GUIDE TO CISG ARTICLE 83

Secretariat Commentary (closest counterpart to an Official Commentary)

Guide to the use of this commentary

The Secretariat Commentary is on the 1978 Draft of the CISG, not the Official Text, which re-numbered most of the articles of the 1978 Draft. The Secretariat Commentary on article 83 of the 1978 Draft is quoted below with the article references contained in this commentary conformed to the numerical sequence of the Official Text, e.g., article 68 [draft counterpart of CISG article 83].

To the extent it is relevant to the Official Text, the Secretariat Commentary on the 1978 Draft is perhaps the most authoritative source one can cite. It is the closest counterpart to an Official Commentary on the CISG. A match-up of this article of the 1978 Draft with the version adopted for the Official Text is necessary to document the relevancy of the Secretariat Commentary on this article. See the match-up for this article for a validation of citations to this Secretariat Commentary. This match-up indicates that article 68 of the 1978 Draft and CISG article 83 are substantively identical.

Text of Secretariat Commentary on article 68 of the 1978 Draft
[draft counterpart of CISG article 83]   [Buyer's retention of other remedies]

PRIOR UNIFORM LAW

ULIS, article 80.

COMMENTARY

Article 68 [draft counterpart of CISG article 83] makes it clear that the loss of the right to declare the contract avoided or to require the seller to deliver substitute goods because he cannot return the goods substantially in the condition in which he received them does not deprive the buyer of the right to claim damages under article 41(1)(b) [draft counterpart of CISG article 45(a)(b)], to require that any defects be cured under article 42 [draft counterpart of CISG article 46], or to declare the reduction of the price under article 46 [draft counterpart of CISG article 50] (OFFICIAL RECORDS, p. 58).

[If the contract contains a penalty clause, the statement buyer "retains all other remedies under the contract" also makes it clear that the buyer has the right to avail himself of the remedy provided in that clause (to the extent permitted by the gap filling law), even though the buyer has lost the right to declare the contract avoided.]