies even if the rules of private international law of the forum would normally designate the law of a third country."[34] This is true, unless the parties have designated a given law with the intention to exclude the Convention, which they are allowed to do pursuant to article 6.[35]

11. The time when a State becomes a Contracting State is determined by article 99 and temporal rules for applying the Convention under article 1(1)(a) are set forth in article 100. For the Convention to apply by virtue of article 1(1)(a), one must also take into account whether the States in which the parties have their relevant place of business have declared either an article 92 or an article 93 reservation. Where one State has made an article 92 reservation declaring that it is not bound by a specified part of the Convention, the Convention as a whole cannot be applicable by virtue of article 1(1)(a). Rather, one must determine on the basis of article 1(1)(b) whether the part of the Convention to which the reservation relates applies to the contract.[36] The same is true mutatis mutandis if a party is located in a territory of a Contracting State in relation to which the State has declared, pursuant to article 93, that the Convention does not extend.[37] On the basis of article 93, some courts consider parties who have their place of business in Hong Kong as having their place of business in a non-Contracting State, thus making it impossible for them to apply the Convention pursuant to article 1(1)(a), while other courts consider those parties to have their place of business in a Contracting State.[38]

12. A Contracting State that declared an article 95 reservation is to be considered a full-fledged Contracting State for the purpose of article 1(1)(a).[39] Thus, the Convention can apply pursuant to article 1(1)(a) also in the courts of Contracting States that declared an article 95 reservation,[40] and this even where both parties have their place of business in a Contracting State that declared an article 95 reservation.[41]

13. According to some decisions, Hong Kong is not considered a Contracting State to the Convention, since China has not extended the applicability of the Convention to Hong Kong.[42] It has been held, however, that the Convention extends to Hong Kong,[43] thus allowing the Convention to apply even pursuant to article 1(1)(a). Indirect applicability

14. In Contracting States the Convention can also be applicable -- by virtue of article 1(1)(b) -- where only one (or neither) party has its relevant place of business in a Contracting State,[44] as long as the rules of private international law lead to the law of a Contracting State.[45] Since the relevant rules of private international law are those of the forum,[46] it will depend on the domestic rules of private international law whether the parties are allowed to choose the applicable law, whether one has to look into the rules of private international of the law designated by the rules of private international of the forum ( renvoi ), etc.

15. Where the private international law rules of the forum are based upon the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations,[47] the parties' choice of the law of a Contracting State can lead to the applicability of the Convention by virtue of article 1(1)(b),[48] since article 3 of the Rome Convention recognizes party autonomy.[49] This is also true where the rules of private international law of the forum are those laid down in the 1955 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to International Sales,[50] as article 2 [51] of this Convention also obliges judges to apply the law designated by the parties.[52]

16. In arbitral proceedings, the Convention may be selected by the parties to govern their dispute.[53] In state court proceedings, parties are not allowed to choose the Convention as the law applicable to their dispute where it would otherwise not apply, at least not in those courts that have to apply either the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations or the 1955 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to International Sales. This is due to the fact that these Conventions allow parties to choose only the law of a State to govern their dispute; non-State rules -- as well as the Convention in cases where it would otherwise not apply -- cannot be chosen. The choice of the Convention in cases where it would otherwise not apply amounts, however, to an incorporation by reference of the rules of the Convention into the contract. In this case, the rules of the Convention may not override the mandatory rules of the otherwise applicable law.

17. Where the parties did not make a choice of law or where their choice is not valid, one has to resort to the objective connecting factors of the rules of private international law of the forum to determine which law applies, and thus, whether the Convention is applicable by virtue of article 1(1)(b). Pursuant to article 4(1) of the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, absent a valid choice of law, one has to apply the law "most closely connected" to the contract;[54] according to article 4(2), it is presumed that the contract is most closely connected with the country where the party who is to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract has its habitual residence at the time of conclusion of the contract. For this reason, the Convention has often been applied by courts in contracting States to the Rome Convention when the seller, who is the party that has to effect the characteristic performance,[55] had its place of business in a Contracting State to the CISG.[56] Under the 1955 Hague Convention, absent a choice of law the law of the seller applies,[57] except in cases where the seller receives the order for the goods in the buyer's country, in which case the law of the buyer governs.[58]

18. At the 1980 Diplomatic Conference, a delegate argued that countries with special legislation on international trade should be allowed to avoid "the effect which article 1(1)(b) would have on the application of their special legislation".[59] As a consequence, article 95 was introduced to give Contracting States the opportunity to choose not to be bound by article 1(1)(b).[60] Judges located in Contracting States that have declared an article 95 reservation will not apply the Convention by virtue of article 1(1)(b); as mentioned earlier,[61] this does not, however, affect the Convention's applicability in such States by virtue of article 1(1)(a).[62]

19. A Contracting State which makes a declaration in accordance with article 92(1) in respect of either Part II or Part III of the Convention is not to be considered a Contracting State within article 1(1) of the Convention in respect of matters governed by the Part to which the declaration refers.[63]

20. Although the Convention does not bind non-Contracting States, it has been applied in courts of non-Contracting States where the forum's rules of private international law led to the law of a Contracting State.[64] Contracts governed by the Convention

21. The Convention applies to contracts for the sale of goods -- irrespective of the label given to the contract by the parties.[65] Although the Convention does not provide any definition of this type of contract,[66] an autonomous[67] description can be derived from articles 30 and 53.[68] Thus, a contract for the sale of goods covered by the Convention can be defined as a contract pursuant to which one party (the seller) is bound to deliver the goods and transfer the property in the goods sold and the other party (the buyer) is obliged to pay the price and accept the goods.[69] One court has declared that the essence of the contract governed by the Convention lies in goods being exchanged for money.[70]

22. The Convention covers contracts for the delivery of goods by instalments,[71] as can be derived from article 73 of the Convention, and contracts providing for the delivery of the goods sold directly from the supplier to the seller's customer.[72] Pursuant to article 29, contracts modifying a sales contract also fall within the substantive sphere of application of the Convention.[73]

23. Article 3 contains a special rule which extends -- within certain limits -- the Convention's substantive sphere of application to contracts for the sale of goods to be manufactured or produced as well as to contracts pursuant to which the seller is also bound to deliver labour or services.

