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

2008 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
Contracts governed by the Convention
Goods
Internationality and place of business
Autonomous applicability
Indirect 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 provides some of the rules for determining whether the Convention applies. Article 1 should be read in connection with articles 2 and 3, which respectively narrow and extend the Convention's substantive sphere of application.

Convention prevails over recourse to private international law

2. Both the Convention and the private international law rules of a forum address international contracts. Before examining the Convention's substantive, international and territorial sphere of application, therefore, its relationship to private international law rules must be explored. According to case law, courts of Contracting States must determine whether the Convention applies before resorting to private international law.[1] In other words, recourse to the Convention prevails over recourse to the forum's private international law.[2] This is so because, as a substantive law convention,[3] the CISG's rules are more specific and lead directly to a substantive solution,[4] whereas resort to private international law requires a two-step approach (identification of the applicable law and application thereof).

Contracts governed by the Convention

3. The Convention applies to contracts for the sale of goods. Although the Convention does not provide any definition of this type of contract,[5] a description can be derived from articles 30 and 53.[6] 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".[7] Thus, as one court put it, the essence of the contract lies in goods being exchanged for money.[8]

4. The Convention covers contracts for the delivery of goods by installments,[9] 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.[10] Pursuant to article 29, contracts modifying a sales contract also fall within the substantive sphere of application of the Convention.[11]

5. 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.

6. Most courts considering the issue have concluded that the Convention does not apply to distribution agreements,[12] as these agreements focus on the "organization of the distribution" rather than the transfer of ownership of goods.[13] The various contracts for the sale of goods concluded in execution of a distribution agreement, can, however, be governed by the Convention,[14] even where the distribution agreement was concluded before the entry into force of the Convention.[15]

7. Franchise agreements also fall outside the Convention's sphere of application.[16]

Goods

8. The Convention does not define "goods". Nevertheless, pursuant to 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 by referring to domestic law for a definition.[17]

9. According to case law, "goods" in the sense of the Convention are items that are, at the moment of delivery,[18] "moveable and tangible",[19] regardless of whether they are solid,[20] used or new,[21] inanimate or alive.[22] Intangibles, such as intellectual property rights, an interest in a limited liability company,[23] or an assigned debt [24] have been considered not to fall within the Convention's concept of "goods". The same is true for a market research study.[25] According to one court, however, the concept of "goods" is to be interpreted "extensively,"[26] perhaps suggesting that the Convention might apply to goods that are not tangible.

10. Whereas the sale of computer hardware clearly falls within the sphere of application of the Convention,[27] the issue is not so clear when it comes to software. Some courts consider only standard software to be "goods" under the Convention;[28] another court concluded that any kind of software, including custom-made software, should be considered "goods".[29]

Internationality and place of business

11. The Convention's sphere of application is limited to contracts for the international sale of goods. According to article 1(1), a contract for the sale of goods is international when the parties have -- at the moment of the conclusion of the contract [30] -- their relevant place of business in different States.[31]

12. 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).

13. According to one court, "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."[32] Another court has concluded that a liaison office cannot be considered a "place of business" under the Convention.[33]

14. The internationality requirement is not met where the parties have their relevant place of business in the same country. 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".[34] 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".[35] For the purposes of the Convention's applicability, the parties' civil or commercial character is also irrelevant.[36]

15. 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,[37] 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 analyzing whether the contract is international.[38]

16. 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".[39] 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.[40]

Autonomous applicability

17. The internationality of a contract for the sale of goods, by itself, is not sufficient to make the Convention applicable.[41] Article 1(1) lists two additional alternative criteria for applicability, one of which has to be met in order for the Convention to apply. According to the criterion set forth in article 1(1)(a), the Convention is "directly"[42] or "autonomously"[43] applicable, i.e. without the need to resort to the rules of private international law,[44] when the States in which the parties have their relevant places of business are Contracting States. As the list of Contracting States grows, this criterion is leading to application of the Convention in an increasing number of cases.[45]

18. 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."[46] This is so unless the reason that the third country's law would apply is a choice of law agreement that the parties intended to exclude the Convention.[47]

19. 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 given 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 CISG, 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 transaction.[48] The same is true mutatis mutandis if a party is located in a territory of a Contracting State as to which the State has declared, pursuant to article 93, that the Convention does not extend.[49]

Indirect applicability

20. 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 Contracting States,[50] as long as the rules of private international law lead to the law of a Contracting State.[51] Since the relevant rules of private international law are those of the forum,[52] 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.

