Go to Database Directory || Go to Table of Contents to Annotated Text of CISG


ANNOTATED TEXT OF CISG
Article 39

(1) The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.

(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)


Guide to this article


Legislative history


Case law

1. Rationale or purpose for the Article 39 notice rule

GERMANY: LG Kassel 15 February 1996 (11 O 4185/95) [79 n.41]

2. Timeliness of notice: what is a reasonable time under the circumstances?

AUSTRIA: OLG Innsbruck 1 July 1994 [132-133 nn.248-249]

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 München 3 July 1989 [104 n.131]

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 Stuttgart 31 August 1989 [form: 107 n.150]

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

AUSTRIA: Arbitration SCH-4318 of 15 June 1994 [145-146 nn.306-307]

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 Düsseldorf 23 June 1994 [116 nn.183-186]

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)

GERMANY: LG Landshut 5 April 1995 [89 n.79]

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]


Scholarly writings on this article


Links to related articles


Words, phrases and concepts


Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated January 22, 2001
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to Table of Contents to Annotated Text of CISG