24. Most courts considering the issue have concluded that the Convention does not apply to distribution agreements,[74] or framework agreements,[75] as these agreements focus on the "organization of the distribution" rather than the transfer of ownership of goods.[76] The various contracts for the sale of goods concluded in execution of a distribution agreement, can, however, be governed by the Convention,[77] even where the distribution agreement was concluded before the entry into force of the Convention.[78]

25. Franchise agreements also fall outside the Convention's sphere of application.[79] According to some arbitral tribunals, the Convention does not apply to barter transactions. [80] According to a different arbitral tribunal, the Convention does govern barter transactions.[81]

26. Turn-key contracts are not governed by the Convention.[82] Goods

27. The Convention does not define "goods". This does not mean one should resort to one's domestic definition. In light of article 7(1), the concept of "goods" should be interpreted autonomously, in light of the Convention's "international character" and "the need to promote uniformity in its application", rather than referring to domestic law for a definition.[83]

28. According to case law, "goods" in the sense of the

Convention are items that are, at the moment of delivery,[84] moveable and tangible",[85] regardless of their shape[86] and whether they are solid,[87] used or new,[88] inanimate or alive.[89] Intangibles, such as intellectual property rights, goodwill,[90] an interest in a limited liability company,[91] or an assigned debt,[92] have been considered not to fall within the Convention's concept of "goods". The same is true for a market research study.[93] According to one court, however, the concept of "goods" is to be interpreted "extensively,"[94] perhaps suggesting that the Convention might apply to goods that are not tangible.

29. Whereas the sale of computer hardware clearly falls within the sphere of application of the Convention,[95] the issue is not so clear when it comes to software. Some courts consider only standard software to be "goods" under the Convention;[96] another court concluded that any kind of software, including custom-made software, should be considered "goods".[97]


NOTES

* This presentation of the UNCITRAL Digest is a slightly modified version of the original UNCITRAL text at <http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/clout/CISG-digest-2012-e.pdf]. The following modifications were made by the Institute of International Commercial Law of the Pace University School of Law:

   -    To enhance access to contents by computer search engines, we present in html rather than pdf;
 
   -    To facilitate direct focus on aspects of the Digests of most immediate interest, we inserted linked tables of contents at the outset of most presentations;
 
   -    To support UNCITRAL's recommendation to read more on the cases reported in the Digests, we provide mouse-click access to (i) CLOUT abstracts published by UNCITRAL (and to UNILEX case abstracts and other case abstracts); and also (ii) to full-text English translations of cases with links to original texts of cases, where available, in [bracketed citations] that we have added to UNCITRAL's footnotes; and
 
   -    To enable researchers to themselves keep the case citations provided in the Digests constantly current, we have created a series of tandem documents, UNCITRAL Digest Cases + Added Cases. The new cases and other cases that are cited in these updates are coded in accordance with UNCITRAL's Thesaurus.

In addition, this presentation introduces each section of the UNCITRAL Digest with a Google search button. This is to help you access doctrine (relevant material from the over 1,400 commentaries, monographs and books on the CISG and related subjects that we present on this database) as well as the texts of the cases that UNCITRAL cites in its Digests and that we present in our updates to UNCITRAL's Digests.

1. [GREECE Polimeles Protodikio Athinon 2009 (docket No. 4505/2009) (Bullet-proof vest case)]; CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 31 March 2004 (Pizza boxes case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 25 February 2004 (Agricultural products case)]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision).

2. For this view, see CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Schleswig 24 October 2008]; CLOUT case No. 888 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen 20 October 2003]; [SWITZERLAND Obergericht Thurgau 11 September 2003]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 18 December 2002]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 648 [ITALY Corte di Cassazione 18 October 2002]; CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale di Pavia 29 December 1999]; [GERMANY Landgericht Zwickau 19 March 1999 (Chemical products case)]; CLOUT case No. 251 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 30 November 1998]; CLOUT case No. 345 [GERMANY Landgericht Heilbronn 15 September 1997]; CLOUT case No. 84 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 20 April 1994] (see full text of the decision).

3. For decisions stating that the Convention sets forth substantive rules, see [UNITED STATES District Court, Northern District of California 2 November 2005]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 480 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Colmar 12 June 2001] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 424 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 9 March 2000] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Tribunale d'appello Lugano 8 June 1999].

4. For this approach, see CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 31 March 2004]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 25 February 2004]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision).

5. CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 31 March 2004]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 25 February 2004]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision).

6. See CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 5 February 2004]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Dresden 27 December 1999].

7. See [GREECE Polimeles Protodikio Athinon 2009 docket No. 4505/2009)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 25 February 2004]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 168 [ GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 May 1996] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 106 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994].

8. [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania 29 January 2010].

9. For an express reference to the fact that the Convention does not define the concept of "place of business", see CLOUT case No. 930 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 23 May 2006] (see full text of the decision).

10. See CLOUT case No. 746 [AUSTRIA Oberlandesgericht Graz 29 July 2004].

11. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 2 April 2009]; CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; CLOUT case No. 651 [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 11 January 2005] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 904 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Jura 3 November 2004] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 746 [AUSTRIA Oberlandesgericht Graz 29 July 2004] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 25 February 2004]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 28 February 2000]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); for a similar definition see CLOUT case No. 930 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 23 May 2006]; CLOUT case No. 106 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994] (see full text of the decision); for a court decision stating that the phrase "place of business" requires the parties to "really" do business out of that place, see CLOUT case No. 360 [GERMANY Amtsgericht Duisburg 13 April 2000].