21. Where the private international law rules of the forum are based upon the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations,[53] 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),[54] since article 3 of the Rome Convention recognizes party autonomy.[55] 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,[56] as article 2 [57] of this convention also obliges judges to follow the choice of law made by the parties.[58]

22. The Convention may be selected by the parties as the law applicable to the contract.[59] Where the parties did not make a choice of law or where their choice is not valid, one has to resort to the criteria set forth by the rules of private international law of the forum to determine whether the Convention is applicable by virtue of article 1(1)(b).

Thus, under article 4(1) of the 1980 Rome Convention, one has to apply the law "most closely connected" to the contract;[60] 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, i.e. the party that has to effect the characteristic performance,[61] had its place of business in a Contracting State to the Convention.[62] Under the 1955 Hague Convention, absent a choice of law the law of the seller applies,[63] 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.[64]

23. 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(100)(b) would have on the application of their special legislation".[65] As a consequence, article 95 was introduced to give Contracting States the opportunity to choose not to be bound by article 1(1)(b).[66]] Judges located in Contracting States that have declared an article 95 reservation will not apply the Convention by virtue of article 1(1)(b); this does not, however, affect the Convention's applicability in such States by virtue of article 1(1)(a).[67]

24. 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.[68]


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_second_edition.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 1,200 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. [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision).

2. For this interpretation, see [ITALY Tribunale di Pavia 29 December 1999 (High fashion textiles case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Zwickau 19 March 1999 (Chemical products case)]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 30 November 1998 (Lambskin coat case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Heilbronn 15 September 1997 (Film coating machine case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 20 April 1994 (New Zealand mussels case)] (see full text of the decision).

3. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 9 March 2000 (Roofing material case)]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunale d'appello Lugano 8 June 1999 (Wine bottles case)].

4. For this approach, see [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002 (Porcelain tableware case)].

5. See [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994 (Chinchilla furs case)] (see full text of the decision).

6. See [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Rotterdam 1 November 2001, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 2002, No. 114; ]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Wallis, 11 March 1996 (Clay case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002 (Porcelain tableware case)].

7. See [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994 (Chinchilla furs case)] (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 Koophandel, Hasselt 2 May 1995 (Frozen raspberries)].

8. [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 21 October 1999 (PVC and other synthetic materials case)] (see full text of the decision).

9. See [GERMANY Schiedsgericht der Hamburger freundlichen Arbitrage 29 December 1998 (Cheese case)]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 30 November 1998 (Lambskin coat case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 12 February 1998 (Umbrella case)]; [GERMANY Arbitration - Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Hamburg 21 March, 21 June 1996 (Chinese goods case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Ellwangen 21 August 1995 (Paprika case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 22 February 1995 (Jeans case)].

10. [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 12 February 1998 (Air cleaning installation case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Berzirksgericht der Sanne 20 February 1997 (Spirits case)].

11. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 21 January 1998 (Insulating materials case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 8 February 1995 (Automobiles case)]; [ICC Arbitration Award No. 7331 of 1994 (Cowhides case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 26 September 1990 (Textiles case)].

12. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 21 January 1998 (Insulating materials case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 5 November 1997 (In-line skates case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 9 July 1997 (Leather goods case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 11 July 1996 (Lawn mower engines case)]; [HUNGARY Fovárosi Biróság 19 March 1996 (Instruments case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993 (Computer chip case)] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Hof Amsterdam 16 July 1992 (Shower cabinets case)]; [UNITED STATES Federal District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 29 August 2000 (Wine case)]; [NETHERLANDS Hof Arnhem 27 April 1999 (Movable room units case) ]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtsbank 's-Gravenhage 2 July 1997 (Cushions case)]. One court has applied the CISG to a distributorship agreement. See [ITALY Corte di Cassazione 14 December 1999 (Manufactured goods case)]. For a case in which the issue was raised but not resolved, see [UNITED STATES Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 21 July 1997 (Fashion accessories case)]. See also [FRANCE Cour d'appel Colmar 12 June 2001 (Polyurethane foam covers case)] ("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).

