Ferrari InteractionUnitedNations 2007

The Interaction between the United Nations Conventions on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods and Domestic Remedies (Rescission for Mistake and Remedies
in Tort Law)
Author(s): Franco Ferrari
Source: Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht / The Rabel
Journal of Comparative and International Private Law , Januar 2007, Bd. 71, H. 1, The
Convention on the International Sale of Goods – The 25th Anniversary: Its Impact in
the Past – Its Role in the Future. German Society of Comparative Law – Private Law
Division Conference 2005: 22–24 September 2005, Würzburg (Januar 2007), pp. 52-80
Published by: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27878639
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27878639?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht / The Rabel
Journal of Comparative and International Private Law
This content downloaded from

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Interaction between the United Nations
Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods and Domestic Remedies
(Rescission for Mistake and Remedies in Tort Law)
By F cO FEnnniu, Verona*
Oft tPft tS
I. Article 2 8 CIS G and Domestic Rules on Specific Peformance 53
II. The CIS G’s Scope of A pplicatioti as a Starting Point for Assessing to IVhat
Extent Domestic Contractual Remedies Can Become Relevan the Introduc-
—t tory V ording of Article 4 58
III. The Article 4(a) ”Validit y-Exception” 60
IV. The Exception to the Validit y-Exception and the Functional Equivalence
best 65
V. Consequences of the Functional Equivalence Test in Respect of Mistake 68
VI. The Interaction Between the CIS G and Domestic Tort Law 71
Final Considern/lons 78
* Thanks are due to Professor H.M. Flechtner for commenting on an earlier version of
tliÎs article.
Literature citated in abbreviated form: VV. Achilles, Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrechtsüber-
einkommen (CISG) (2000); B. André, La vente internationale de marchandises: Conven-
tion des JNations-Unies du 11 avrÎl 1980 (1990); H. Bamberger/I-I. Roth (-I. Saenger), Kom-
mentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch III: §§ 1297-2385, EGBGB, CISG (2003); C.M.
Bianca/M. Bonell, Commentary on the International Sales Law. The 1980 Vienna Sales
Convention (1987) (cited: Bianca/Bonell [-authorfj; M. Bridge, A Commentary on Arâcle S 1—
13 and 78, in: The Draft IINCITRAL Digest and Beyond (below in this note); C. Bren- ner,
ON-Kaufrecht — CISG, Kominentar zum ereinkommen über Verträge über den in-
ternationalen Warenkauf von 1980 (2004); L. Dieu- Picaeo, La compraventa internacional
de mercaderias (1997) (cited: Dieu-Picnzo [-authorfi, The Draft CITRAL Digest and
Beyond: Cases, Analysis and Uriresolved Issues În the U.M. Sales Convention, ed. by F. Fer-
rari et al. (2004); F. Lnderfeirt/D. Mashow/H. Strohbach Internationales Kaufrecht: Kauf-
rechtskonvention, Verjährungskonvention, Vertretuiigskonvention, Rechtsanwendungs-
RabelsZ Bd. 7l (2007) S. 52-80