12. [ICC Arbitral award case No. 9781 of 2000].

13. [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal du Valais 19 August 2003].

14. CLOUT case No. 360 [GERMANY Amtsgericht Duisburg 13 April 2000] (see full text of the decision).

15. CLOUT case No. 930 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 23 May 2006] (see full text of the decision).

16. Ibid.

17. [ICC Arbitral award case No. 9781 of 2000].

18. See CLOUT case No. 158 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris 22 April 1992].

19. See, e.g., CLOUT case No. 698 [UNITED STATES Superior Court of Massachusetts 28 February 2005].

20. For references to the irrelevance of the parties' nationality, see CLOUT case No. 746 [AUSTRIA Oberlandesgericht Graz, 29 July 2004] (see full text of the decision); [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel, Hasselt 13 May 2003]; CLOUT case No. 445 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 31 October 2001]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Veurne 25 April 2001]; [BULGARIA Court of Arbitration of the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, award No. 56/1995].

21. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 27 November 1991.

22. See CLOUT case No. 445 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 31 October 2001].

23. For court decisions stating that issues of agency law and related matters are not dealt with by the Convention, see CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 189 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 20 March 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 335 [SWITZERLAND Appellationsgericht Tessin 12 February 1996]]; CLOUT case No. 334 [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Thurgau 19 December 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 22 June 1995]; CLOUT Case No. 410 [GERMANY Amtsgericht Alsfeld 12 May 1995]; CLOUT case No. 80 [GERMANY Kammergericht Berlin 24 January 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 95 [SWITZERLAND Zivilgericht Basel-Stadt 21 December 1992] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 5 [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 26 September 1990].

24. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 13 November 2000].

25. For a reference to this provision in case law, see [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 29 October 2009]; [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 6 February 2009]; [GREECE Polimeles Protodikio Athinon, 2009 (docket No. 4505/2009)]; [SERBIA High Commercial Court of Belgrade 22 April 2008]; CLOUT case No. 651 [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 11 January 2005] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 25 February 2004]; CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 425 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 21 March 2000]; [ICC Arbitral award case No. 9781 of 2000].

26. See CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision).

27. See CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision).

28. [AUSTRALIA Federal Court of Australia 28 September 2010] ("The Convention is not to be treated as a foreign law which requires proof as a fact").

29. See [SWITZERLAND Amtgericht Sursee 12 September 2008]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau 19 June 2007]; [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht 11 July 2000]; CLOUT case No. 261 [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht der Sanne 20 February 1997].

30. See [SWITZERLAND Amtgericht Sursee 12 September 2008]; CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 189 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 20 March 1997] (see full text of the decision).

31. See [SWITZERLAND Amtgericht Sursee 12 September 2008]; CLOUT case No. 650 [ITALY Corte di Cassazione 20 September 2004] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 268 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 11 December 1996] (see full text of the decision).

32. See, however, [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky 18 March 2008], stating that the Convention applies to contracts between "parties whose principal places of business are in different nations if those nations are signatories to the treaty".