13. [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997 (Blood infusion devices case)] (see full text of the decision). But see [ICC Arbitration Award No. 9448 of July 1999 (Roller bearings case)] (holding that a framework agreement was governed by the CISG because it provided for future sales and deliveries) (see full text of the decision).

14. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 5 November 1997 (In-line skates case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 9 July 1997 (Leather goods case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 11 July 1996 (Refrigeration equipment case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 15 May 1996 (Thermo King v. Cigna Insurance)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993 (Computer chip case)] (see full text of the decision); [ICC Arbitral Award No. 8908 of December 1998 (Pipes case)]; [ICC Arbitral Award No. 8611 of 23 January 1997 (Industrial equipment case)].

15. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993 (Computer chip case)] (see full text of the decision).

16. See [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997 (Blood infusion devices case)].

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

18. See [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 26 April 1995 (Second hand portable warehouse shed case) (Marques Roque v. Manin Reviere)] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002 (Porcelain tableware case)].

19. See [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 21 October 1999 (PVC and other synthetic materials case)] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Tribunale di Pavia 29 December 1999 (High fashion textiles case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 March 1996 (Chinese goods case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 26 August 1994 (Market study case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994 (Chinchilla furs case)] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002 (Porcelain tableware case)].

20. See [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 6 February 1996 (Propane case)], applying the Convention to the international sale of propane gas.

21. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 May 1996 (Used car case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Köln 16 November 1995 (Used car case)].

22. See [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Arnhem 30 December 1993] (live lambs); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Jena 26 May 1998] (live fish); [FRANCE Cour d'appel Paris 14 January 1998] (circus elephants). Compare [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994] (chinchilla pelts); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 22 September 1992] (bacon). For a decision that deems animals to be "goods" in the sense of the Convention, see [GERMANY Landgericht Flensburg 19 January 2001 (Live sheep case)].

23. See [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 20 December 1993 (Shares of stock case)].

24. See [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Sheets of vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision).

25. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 26 August 1994 (Market study case)].

26. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Germany, 17 September 1993 (Computer chip case)] (see full text of the decision).

27. See [GERMANY Landgericht München 29 May 1995 (Computer hardware case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Heidelberg 3 July 1992 (Computer components case)].

28. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 26 August 1994 (Market study case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht München 8 February 1995 (Standard software case)].

29. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993 (Computer chip case)] (see full text of the decision).

30. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Dresden 27 December 1999 (Chemical products case)].

31. See [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 May 1996 (Used car case)] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994 (Chinchilla furs case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002 (Porcelain tableware case)].

32. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 28 February 2000 (Floor tiles case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Rimini 26 November 2002 (Porcelain tableware)]; for a similar definition see [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 November 1994 (Chinchilla furs case)] (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 [GERMANY Amtsgericht Duisburg 13 April 2000 (Pizza cartons case)].

33. See [FRANCE Cour d'appel France, 22 April 1992 (Electronic components case)].

34. For references to the irrelevance of the parties' nationality, see [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 31 October 2001 (Machinery case)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Veurne 25 April 2001 (Diesel tram case)]; [BULGARIA Court of Arbitration of the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Award 56/1995 of 24 April 1996 (Coal case)].

35. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 27 November 1991 (Ticket for soccer world championship case)].

36. See [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 31 October 2001 (Machinery case)].

37. For court decisions stating that issues of agency law and related matters are not dealt with by the Convention, see [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 20 March 1997 (Mono ammonium phosphate case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Appellationsgericht Tessin 12 February 1996 (Copy paper case)]; [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Thurgau 19 December 1995 (Cloth case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 22 June 1995 (Clothes case)]; see [GERMANY Amtsgericht Alsfeld 12 May 1995 (Flagstone tiles case)]; [GERMANY Kammergericht Berlin 24 January 1994 (Wine case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Zivilgericht Basel-Stadt 21 December 1992 (Textiles case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 26 September 1990 (Textiles case)].

