(2) In any event, the buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give the seller notice thereof at the latest within a period of two years from the date on which the goods were actually handed over to the buyer, unless this time-limit is inconsistent with a contractual period of guarantee.
Legislative history || Case law || Scholarly writings || Links to related articles || Words and phrases || CISG (full-text)
For 1999 Supreme Court rulings on timeliness of notice under Article 39(1), full text English translation of each case provided, go to:
For comments on these and other cases published in Fall 2000, go to:
1. Rationale or purpose for the Article 39 notice rule
2. Timeliness of notice: what is a reasonable time under the circumstances?
AUSTRIA: LG Feldkirch 29 March 1994 [132 nn.248-249]
BELGIUM: Tr Bruxelles 5 October 1994 [134 nn.254-255]
FRANCE: CA Grenoble 13 September 1995 [136 n.265; 157 n.345]
FRANCE: CA Versailles 29 January 1998 [137 nn.267-268]
GERMANY: LG Bielefeld 18 January 1991 [113 n.173]
GERMANY: LG Mönchengladbach 22 May 1992 [114 n.175; 128-129 n.236; 136 n.266]
GERMANY: LG Berlin 16 September 1992 [115 n.181]
GERMANY: LG Berlin 30 September 1992 [115 n.181]
GERMANY: LG Frankfurt 9 December 1992 127 nn.232, 235; 157 n.345]
GERMANY: OLG Düsseldorf 8 January 1993 [117-118 nn.189-190; 192, 194]
GERMANY: OLG Saarbrucken 13 January 1993 [115-116 n.182]
GERMANY: OLG Düsseldorf 12 March 1993 [119 nn.197-200; 136 n.266]
GERMANY: LG Aachen 28 July 1993 [107-108 n.154]
GERMANY: LG Köln 11 November 1993 [115 nn.178-180; 127 n.233]
GERMANY: OLG Köln 22 February 1994 [107-108 n.154]
GERMANY: AG Riedlingen 21 October 1994 [117 nn.186-188]
GERMANY: OLG München 8 February 1995 (3758/94) [120 nn.203- 204]
GERMANY: BGH (Supreme Court) 8 March 1995 [120-121 nn.205- 208; 128 n.237]
GERMANY: LG Landshut 5 April 1995 [127 n.234; 136 n.266]
GERMANY: OLG Stuttgart 21 August 1995 [122 n.211; 127-128 n.236; 136 n.266]
GERMANY: AG Kehl 6 October 1995 [123 nn.214-215]
GERMANY: AG Augsburg 29 January 1996 [122-123 nn.212-213]
GERMANY: LG Heidelberg 2 October 1996 [92 n.94; 123-124 nn.216-220; 128 n.238]
GERMANY: BGH (Supreme Court) 4 December 1996 [125 nn.224-226]
GERMANY: OLG Koblenz 31 January 1997 [131 n.244]
GERMANY: OLG Karlsruhe 25 June 1997 [85-86 n.66; 92 n.94; 123-124 nn.216-220; 128 n.238; 136 n.266]
GERMANY: BGH (Supreme Court) 25 June 1997 [119-120 nn.201-202; 125 nn.227-229]
GERMANY: OLG Köln 21 August 1997 [124-125 nn.221-223]
HUNGARY: Arbitration Vb 94131 of 5 December 1995 [144-145 nn.299-300, 146 n.308]
ICC: Arbitration 5713 of 1989 [86 n.67; 144 nn.296-298]
ICC: Arbitration 7331 of 1994 [145 nn.302-303]
ICC: Arbitration 7565 of 1994 [145 n.304]
ITALY: Tr Cuneo 31 January 1996 [141-142 nn.286-288]
NETHERLANDS: Rb Dordrecht 21 November 1990 [134 n.256]
NETHERLANDS: Rb Roermond 6 May 1993 [135 n.259]
NETHERLANDS: Rb Gravenhage 7 June 1995 [83 n.56, 135 n.260]
SWITZERLAND: Pr Locarno 27 April 1992 [85 n.66; 138-139 nn.273-275]
SWITZERLAND: HG Zürich 26 April 1995 [139 n.277]
SWITZERLAND: OG Luzern 8 January 1997 [140 nn.280-281]
3. Specificity of notice: how specific must the notice be?
GERMANY: LG Bielefeld 18 January 1991 [82 n.54; 105 n.141]
GERMANY: LG München 8 February 1995 [104 n.129]
GERMANY: LG München 20 March 1995 [103-104 n.128]
GERMANY: LG Landshut 5 April 1995 [82 n.53]
GERMANY: LG Marburg 12 December 1995 [105-106 nn.142; 144-147]
GERMANY: LG Bochum 24 January 1996 [104-105 nn.135-138]
GERMANY: OLG Koblenz 31 January 1997 [104 n.132]
4. Form of notice; to whom must it be sent?; can notice be implied?; burden of proof
GERMANY: LG Frankfurt 9 December 1992 [form: 107 n.149]
GERMANY: OLG Düsseldorf 12 March 1993 [implied: 146 n.308]
GERMANY: LG Aachen 28 July 1993 [form: 107 n.153]
GERMANY: OLG Frankfurt 20 April 1994 [form: 108 nn.155-156]
GERMANY: LG Frankfurt 13 July 1994 [form: 107 n.151]
GERMANY: AG Kehl 6 October 1995 [form: 107 n.152]
GERMANY: LG Marburg 12 December 1995 [form: 108 n.157]
GERMANY: LG Kassel 15 February 1996 (11 O 4187/95) [notice must be specifically directed to seller: 105 n.139]
SWITZERLAND: HG Zürich 9 September 1993 [burden of proof of notice giving: 139 n.279]
5. Article 6 derogation from Article 39 notice rule
GERMANY: LG Baden-Baden 14 August 1991 [110 n.163]
GERMANY: LG Hannover 1 December 1993 [111 n.166]
GERMANY: LG Giessen 5 July 1994 [111 nn.167-168]
GERMANY: OLG München 11 March 1998 [110 nn.161-162]
6. Relationship between the Article 38 examination provision and the Article 39 notice provision
GERMANY: LG Paderborn 25 June 1996 [nature of Article 38 examination required: 85 n.61]
7. Relevance of Article 40 (inapplicability of Article 39 where seller aware of defect)
ICC: Arbitration 5713 of 1989 [89 n.79]
ICC: Arbitration 7331 of 1994 [90 n.90]
NETHERLANDS: Rb Roermond 19 December 1991 [89 n.79; 134-135 nn.257-258]
8. Relevance of Article 44 (preserves some remedies where buyer has reasonable excuse for non-compliance with Article 39(1) notice requirements)
GERMANY: OLG Saarbrücken 13 January 1993 [90 n.83]
GERMANY: LG München 8 February 1995 [90 n.84]
Our bibliography contains thousands of citations in 24 languages; we encourage you to tailor your own bibliography search to the specific aspect of this article that you are researching.
Links to related articles