33. For recent court decisions applying the Convention by virtue of article 1(1)(a), see [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of California 21 January 2010]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas 23 December 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht 17 December 2009]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 29 October 2009]; [BELGIUM Hof van Cassatie 19 June 2009]; [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 16 February 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal du Valais 28 January 2009]; [GREECE Polimeles Protodikio Athinon, 2009 (docket No. 4505/2009)]; [BELGIUM Hof Beroep Ghent 31 January 2002]; CLOUT case No. 398 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Orléans 29 March 2001] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Trier 7 December 2000]; CLOUT case No. 431 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg 5 December 2000]; CLOUT case No. 432 [GERMANY Landgericht Stendal 12 October 2000]; [FRANCE Tribunal Commercial Montargis 6 October 2000]; CLOUT case No. 428 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 7 September 2000]; CLOUT case No. 429 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 30 August 2000]; [MEXICO Sixth Civil Court of First Instance, City of Tijuana, State of Baja California 14 July 2000]; CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 427 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 28 April 2000]; CLOUT case No. 426 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 13 April 2000]; CLOUT case No. 397 [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Navarra 27 March 2000]; see CLOUT case No. 425 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 21 March 2000]; CLOUT case No. 424 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 9 March 2000]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 28 February 2000]; CLOUT case No. 395 [SPAIN Tribunal Supremo 28 January 2000] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 26 January 2000]; CLOUT case No. 416, [UNITED STATES Minnesota [State] District Court 9 March 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 430 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 3 December 1999]; CLOUT case No. 359 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 18 November 1999]; Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria 12 November 1999, Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung 2000, 78; CLOUT case No. 319 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 3 November 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 313 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Grenoble 21 October 1999]. htm; CLOUT case No. 328 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 21 October 1999] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Stendal 12 October 1999], unpublished; CLOUT case No. 332 [SWITZERLAND OG Kanton Basel-Landschaft 5 October 1999]; CLOUT case No. 341 [CANADA Ontario Superior Court of Justice 31 August 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 423 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999]; CLOUT case No. 422 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 29 June 1999]; CLOUT case No. 333 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Aargau 11 June 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 336 [SWITZERLAND Tribunale d'appello di Lugano 8 June 1999]; CLOUT case No. 315 [FRANCE Cour de Cassation 26 May 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 265 [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 25 May 1999]; CLOUT case No. 314 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris 21 May 1999]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 11 March 1999]; CLOUT case No. 418 [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana 17 May 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 362 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Naumburg 27 April 1999]; CLOUT case No. 325 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 8 April 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 271 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 24 March 1999]; [GERMANY Landgericht Zwickau 19 March 1999]; CLOUT case No. 306 AUSTRIA [Oberster Gerichtshof 11 March 1999]; CLOUT case No. 327 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 25 February 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 331 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 10 February 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 243 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Grenoble 4 February 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 293 [GERMANY Arbitration - Schiedsgericht der Hamburger freundschaftlichen Arbitrage 29 December 1998]; CLOUT case No. 339 [GERMANY Landgericht Regensburg 24 September 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 645 [ITALY Corte di Appello, Milano 11 December 1998]; [MEXICO Comisión para la protección del comercio exterior de Mexico 30 November 1998], unpublished; CLOUT case No. 346 [GERMANY Landgericht Mainz 26 November 1998]; CLOUT case No. 270 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 25 November 1998]; CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht 28 October 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 419 [UNITED STATES District Court, Northern District of Illinois 27 October 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 244 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris 4 March 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 240 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 15 October 1998]; CLOUT case No. 340 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg 22 September 1998]; CLOUT case No. 252 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich, 21 September 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 263 [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht Unterrheintal 16 September 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 285 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 11 September 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 318 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Celle 2 September 1998] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Bamberg 19 August 1998]; CLOUT case No. 644 [ITALY Corte di Cassazione 7 August 1998]; CLOUT case No. 344 [GERMANY Landgericht Erfurt 29 July 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 242 [FRANCE Cour de Cassation 16 July 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 305 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 30 June 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 255 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal du Valais 30 June 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 222 [UNITED STATES Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) 29 June 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 256 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal du Valais 29 June 1998] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 25 June 1998]; CLOUT case No. 338 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm, 23 June 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 237 [STOCKHOLM Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, 5 June 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 290 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 3 June 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 280 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Jena 26 May 1998] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Aurich 8 May 1998]; [ITALY Corte di Cassazione 8 May 1998]; CLOUT case No. 413 [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of New York 6 April 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 272 [ GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken 31 March 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 245 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris 18 March 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 232 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 11 March 1998]; CLOUT case No. 421 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 March 1998]; CLOUT case No. 833 [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 20 February 1998]; CLOUT case No. 269 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 12 February 1998] (see full text of the decision); BULGARIA Arbitration Court attached to the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, award No. 11/1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bückeburg 3 February 1998]; CLOUT case No. 288 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 28 January 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 259 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Freiburg 23 January 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 297 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 21 January 1998] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Tribunale de Commerce de Besançon 19 January 1998]; CLOUT case No. 253 [SWITZERLAND Cantone del Ticino Tribunale d'appello 15 January 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 312 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris 14 January 1998]; CLOUT case No. 257 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal du Vaud 24 December 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 254 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Aargau 19 December 1997] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Tribunal Grande Instance Colmar 18 December 1997; [GERMANY Landgericht Bayreuth 11 December 1997]; [AUSTRIA 10 December 1997 Vienna Arbitration proceeding S 2/97, Schiedsgericht der Börse für landwirtschaftliche Produkte in Wien, (Barley case)]; CLOUT case No. 220 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Nidwalden 3 December 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 221 [SWITZERLAND Zivilgericht des Kantons Basel-Stadt 3 December 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 207 [FRANCE Cour de Cassation 2 December 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 295 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 5 November 1997]; CLOUT case No. 246 [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona 3 November 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 247 [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Córdoba 31 October 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 219 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Valais 28 October 1997] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Tribunal Commerce de Paris 28 October 1997]; [GERMANY Landgericht Erfurt 28 October 1997]; CLOUT case No. 218 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 16 October 1997] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Hagen 15 October 1997]; CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht 28 October 1998] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Hof s'Hertogenbosch 2 October 1997]; CLOUT case No. 834 [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 26 September 1997]; CLOUT case No. 217 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgreicht des Kantons Aargau 26 September 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 345 [GERMANY Landgericht Heilbronn 15 September 1997]; CLOUT case No. 307 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 11 September 1997] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 8 September 1997]; CLOUT case No. 284 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln, 21 August 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 216 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht St. Gallen 12 August 1997] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Göttingen 31 July 1997]; [NETHERLANDS Hof s'Hertogenbosch 24 July 1997]; CLOUT case No. 187 [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of New York 23 July 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 236 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 23 July 1997] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 18 July 1997]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Arnhem 17 July 1997]; CLOUT case No. 273 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 9 July 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 287 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München, 9 July 1997]; CLOUT case No. 215 [SWITZERLANDBezirksgericht St. Gallen 3 July 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 172 [HUNGARY Fovárosi Biróság 1 July 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 235 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 25 June 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 230 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 25 June 1997]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 23 June 1997]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 19 June 1997]; CLOUT case No. 239 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 18 June 1997]; CLOUT case No. 173 [HUNGARY Fovárosi Biróság 17 June 1997] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Hof Arnhem 17 June 1997]; [GERMANY Landgericht Paderborn 10 June 1997]; CLOUT case No. 174 [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 8 May 1997]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 6 May 1997]; CLOUT case No. 275 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 24 April 1997] (see full text of the decision); GERMANY Landgericht Frankenthal 17 April 1997]; CLOUT case No. 189 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 20 March 1997] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997]; CLOUT case No. 261 [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht der Sanne 20 February 1997]; CLOUT case No. 396 [SPAIN Audencia Provincial de Barcelona 4 February 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 282 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 31 January 1997] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Pretura Torino 30 January 1997]; CLOUT case No. 192 [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 311 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 8 January 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 206 [FRANCE Cour de Cassation 17 December 1996] (see full text of the decision); [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Kortrijk 16 December 1996]; CLOUT case No. 268 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 11 December 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 9 December 1996]; CLOUT case No. 229 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 4 December 1996] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Rotterdam 21 November 1996]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Koblenz 12 November 1996]; AUSTRIA Oberlandesgericht Wien 7 November 1996], unpublished; [GERMANY Landgericht Heidelberg 2 October 1996]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 13 September 1996]; CLOUT case No. 169 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 11 July 1996] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 193 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 10 July 1996] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Handelsgericht Landgericht Paderborn 25 June 1996]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Bottropp 25 June 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 17 June 1996]; CLOUT case No. 168 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 May 1996] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 143 [HUNGARY Fovárosi Biróság 21 May 1996]; CLOUT case No. 204 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Grenoble 15 May 1996]; [BULGARIA Arbitration Court attached to the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, award No. 56/1995], unpublished; [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen, 19 April 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Duisburg 17 April 1996]; CLOUT case No. 171 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 3 April 1996] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 337 [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 26 March 1996]; [ITALY Tribunale di Busto Arsizio, 13 December 2001] (Ecuador and Italy); [ITALY Corte d'Appello di Milano 23 January 2001] (Finland and Italy question not regarding part II of the Convention).