38. See [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 13 November 2000 (Plug-couplings case)].

39. For a reference to this provision, see [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof, 21 March 2000 (Wood case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision).

40. See [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision).

41. See ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision).

42. See [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht 11 July 2000 (Building materials case)]; [SWITZERLAND Berzirksgericht der Sanne 20 February 1997 (Spirits case)].

43. See [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 20 March 1997 (Mono ammonium phosphate case)] (see full text of the decision).

44. See [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 11 December 1996 (Marzipan case)] (see full text of the decision).

45. For recent court decisions applying the Convention by virtue of art. 1(1)(a), see [BELGIUM Hof Beroep Gent 31 January 2002 (Candy case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel Orléans 29 March 2001 (High tension neon transformers case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Trier 7 December 2000 (Equipment for telecommunications case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg 5 December 2000 (Tiller case)], [GERMANY Landgericht Stendal 12 October 2000 (Granite rock case)]; [FRANCE Tribunal comercial Montargis 6 October 2000 (High tension transformers case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 7 September 2000 (Tombstones case)], [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 30 August 2000 (Yarn case)]; [MEXICO Sixth Civil Court of First Instance, City of Tijuana, State of Baja California, 14 July 2000 (Wood case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 28 April 2000 (Jewelry case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 13 April 2000 (Machines case)]; [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Navarra 27 March 2000 (Electrical goods case)]; see [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 21 March 2000 (Wood case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 9 March 2000 (Roofing material case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 28 February 2000 (Floor tiles case)]; [SPAIN Tribunal Supremo 28 January 2000 (Jute case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 26 January 2000 (Honey case)]; [UNITED STATES Minnesota [State] District Court 9 March 1999 (Music board systems, electronic displays and software case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 3 December 1999 (Window production plant case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 18 November 1999 (Fiberglass fabrics for filters case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 12 November 1999]; Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung 2000, 78; [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 3 November 1999 (Machine for producing hygenic tissues case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 21 October 1999 (Footwear case]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 21 October 1999 (PVC and other synthetic materials case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Stendal 12 October 1999 (Granite rock case)]; [SWITZERLAND Obergericht Kanton Basel-Landschaft 5 October 1999 (Summer cloth collection case)]; [CANADA Ontario Superior Court of Justice 31 August 1999 (Picture frame mouldings case)] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 29 June 1999 (Dividing wall panels case)]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Aargau 11 June 1999 (Granular plastic case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Appelationsgericht Kanton Tessin 8 June 1999 (Wine bottles case)]; [FRANCE Cour de cassation 26 May 1999 (Laminated sheet metal case)] (see full text of the decision); [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 25 May 1999 (Sour cherries case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel Paris 21 May 1999 (Electronic equipment case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 19 May 1999]; [UNITED STATES Federal District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana 17 May 1999 (Medical equipment case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Naumburg 27 April 1999 (Automobile case)]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 8 April 1999 (Windmill drives case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 24 March 1999 (Vine wax case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Zwickau 19 March 1999 (Chemical products case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 11 March 1999 (Frames for mountain bikes case)]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 25 February 1999 (Roofing materials case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 10 February 1999 (Art books case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 4 February 1999 (Orange juice case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Schiedsgericht der Hamburger freundschaftlichen Arbitrage, 29 December 1998 (Cheese case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Regensburg 24 September 1998 (Cloth case)] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Corte di Appello, Milano 11 December 1998 (Printer device case)]; [MEXICO Comisión para la protección del comercio exterior de Mexico 30 November 1998 (Candies and sweets case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Mainz 26 November 1998 (Cylinder case)]; [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 25 November 1998 (Surface protective film case)]; [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht 