The 1980 United Nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods.
Extracts from this document...
THE 1980 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS This paper will show that the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods offers solutions to the increasing legal problems which arise when doing business in an international context. Firstly an overview will be given when the Vienna Convention applies and furthermore what remedies a seller has when there is a breach of contract. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), also known as Vienna Convention, came into force on 1 January 1988 and is currently adopted by 62 countries.1 It is said to be one of the most successful Treaties in history.2 This Convention was promulgated by the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and is a successor of the 1955 Hague Convention. The Vienna Convention has a prior claim of application in relationship to the Rome Convention. But both Conventions state that they 'do not prevail over international agreements' (Art.90 CISG) or 'shall not prejudice the application of international conventions' (Art.21 Rome Convention). However, as will be explained below, if the states are members of the Vienna Convention this law will always apply and even if it is not stated in the contract the private international law of that country will lead to the application of the Vienna Convention.3 If the Vienna Convention is ratified by a country it becomes part of the law of that country and applies automatically to contracts falling within its scope.
38 (1) CISG) and furthermore he must exactly indicate what is not in accordance with the contract so that the seller can get an idea of what is wrong. Otherwise he will lose his right of express warranty (Art. 39 CISG). If the buyer claimed in time the following solutions are posed by the Vienna Convention: The first possibility is the removal of defects through subsequent improvement (Art. 46 (3) CISG). This includes besides the repair or the substitution of missing parts also the delivery of spare parts. But subsequent improvement can not be demanded if it is practically impossible, which occurs if for example the repair is technically not possible, or if it is not reasonable. This is the case when the seller is not the actual manufacturer of the product but only an intermediary.8 Instead of subsequent improvement the buyer has the right to demand compensation delivery according to Art. 46 (2) CISG. This means that the damaged goods will be send back to the seller and the seller sends the goods conform to the contract in substitution.9 But this right is only granted if the goods are basically unchanged (Art. 82 (1) CISG). To protect the seller, compensation delivery is only granted if there is a substantial breach of contract which means that the result is of such detriment to the buyer from what he has expected (Art.
Luxembourg Mauritania Mexico Moldavia Mongolia The Netherlands . Convention apply to The Netherlands with Aruba New Zealand Norway Article 92 regarding Part II. Article 94, when one party has her place of business in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden and the other party has her place of business in another of the mentioned States or Iceland. Peru Poland Romania The Russian Federation Articles 12 and 96, when a party has her place of business in Russian Federation. Singapore Article 95 regarding Article 1(1)(b). Slovakia Article 95 regarding Article 1(1)(b). Slovenia Spain Sweden Article 92 regarding Part II. Article 94, when one party has her place of business in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden and the other party has her place of business in another of the mentioned States or Iceland. Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Uganda Ukraine Articles 12 and 96, when a party has her place of business in Estonia. United States of America Article 95 regarding Article 1(1)(b). Uruguay Uzbekistan Venezuela Zambia 1 e.g. UK and Japan did not bring the Vienna Convention into force 2 Kilian, 2001, 10 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy p. 217 3 Bridge;1999; p.44,45 4 Caemmerer/Schlechtriem, 1994, Art. 1 CISG, p. 28 5 Date : 30.08.2000, Number : 9 U 13/00, Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, available on: http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=511&step=FullText [Access on 17.11.2004] 6 Karollus, 1993, p. 378-379 7 Lehr, 1998, p. 155 8 ibid., p. 150 9 Piltz, 1993, p.56 10 Lehr, 1998, p.151 5
This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree International Law section.
Found what you're looking for?
- Start learning 29% faster today
- 150,000+ documents available
- Just £6.99 a month
- Join over 1.2 million students every month
- Accelerate your learning by 29%
- Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month