34. 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, 15.

35. For an analysis of the issue of exclusion of the Convention, see the Digest for article 6.

36. See CLOUT case No. 309 [DENMARK Østre Landsret 23 April 1998]; CLOUT case No. 143 [HUNGARY Fovárosi Biróság 21 May 1996]; CLOUT case No. 228 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Rostock 27 July 1995]; [ICC Arbitral award case No. 7585/92].

37. Upon accession to the Convention Canada declared, pursuant to article 93, that the Convention would be applicable in some but not all of its territorial units. Since accession Canada has extended the application of the Convention to specific territorial units not covered by its original accession.

38. See [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas 23 December 2009].

39. For applications of the Convention pursuant to article 1(1)(a) in cases where one of the parties has its place of business in a Contracting State that declared an article 95 reservation, see [AUSTRALIA Federal Court of Australia 28 September 2010]; [FRANCE Cour de Cassation 7 October 2009]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 2007 (Arbitral award No. CISG/2007/01)]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation, 16 February 2004].

40. See, e.g., UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of New York 11 January 2011, unpublished; [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of California 21 January 2010]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas 23 December 2009]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of New York 29 May 2009]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of Ohio 26 March 2009]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Komarno 12 March 2009]; [UNITED STATES District Court, New Jersey 7 October 2008]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania 25 July 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Supreme Court 19 June 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Regional Court in Zilina 18 June 200]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Dolny Kubin 17 June 2008]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Minnesota 16 June 2008]; [UNITED STATES Court, Southern District of Florida 19 May 2008]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Delaware 9 May 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Supreme Court 30 April 2008]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky 18 March 2008,]; CLOUT case No. 945 [SLOVAKIA District Court in Galanta, 15 December 2006]; [UNITED STATES Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) 8 November 2007]; [SLOVAKIA Regional Court Zilina 25 October 2007]; CLOUT case No. 845 [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District Michigan 28 September 2007]; [SLOVAKIA Supreme Court 27 June 2007]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Nitra 9 March 2007]; CLOUT case No. 847 [UNITED STATES District Court, Minnesota 31 January 2007]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of New York 23 August 2006]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Nitra 17 May 2006]; [SLOVAKIA Regional Court in Banska Bystrica 10 May 2006]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Nitra 27 February 2006]; CLOUT case No. 946 [SLOVAKIA Regional Court in Bratislava 11 October 2005]; [CHINA Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China 21 September 2005]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 26 January 2005]; CLOUT case No. 609 [UNITED STATES District Court for Northern District of Illinois 6 October 2003]; CLOUT case No. 579 [UNITED STATES District Court for the Southern District of New York 10 May 2002]; CLOUT case No. 447 [UNITED STATES District Court for the Southern District of New York 26 March 2002]; CLOUT case No. 578 [UNITED STATES District Court, Western District of Michigan 17 December 2001]; CLOUT case No. 433 [UNITED STATES District Court, Northern District of California 27 July 2001]; CLOUT case No. 617 [UNITED STATES District Court, Northern District of California 30 January 2001]; CLOUT case No. 417 [UNITED STATES District Court, Northern District of Illinois 7 December 1999]; CLOUT case No. 416 [UNITED STATES Minnesota [State] District Court 9 March 1999]; CLOUT case No. 419 [UNITED STATES District Court, Northern District of Illinois 27 October 1998]; CLOUT case No. 222 [UNITED STATES Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) 29 June 1998]; CLOUT case No. 413 [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of New York 6 April 1998]; CLOUT case No. 187 [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of New York 23 July 1997]; CLOUT case No. 138 [UNITED STATES Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) 6 December 1995]; CLOUT case No. 86 [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of New York 22 September 1994]; CLOUT case No. 85 [UNITED STATES District Court, Northern District of New York 9 September 1994]; CLOUT case No. 24 [UNITED STATES Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) 15 June 1993]; CLOUT case No. 23 [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of New York 14 April 1992].

41. [SLOVAKIA District Court in Trnava 17 September 2008]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Nitra 29 May 2008]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of Florida 19 May 2008]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Nitra 27 June 2006]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District, Texas 7 February 2006]; [CHINA Shanghai No. I. Intermediate People's Court, People's Republic of China 23 March 2004]. For an application by an arbitral tribunal of the Convention pursuant to article 1(1)(a) to a contract concluded between two parties both of whom had their place of business in a country that had declared an article 95 reservation, see [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 2003 (Arbitral award No. CISG/2003/02)].

42. See [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee 20 October 2010 (America's Collectibles Network, Inc., d/b/a Jewelry Television, and BBJ Bangkok, Ltd. v. Timlly (HK), Timlly BBK Co., Ltd., Sunil Ratwani, and Sanjay Punjabi)]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Northern District of Georgia 17 December 2009 (Innotex Precision Ltd. v. Horei Image Prods., Inc.)]; CLOUT case No. 958 [AUSTRALIA Federal Court of Australia, South Australia District Registry 24 October 2008]; CLOUT case No. 1030 [FRANCE Cour de Cassation 2 April 2008]; CLOUT case No. 543 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 17 December 2003].