28 October 1998 (Meat case)] (see full text of the decision); [UNITED STATES Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois 27 October 1998 (Aircraft parts case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour d'appel Paris 4 March 1998 (Industrial machines case)] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 15 October 1998 (Timber case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg 22 September 1998 (Raw salmon case)]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 21 September 1998 (Catalogue case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht Unterrheintal 16 September 1998 (Furniture case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 11 September 1998 (Chemical substance case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Celle 2 September 1998 (Vacuum cleaners case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Bamberg 19 August 1998 (Machine for producing hygenic tissues case)]; [ITALY Corte di Cassazione 7 August 1998 (Women's stockings case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Erfurt 29 July 1998 (Shoe soles case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour de cassation 16 July 1998 (Aluminium hydrate case)] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 30 June 1998 (Pineapples case)]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal du Valais 30 June 1998 (Granite stones case)] (see full text of the decision); [UNITED STATES Federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 29 June 1998 (Ceramic tiles case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal du Valais 29 June 1998 (Sports clothing case)] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 25 June 1998]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 23 June 1998 (Furniture case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWEDEN Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, 5 June 1998 (4,000 ton rail press case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 3 June 1998 (Flowers case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Jena 26 May 1998 (Live fish case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Aurich 8 May 1998 (Raw salmon case)]; [ITALY Corte di Cassazione 8 May 1998 (Frozen meat case); [UNITED STATES Federal District Court, Southern District of New York 6 April 1998 (Shoes case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken 31 March 1998 (Vine wax case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour d'appel Paris 18 March 1998 (Clothes case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 11 March 1998 (Cashmere sweaters case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 10 March 1998]; [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 20 February 1998 (Floor tiles case); [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 12 February 1998 (Air cleaning installation case)] (see full text of the decision); [BULGARIA Arbitration Court attached to the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Award 11/1996 of 12 February 1998 (Steel ropes case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bückeburg 3 February 1998 (Orange juice case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 28 January 1998 (Automobiles case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Freiburg 23 January 1998 (Commercial laundry machine case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 21 January 1998 (Insulating materials case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Tribunal de commerce Besançon 19 January 1998 (Sports clothes case)]; [SWITZERLAND Cantone del Ticino Tribunale d'appello 15 January 1998 (Cocoa beans case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour d'appel, 14 January 1998 (Elephants case)]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal du Vaud 24 December 1997 (Furniture case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Aargau 19 December 1997 (Garments case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Tribunal de Grande Instance Colmar 18 December 1997 (Automobile parts case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bayreuth 11 December 1997 (Machine for producing hygenic tissues case)]; [AUSTRIA Schiedsgericht der Börse für landwirtschaftliche Produkte in Wien, Award 2/97 of 10 December 1997 (Barley case)], [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Nidwalden 3 December 1997 (Furniture case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Zivilgericht des Kantons Basel-Stadt 3 December 1997 (White urea case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour de Cassation 2 December 1997 (Textiles case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 5 November 1997 (In-line skates case)]; [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona 3 November 1997 (Rolled steel case)] (see full text of the decision); [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Córdoba 31 October 1997 (Steel profiles case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Valais 28 October 1997 (Second hand bulldozer case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Tribunal de commerce de Paris 28 October 1997 (Industrial machines case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Erfurt 28 October 1997 (Fish case)]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 16 October 1997 (Watches case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Hagen 15 October 1997 (Socks case)], [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht 28 October 1998 (Meat case)] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Hof s'Hertogenbosch 2 October 1997 (Leather goods case)]; [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 