43. [UNITED STATES District Court, Northern District of Illinois 3 September 2008].

44. 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, 15.

45. For cases referring to article 1(1)(b), see [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires 7 October 2010]; [GERMANY Landgericht Potsdam 7 April 2009]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Arbitral award No. T-8/08]; CLOUT case No. 631 [AUSTRALIA Supreme Court of Queensland [2000] QSC 421 (17 November 2000)] (Malaysian and Australian parties chose law applying in Brisbane); CLOUT case No. 701 [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial, 24 April 2000] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 400 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Colmar 24 October 2000]; CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale di Pavia 29 December 1999]; CLOUT case No. 348 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 26 November 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 294 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Bamberg 13 January 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 251 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 30 November 1998]; CLOUT case No. 274 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Celle 11 November 1998]; CLOUT case No. 309 [DENMARK Østre Landsret 23 April 1998]; [ITALY Corte d'Appello Milano 20 March 1998]; CLOUT case No. 238 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 12 February 1998]; CLOUT case No. 224 [FRANCE Cour de Cassation 27 January 1998] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 7 November 1997]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Kortrijk 6 October 1997]; CLOUT case No. 283 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 July 1997]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zutphen 29 May 1997]; CLOUT case No. 214 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 5 February 1997] (see full text of the decision); [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Kortrijk 6 January 1997]; CLOUT case No. 205 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Grenoble 23 October 1996]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Hasselt 9 October 1996]; CLOUT case No. 166 [GERMANY Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Hamburg, Arbitration 21 June 1996]; [NETHERLANDS Hof Leeuwarden 5 June 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Oldenburg 27 March 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bad Kreuznach 12 March 1996]; CLOUT case No. 176 [Oberster Gerichtshof, [AUSTRIA 6 February 1996] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Siegen 5 December 1995]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Hasselt 8 November 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 23 October 1995]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Hasselt 18 October 1995]; [BELGIUM Tribunal de commerce Nivelles 19 September 1995]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Almelo 9 August 1995]; CLOUT case No. 276 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main, 5 July 1995] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 262 [SWITZERLAND Kanton St. Gallen, Gerichtskommission Oberrheintal 30 June 1995] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel, 22 June 1995]; CLOUT case No. 152 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Grenoble 26 April 1995]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Wangen 8 March 1995]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 1 March 1995]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Middelburg 25 January 1995]; CLOUT case No. 155 [FRANCE Cour de Cassation 4 January 1995] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Mayen 6 September 1994]; [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 25 August 1994/a>]; CLOUT case No. 302 [ICC Arbitral award case No. 7660/JK]; CLOUT case No. 93 [AUSTRIA Arbitration-Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft -- Wien, 15 June 1994]; CLOUT case No. 94 [AUSTRIA Arbitration-Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft -- Wien, 15 June 1994]; CLOUT case No. 92 [ITALY Arbitration-Ad hoc tribunal, 19 April 1994]; CLOUT case No. 120 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln, 22 February 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 81 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994]; CLOUT case No. 80 [GERMANY Kammergericht Berlin 24 January 1994]; CLOUT case No. 100 [NETHERLANDSRechtbank Arnhem 30 December 1993]; CLOUT case No. 156 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris 10 November 1993] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993]; CLOUT case No. 49 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 2 July 1993]; CLOUT case No. 25 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Grenoble 16 June 1993]; CLOUT case No. 201 [SWITZERLAND Richteramt Laufen des Kantons Berne 7 May 1993]; CLOUT case No. 310 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 12 March 1993]; CLOUT case No. 99 [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Arnhem 25 February 1993]; CLOUT case No. 292 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 13 January 1993] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 48 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 8 January 1993]; CLOUT case No. 95 [SWITZERLAND Zivilgericht Basel-Stadt 21 December 1992] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 317 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 20 November 1992]; CLOUT case No. 227 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 22 September 1992] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 56 [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno-Campagna 27 April 1992] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 158 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris 22 April 1992]; CLOUT case No. 98 [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Roermond 19 December 1991]; CLOUT case No. 55 [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno-Campagna 16 December 1991, cited as 15 December in CLOUT case No. 55]; CLOUT case No. 316 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 27 September 1991]; CLOUT case No. 2 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 17 September 1991] (see full text of the decision).

46. See CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision).

47. For the text of this Convention, see Official Journal L 266, 9 October 1980, 1 et seq.

48. See [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 11 May 2010]; CLOUT case No. 1017 [BELGIUM Hof Beroep, Ghent 15 May 2002]; CLOUT case No. 409 [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 15 February 1996] (see full text of the decision); [ICC Arbitral award case No. 8324/95]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank's Gravenhage 7 June 1995]; CLOUT case No. 48 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 8 January 1993]; CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993].

49. See article 3 of the Rome Convention:

"1. A contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. The choice must be expressed or demonstrated with reasonable certainty by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case. By their choice the parties can select the law applicable to the whole or a part only of the contract.

2. The parties may at any time agree to subject the contract to a law other than that which previously governed it, whether as a result of an earlier choice under this article or of other provisions of this Convention. Any variation by the parties of the law to be applied made after the conclusion of the contract shall not prejudice its formal validity under article 9 or adversely affect the rights of third parties.

3. The fact that the parties have chosen a foreign law, whether or not accompanied by the choice of a foreign tribunal, shall not, where all the other elements relevant to the situation at the time of the choice are connected with one country only, prejudice the application of rules of the law of that country which cannot be derogated from by contract, hereinafter called "mandatory rules".

4. The existence and validity of the consent of the parties as to the choice of the applicable law shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of articles 8, 9 and 11."