26 September 1997 (Fabrics case)]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgerecht des Kantons Aargau 26 September 1997 (Cutlery case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Heilbronn 15 September 1997 (Film coating machine case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 11 September 1997 (Carpets case)] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 8 September 1997]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 August 1997 (Aluminium hydroxide case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht St. Gallen 12 August 1997 (Clothes case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Göttingen 31 July 1997 (Vacuum cleaners and watches case) ]; [NETHERLANDS Hof s'Hertogenbosch 24 July 1997 (Steel pipes case)]; [UNITED STATES Federal District Court, Southern District of New York 21 July 1997 (Fashion accessories case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 23 July 1997 (Benetton II fashion textiles case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 18 July 1997 (Flowers case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Arnhem 17 July 1997 (Work of art / painting case) ]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 9 July 1997 (Leather goods case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 9 July 1997 (Fitness equipment case)]; [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht St. Gallen 3 July 1997 (Fabrics case)] (see full text of the decision); [HUNGARY Fovárosi Biróság 1 July 1997 (Used timber machinery case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 25 June 1997 (Stainless steel wire case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 25 June 1997 (Fabrics case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 23 June 1997 (Cashmere sweaters case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 19 June 1997 (Hazelnuts case) ], [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 18 June 1997 (Shoes case)]; [HUNGARY Fovárosi Biróság 17 June 1997 (Candies case)] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Hof Arnhem, 17 June 1997 (Gas compressors case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Paderborn 10 June 1997 (Furniture case)], case [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 8 May 1997]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 6 May 1997 (Cars case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 24 April 1997 (Shoes case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Frankenthal 17 April 1997 (Vine wax case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 20 March 1997 (Mono ammonium phosphate case)] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997 (Cooperative Maritime Etaploise v. Bos Fishproducts)]; [SWITZERLAND Berzirksgericht der Sanne 20 February 1997]; [SPAIN Audencia Provincial de Barcelona 4 February 1997 (Hot-melt glue case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 31 January 1997 (Acrylic blankets case)] (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Pretura Torino 30 January 1997 (Cotton fabric case)]; [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997 (Blood infusion devices case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 8 January 1997 (Tannery machines case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour de cassation 17 December 1996 (Ceramic baking dishes case)] (see full text of the decision); [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Kortrijk 16 December 1996 (Cloth case)]; [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 11 December 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 9 December 1996 (Fitness equipment case)]; [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 4 December 1996 (Printing system and software case)] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Rotterdam 21 November 1996 (Flowers case); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Koblenz 12 November 1996 (Shoes case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberlandesgericht Wien 7 November 1996 (Mono ammonium phosphate case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Heidelberg 2 October 1996 (Surface protective film case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 13 September 1996 (Rolled steel wire case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 11 July 1996 (Lawn mower engines case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 10 July 1996 (Plastic chips case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Paderborn 25 June 1996 (Granulated plastics case)], [GERMANY Amtsgericht Bottropp 25 June 1996 (Shoes case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 17 June 1996 (Shoes case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 March 1996 (Chinese goods case)] (see full text of the decision); [HUNGARY Fovárosi Biróság, Hungary, 21 May 1996]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 15 May 1996 (Textiles case)]; [BULGARIA Arbitration Court attached to the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Award 56/1995 of 24 April 1996 (Coal case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 19 April 1996 (Tannery machines case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Duisburg 17 April 1996 (Textiles case)]; [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 3 April 1996 (Cobalt sulphate case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 26 March 1996 (Ice-cream parlor furnishings case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Busto Arsizio 13 December 2001 (Machinery case)]; [ITALY Corte d'Appello di Milano 23 January 2001 (Industrial machinery case)] (Finland and Italy, question not regarding part II of Convention).

46. 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.

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

48. See [DENMARK Østre Landsret 23 April 1998 (Women's clothing case)]; [HUNGARY Fovárosi Biróság 21 May 1996]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Rostock 27 July 1995 (Plants case)]; [ICC Court of Arbitration Award 7585 of 1992 (Foamed board machinery case)].

49. 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

50. 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.

51. For cases referring to art. 1(1)(b), see [AUSTRALIA Supreme Court of Queensland 17 November 2000 (Scrap steel case)] (Malaysian and Australian parties chose law applying in Brisbane); [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial 24 April 2000 (Charcoal case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel Colmar 24 October 2000 (Pentaphan glue case)]; [ITALY Tribunale Pavia 29 December 1999 (High fashion textiles case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 26 November 1999 (Jeans case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Bamberg 13 January 1999 (Fabric case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 30 November 1998 (Lambskin coat case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Celle 11 November 1998 (Orange juice case)]; [DENMARK Østre Landsret 23 April 1998 (Women's clothing case]; [ITALY Corte d'Appello Milano 20 March 1998 (Knitwear case)], [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 12 February 1998 (Umbrella case)]; [FRANCE Cour de cassation 27 January 1998 (Hooks, sockets/cartridges for fitting to electrical connectors case)] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 7 November 1997 (Vodka case]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Kortrijk 6 October 1997 (Crude yarn case]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 July 1997 (Video camera case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zutphen 29 May 1997 (Petunia cuttings case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 22 September 1992 (Frozen bacon case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 5 February 1997 (Sunflower oil case)] (see full text of the decision); [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Kortrijk 6 January 1997 (Safety shoes case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 23 October 1996 (Stock equipment: live stock pens, drinking troughs, etc. case)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Hasselt 9 October 1996 (Fashion textiles case)]; [GERMANY Arbitration Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Hamburg 21 June 1996 (Chinese goods case)]; [NETHERLANDS Hof Leeuwarden 5 June 1996 (Vodka case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Oldenburg 27 March 1996 (Clothes case)], [GERMANY Arbitration Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Hamburg 21 March 1996 (Chinese goods case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bad Kreuznach 12 March 1996 (Chemical substance case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 6 February 1996 (Propane case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Siegen 5 December 1995 (Motors case)(Motors case), available] [BELGIUM; Rechtbank Koophandel Hasselt 8 November 1995 (Wine case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 23 October 1995 (Iron molybdenum case)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Hasselt 18 October 1995 (Steel bars case)]; [BELGIUM Tribunal commercial Nivelles 19 September 1995 (Industrial machinery / vulcanization machinery case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Almelo 9 August 1995], [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 5 July 1995 (Chocolate products case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Kanton St. Gallen, Gerichtskommission Oberrheintal 30 June 1995 (Sliding doors case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 22 June 1995 (Clothes case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 26 April 1995 (Candy case)]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Wangen 8 March 1995 (Shoes case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 1 March 1995, No. 95 (Beaten eggs case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Middelburg 25 January 1995 (Beef case)], [FRANCE Cour de cassation 4 January 1995 (Electronic components case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Mayen 6 September 1994 (Artificial stone slabs case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 25 August 1994 (Fashion goods case)]; [ICC Court of Arbitration, Award 7660/JK of 23 August 1994 (Battery machinery case)]; [AUSTRIA Arbitration-Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft (SCH 4336) Wien, 15 June 1994 (Rolled metal sheets case)]; [AUSTRIA Arbitration-Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft (SCH-4318) Wien 15 June 1994 (Rolled metal sheets case)]; [ITALY Ad hoc Florence arbitration tribunal 19 April 1994 (Leather/textile wear case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 22 February 1994 (Rare hard wood case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)]; [GERMANY Kammergericht Berlin, Germany, 24 January 1994 (Wine case)] ; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Arnhem 30 December 1993 (Live lambs case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel Paris 10 November 1993 (Tin sheets case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz, Germany, 17 September 1993 (Computer chip case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 2 July 1993 (Veneer cutting machine case)]; [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 16 June 1993 (Construction material case)]; [SWITZERLAND Richteramt Laufen des Kantons Berne, Switzerland, 7 May 1993 (Automatic storage system case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 12 March 1993 (Textiles case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Arnhem 25 February 1993 (Clothes case]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 13 January 1993 (Doors case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 8 January 1993 (Tinned cucumbers case)]; [SWITZERLAND Zivilgericht Basel-Stadt 21 December 1992 (Textiles case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 20 November 1992 (Frozen chicken case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 22 September 1992 (Frozen bacon case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno-Campagna 27 April 1992 (Electronic components case)] (see full text of the decision); [FRANCE Cour d'appel Paris 22 April 1992 (Electronic components case)] ; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Roermond 19 December 1991 (Optical equipment case)]; [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno-Campagna 16 December 1991 (Optical equipment case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 27 September 1991 (Marble slabs case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 17 September 1991 (Shoes case)] (see full text of the decision).

52. See [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Vulcanized rubber case)] (see full text of the decision).

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

54. See [BELGIUM Hof Beroep Gent 15 May 2002 (Design of radio phone case)], [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 15 February 1996 (Marble slab case) ] (see full text of the decision); [ICC Court of Arbitration, Award 8324 of 1995 (Magnesium case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank s'Gravenhage 7 June 1995 (Apple trees case)], [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 8 January 1993 (Tinned cucumbers case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993 (Computer chip case)].

55. 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."

56. 1955 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to International Sale of Goods, 510 U.N.T.S. 149, No. 7411(1964).

57. 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."

58. 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 Trib. Comm. Bruxelles 13 November 1992 (Clothes case)].