50. 1955 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to International Sale of Goods, 510 U.N.T.S. 149, No. 7411 (1964).

51. See article 2 of the Hague Convention: "A sale shall be governed by the domestic law of the country designated by the Contracting Parties. Such designation must be contained in an express clause, or unambiguously result from the provisions of the contract. Conditions affecting the consent of the parties to the law declared applicable shall be determined by such law."

52. For cases applying the United Nations Sales Convention by virtue of a choice of law acknowledged by the judges on the grounds of article 2 of the 1995 Hague Convention, see [BELGIUM Tribunale commercial de Bruxelles 13 November 1992].

53. See, for example, CLOUT case No. 720 [NETHERLANDS Arbitration Institute, Arbitral Award, 15 October 2002].

54. For cases referring to "closest connection", see CLOUT case No. 81 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 25 August 1994]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Roermond 6 May 1993]; CLOUT case No. 316 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 27 September 1991] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 1 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 13 June 1991] (see full text of the decision).

55. For cases expressly pointing out that the seller is the party that has to effect the characteristic performance, see [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 24 March 1998]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 6 May 1997]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Amsterdam 5 October 1994]; CLOUT case No. 81 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 310 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 12 March 1993] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 6 [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt am Main 16 September 1991] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, 2 May 1990].

56. For cases applying the Convention on the basis of the presumption referred to in the text, see, e.g. [BELGIUM Cour d'appel de Mons 8 March 2001]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bad Kreuznach 12 March 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt am Main 6 July 1994]; CLOUT case No. 50 [GERMANY Landgericht Baden-Baden 14 August 1991] (see full text of the decision).

57. See [BELGIUM Rechtbank Hasselt 9 October 1996]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Hasselt 8 November 1995]; CLOUT case No. 152 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Grenoble 26 April 1995]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Hasselt 18 October 1995]; [BELGIUM Tribunal commercial de Bruxelles 5 October 1994]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Vaud Wallis 6 December 1993]; CLOUT case No. 201 [SWITZERLAND Richteramt Laufen des Kantons Berne 7 May 1993]; CLOUT case No. 56 [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno-Campagna 27 April 1992] (see full text of the decision).

58. [FRANCE Cour de Cassation 26 June 2001]; Tribunale di Verona, Italy 19 December 1997, Rivista Veronese di Giurisprudenza Economica e dell'Impresa 1998, 22 ff.

59. 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, 229.

60. To date the following States have declared an article 95 reservation: People's Republic of China, Czech Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Slovakia, United States of America. When it acceded to the Convention Canada declared an article 95 reservation with respect to a single province -- British Columbia -- but it later withdrew that declaration. [GERMANY has declared that it will not apply article 1(1)(b) in respect of any State that has made a declaration that it would not apply article 1(1)(b).

61. See supra subparagraph 12.

62. See supra subparagraphs 9 et seq.

63. See CLOUT case No. 999 [DENMARK Ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal, 10 November 2000].

64. See [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Kortrijk 16 December 1996]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Hasselt 9 October 1996]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Hasselt 8 November 1995]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Hasselt 18 October 1995]; [BELGIUM Tribunal de commerce Nivelles 19 September 1995]; [BELGIUM Tribunal commercial de Bruxelles 5 October 1994]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Hasselt 16 March 1994]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Hasselt 23 February 1994]; [BELGIUM Tribunal commercial de Bruxelles 13 November 1992]; CLOUT case No. 98 [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Roermond 19 December 1991]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Ludwigsburg 21 December 1990]; CLOUT case No. 5 [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 26 September 1990]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Dordrecht 21 November 1990]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hildesheim 20 July 1990]; [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt am Main 2 May 1990]; CLOUT case No. 7 [GERMANY Amtsgericht Oldenburg in Holstein 24 April 1990]; CLOUT case No. 46 [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 3 April 1990]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 23 February 1990]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Alkmaar 8 February 1990]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Alkmaar 30 November 1989]; CLOUT case No. 4 [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 31 August 1989]; CLOUT case No. 3 [GERMANY Landgericht München 3 July 1989].

65. For this statement, see [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Arbitral award of 15 July 2008].

66. See CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; CLOUT case N. 916 [CROATIA High Commercial Court 19 December 2006]; CLOUT case No. 651 [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 11 January 2005] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen 25 February 2002]; CLOUT case No. 480 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Colmar 12 June 2001] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 106 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994] (see full text of the decision).

67. For the need to determine the concept of "sale" autonomously, see, e.g., [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 16 February 2009].

68. See [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 16 February 2009] ; CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; CLOUT case N. 916 [CROATIA High Commercial Court 19 December 2006]; CLOUT case No. 651 [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 11 January 2005] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 25 February 2004]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen 25 February 2002]; Rechtbank Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1 November 2001, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 2002, No. 114; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Vaud Wallis 11 March 1996].

69. For this definition, see [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 16 February 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal du Valais 28 January 2009]; CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; CLOUT case No. 651 [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 11 January 2005] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen 25 February 2002]; CLOUT case No. 480 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Colmar 12 June 2001] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 106 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994] (see full text of the decision). For a reference to the buyer's obligation mentioned in the definition cited in the text, see [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Hasselt 2 May 1995].

70. CLOUT case No. 328 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 21 October 1999] (see full text of the decision).

71. See CLOUT case No. 293 [GERMANY Schiedsgericht der Hamburger freundlichen Arbitrage 29 December 1998]; CLOUT case No. 251 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 30 November 1998]; CLOUT case No. 238 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 12 February 1998]; CLOUT case No. 166 [GERMANY Arbitration-Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Hamburg, 21 March, 21 June 1996] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Ellwangen 21 August 1995}, unpublished; CLOUT case No. 154 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Grenoble 22 February 1995].

72. See CLOUT case No. 269 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 12 February, 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 261 [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht der Sanne 20 February 1997].