59. See, for example, [NETHERLANDS Arbitration Institute Award of 15 October 2002 (Condensate crude oil mix case)].

60. For cases referring to "closest connection", see [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 25 August 1994 (Fashion goods case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Roermond 6 May 1993 (Electric kettles case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 27 September 1991 (Marble slabs case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 13 June 1991 (Textiles case)] (see full text of the decision).

61. 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 (Knitwear case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 6 May 1997 (Cars case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Amsterdam 5 October 1994 (Textiles case]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 12 March 1993 (Textiles case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt am Main 16 September 1991 (Shoes case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt am Main 2 May 1990 (Shoes case)].

62. For cases applying the Convention on the basis of the presumption referred to in the text, see, e.g. [BELGIUM Cour d'appel Mons 8 March 2001 (Metal badge case)]; GERMANY Landgericht Bad Kreuznach 12 March 1996 (Chemical substance case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt am Main 6 July 1994 (Chocolate products case)], [GERMANY Landgericht Baden-Baden 14 August 1991 (Wall tiles case)] (see full text of the decision).

63. See [BELGIUM Rechtbank Hasselt 9 October 1996 (Fashion textiles case)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Hasselt 8 November 1995 (Wine case)], [FRANCE Cour d'appel Grenoble 26 April 1995 (Candy case)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Hasselt 18 October 1995 (Steel bars case)]; [BELGIUM Trib. Comm. Bruxelles 5 October 1994 (Shoe case)]; [SWITZERLAND KG Wallis 6 December 1993 (Fruits and vegetables case)]; [SWITZERLAND Richteramt Laufen des Kantons Berne 7 May 1993 (Automatic storage system case)]; [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno-Campagna 27 April 1992 (Furniture case)] (see full text of the decision).

64. [FRANCE Cour de cassation 26 June 2001 (Auto parts case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Verona 19 December 1997], Rivista Veronese di Giurisprudenza Economica e dell'Impresa 1998, 22 ff.

65. 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.

66. To date the following States have declared an article 95 reservation: 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).

67. See [the following UNITED STATES cases] [Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 7 December 1999 (Steel bars case)]; [Minnesota [State] District Court, 9 March 1999 (Music board systems, electronic displays and software case)]; [Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 27 October 1998 (Aircraft parts case)]; [Federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 29 June 1998 (Ceramic tiles case)]; [Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 6 April 1998 (Shoes case)]; [Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 21 July 1997 (Fashion accessories / hats and bags)]; [Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 6 December 1995 (Compressors for air conditioners case)]; [Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 22 September 1994 (Footware / boots case)]; [Federal District Court, Northern District of New York, 9 September 1994 (Compressors for air conditioners case)]; [Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 15 June 1993 (Weight lifting equipment case)]; [Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 14 April 1992 (Footware / boots case)].

68. See [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Kortrijk 16 December 1996 (Cloth case)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Hasselt 9 October 1996 (Fashion textiles case)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Hasselt 8 November 1995 (Wine case)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel, Hasselt 18 October 1995 (Steel bars case)]; [BELGIUM Trib. Comm. Nivelles 19 September 1995 (Industrial machinery /vulcanization machinery case)]; [BELGIUM Trib. Comm. Bruxelles 5 October 1994 (Shoes case)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Hasselt 16 March 1994]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank Koophandel Hasselt 23 February 1994 (Fashion textiles case)]; [BELGIUM Trib. Comm. Bruxelles 13 November 1992 (Clothes case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Roermond 19 December 1991 (Cheese case)]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Ludwigsburg 21 December 1990 (Clothes case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 26 September 1990 (Textiles case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Dordrecht 21 November 1990 (Textiles case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hildesheim 20 July 1990 (Tiles case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt am Main 2 May 1990 (Shoes case)]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Oldenburg in Holstein 24 April 1990 (Fashion textiles case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 3 April 1990 (Shoes case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 23 February 1990 (Wine case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Alkmaar 8 February 1990 (Sports articles case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Alkmaar 30 November 1989]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 31 August 1989 (Shoes case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 3 July 1989 (Fashion textiles case)].


©Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated May 29, 2009
Go to Database Directory || Go to Information on other available case data
Comments/Contributions