73. See CLOUT case No. 297 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 21 January 1998]; CLOUT case No. 133 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 8 February 1995]; CLOUT case No. 303 [ICC Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1994 (Arbitral award No. 7331 1994)]; CLOUT case No. 5 [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 26 September 1990].

74. See [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce Arbitral award of 28 January 2009]; [SERBIA High Commercial Court of Belgrade 22 April 2008]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce,, Arbitral award No. T-25/06 on 13 November 2007]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania 13 April 2004]; CLOUT case No. 695 [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, United States, 29 March 2004]; [ICC Arbitral award case No. 11849]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen 23 April 2002]; CLOUT case No. 420 [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania 29 August 2000]; [NETHERLANDS Hof Arnhem 27 April 1999]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtsbank s'Gravenhage 2 July 1997]; CLOUT case No. 297 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München, 21 January 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 295 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 5 November 1997]; CLOUT case No. 273 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 9 July 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 169 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 11 July 1996]; CLOUT case No. 126 [HUNGARY Fovárosi Biróság 19 March 1996]; CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Hof Amsterdam 16 July 1992]. Some tribunals have applied the CISG to a distributorship agreement: see [ICC Arbitral award case No. 11849]; CLOUT case No. 379 [ITALY Corte di Cassazione 14 December 1999]. For a case in which the issue was raised but not resolved, see CLOUT case No. 187 [UNITED STATES District Court, Southern District of New York 23 July 1997]. See also CLOUT case No. 480 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Colmar 12 June 2001] ("collaboration agreement" under which supplier was required to deliver to the buyer at least 20,000 covers for truck air conditioners, with the possibility of additional quantities depending on the needs of the buyer's customer, was a contract for sale governed by the CISG; the title that the parties chose for their agreement was not dispositive, and the fact that the quantity might be increased beyond the stated amount depending on the needs of the buyer's customer did not prevent application of the Convention; the contract designated the parties as buyer and seller, specified the precise goods and a method for calculating the price, set a minimum quantity of goods to be delivered by the seller, and implied an obligation for buyer to take delivery, so it was a "contract for the sale of goods" for purposes of applying the Convention).

75. See [CHINA Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China 21 September 2005]. But see [ICC Arbitral award case No. 12713] (holding that a framework agreement was governed by the CISG); CLOUT case No. 630 [ICC Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, Zurich, Switzerland, July 1999 (Arbital award No.9448)] (holding that a framework agreement was governed by the CISG, because the contract provided for future sales and deliveries) (see full text of the decision).

76. CLOUT case No. 192 [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997] (see full text of the decision).

77. See [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Arbitral award No. T-8/08 on 28 January 2009]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Arbitral award No. T-25/06 on 13 November 2007]; [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania 13 April 2004]; CLOUT case No. 695 [UNITED STATES District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania 29 March 2004]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen 23 April 2002]; [ICC Arbitral Award, Milan, Italy, December 1998, Arbitral award No. 8908]; CLOUT case No. 295 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 5 November 1997]; CLOUT case No. 273 [GERMANY 9 July 1997 Oberlandesgericht München] (see full text of the decision); [ICC Arbitral award case No. 8611 of 23 January 1997]; CLOUT case No. 169 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 11 July 1996]; CLOUT case No. 204 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Grenoble 15 May 1996]; CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993] (see full text of the decision).

78. CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993] (see full text of the decision).

79. See CLOUT case No. 192 [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997].

80. See [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation, 9 March 2004]; [RUSSIA Federal Arbitration Court for the Moscow Region, Russian Federation, 26 May 2003].

81. [UKRAINE Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Trade 10 October 2003].

82. CLOUT case No. 881 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Zürich 9 July 2002] (see full text of the decision).

83. See the Digest for article 7, paragraph 2.

84. See [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 16 February 2009]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 25 February 2004]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 152 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Grenoble 26 April 1995] (see full text of the decision).

85. See [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 16 February 2009]; CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; CLOUT case No. 651 [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 11 January 2005] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 25 February 2004]; CLOUT case No. 608 [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 328 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 21 October 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale di Pavia 29 December 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 168 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 May 1996] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 122 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 26 August 1994]; CLOUT case No. 106 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994] (see full text of the decision).

86. [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 16 February 2009]; CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008].

87. See CLOUT case No. 176 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 6 February 1996] (applying the Convention to the international sale of propane gas).

88. See [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 16 February 2009]; CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; CLOUT case No. 168 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 May 1996 (used car)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Köln, 16 November 1995], unpublished.

89. See [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 16 February 2009]; CLOUT case No. 867 [ITALY Tribunale di Forlì 11 December 2008]; CLOUT case No. 992 [DENMARK Rettin i Københaven 19 October 2007 (pony)]; CLOUT case No. 651 [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 11 January 2005] (see full text of the decision) (chicks); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Schleswig- Holstein 29 October 2002 (horse)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Flensburg 19 January 2001 (live sheep)] ; CLOUT case No. 280 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Jena 26 May 1998 (live fish)]; CLOUT case No. 312 [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris 14 January 1998 (circus elephants)]. Compare CLOUT case No. 106 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994 (chinchilla pelts)]; CLOUT case No. 100 [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Arnhem 30 December 1993 (live lambs)] .

90. [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 2 December 2002].

91. See CLOUT case No. 161 [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 20 December 1993].

92. See CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000] (see full text of the decision).

93. See CLOUT case No. 122 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 26 August 1994].

94. CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993] (see full text of the decision).

95. See [GERMANY Landgericht München 29 May 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Heidelberg 3 July 1992].

96. See CLOUT case No. 122 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 26 August 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 131 [GERMANY Landgericht München 8 February 1995].

97. See CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993] (see full text of the decision).


©Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated July 26, 2012
Go to Database Directory || Go to Information on other available case data
Comments/Contributions