Ô 2007 Mohr Siebeck— ISSN 0033—7250

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
71 (2007) THE CIS G AND D O MESTI C REMEDIES 53
I. Article 28 CISG and Dorriestic Rules on Specific Performance
Despite some statements in legal writing’ and case law" to the effect that the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
konvention (l 991); C. ffeic, Validity of Contracts Finder the United Nations Convention
on Contracte for the International Sale of Goods, April 11 1980, and Swiss Contract Law:
Vanderbilt J. Transnat. L. 20 (1987) 639; U flèche, La vente internationale de marchandises,
Droit uniforme (2000) (Traité des contrats, ed. bye. Ghestiri), R. Herber/B. Cxemetika, In-
ternationales Kaufrecht, Kommentar zu dem loereirikommen der Vereinten Nationen
vom 11. April 1980 über Vertrage über den internationales Warenkauf(l 991); J. Ilonnold,
Oniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nations Conventions (1999);
H. Ilotisell, Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrecht (1997) (cited: Honsell [-authorfj; D. Kuhlen,
Produkthaftung im internationales Kaufrecht, Entstehungsgeschichte, Anwendungsbe-
reich und Sperrwirkung des Art. 5 des Wiener ON-Kaufrechts (CISG) (1997); P Le yens,
CISG and Mistake: Oniform Law vs. Domestic Law, The Interpretative Challenge of Mis-
take and the Validity Loophole: Review of the Convention on Contracts for the Interna-
tional Sale of Goods (CISG) 2003-2004 (2005) 1-51 (also avaÎlable at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/bibIio/1eyens.htmll); Münchener Kommentar zum
Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, ed. by II. Westermann/ VV. Krüger III (2004) (cited: Münch.
Komm. BGB [-authorfj, Münchener Koinmentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch, ed. by K.
Schmidt VI (2004) (cited: Münch. Komin. HGB [-authorfj; K. Meuinayer/C. Ming, Conven-
tion de Vienne sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises, Commentaire
(1993); H. Rudolph, Kaufrecht der Import- und Exportverträge, Kommentierung des UN-
ereinkommens über internationale Warenkaufverträge mit Hinweisen fiir die Vertrags-
praxis (1996); P Schlechtriem, The Borderland of Tort and Contract — Opening a New
Frontière: CorneI1 Int. L.}. 21 (1988) 467 (cited: Borderland); P !Schlechtriem/I. Schweneer,
Cornmentary on the Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 2. (Eng1.)
ed. (2005) (cited: Schlerfitriein/Schwetizer [-author], Commentary 2005); Û Schlechtriein/I.
Schu'enxer (eds.), Kommentar zum Eiriheitlichen -Kaufrecht — CISG’ (2004) (cited:
Schlechtrietn/Schweneer [-Ferrari], CISG-Konam. 2004); A. Schluchter, Die Gültigkeit von
Kaufverträgen unter dem tJN-Kaufrecht: Wie gestaltet sich die Ergänzung des Eiriheits—
rechts mit deutschen und französischen Nichtigkeitsnormen+ (1996); C. Schmid, Das Zu-
sarrunenspiel von Einheitlichem -Kaufrecht und nationales Recht: Lückenfiillung
und Normerikonkurrenz (1996); J. r. Staudinger (-U. Magnus), Kommentar zum Bürger-
lichen Gesetzbuch init Ein£iihrungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen (Neubearb. 2005), Wiener ON-
Kaufrecht (US G); 6. VValt, for Specific Performance under the United Nations Sales
Convention: Tex. Int. L.J. 26 (1991) 211ff.; W. Verte/H.-Ch. Salger/M. Lorenx, Interna-
tional Einheitliches Kaufrecht (2000) (cited: iVite/Salger/Lorene [-authorfj.
' See, apart from the commentators referred to in the following notes, M. Bradle y et al. ,
The Purposes and Accountability of the Corporation in Contemporary Society: Corpo-
rate Governance at a Crossroads: L. Contemp. Probl. 62 (2000) 9, 82, stating that CISG
“presents a coniprehensive code governing contracts for the international sale of goods”;
for a similar statement, see also L. Start/J. foot, Entry into Force of Transactional Private
Law Treaties AÏfecting Aviation: Case Study — Proposed ONIDROIT/ICAO Convention
as Applied to Aircraft Equipment: J. Air L. Com. 66 (2001) 1403, 1411 n. 30.
See, apart form the decision quoted in note 7, Cour de justice de Genève 15. 11.
2002, available at: fihttp://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urtei1e/853.pl; Schweizerisches
Bundesgericht (BG) 15. 9. 2000, available in English at: fihttp://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/
cases/000915s2.htrn11; Bezirksgericht Laufen 7. 5. 1993, available in English at:
Mhttp://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/930507s1.htmlV.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
54 IRAN CO FERRARI DAB ELS Z
Goods’ (hereinafter “CISG” or “the Convention”)' constitutes “a compre-

hensive code”’ governing all international sales transactions’, that “exhaus-
tively deals with all problems”’ and, therefore, “excludes the additional appli-
cation of domestic law”’, domestic law continues to play an important role in
respect of international sales transactions. This is true not only because the
CISG does not really govern all international sales transactions’, its substantive
sphere of application” being as limited' as its international sphere of applica-
For the English text of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Interna-
tional Sale of Goods, see Int. Leg. Mat. 19 (1980) 668. The text of the other official versions
(i.e. Arab, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish) can be found in: Bianca/Bonell 681—806;
and D. Magraw/R. Kathrein, The Convention for the International Sale of Goods 2, A
Handbook of the Basic Materials (1990) 169-246.
• For a paper exarriining the various acronyms used for CISG in legal writing, see fi.
Flessner/T. Kadner, CISG>, Zur Suche nach einer Abkürzung fiir das Wiener Éibereinkom-
men über Verträge über den internationales Warenkaufvom 11. April 1980: Zeitschrift fuir
Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 3 (1995) 347&.
B. Overby, Contract, in the Age of Sustainable Consumption: J. Corp. L. 27 (2002)
603, 606, according to whom CISG constitutes “a comprehensive code governing interna-
tional sales of goods”
^ See F McNamara, II. M. Sale of Goods Convention: Finally CorrÙng of Agen: Solo.
Law 32 (2003) 11, 16, stating that “the Convention presumptively and automatically gov-
erns all international trade transactions within the CISG’s scope (an international sales
contract)”. In case law see, Càmara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos
Aires 21. 7. 2002, available at: fihttp://cisgw3.1aw.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/020721
al.htrn1W, stating that “the Convention becomes the common law of the international sale
of goods in the countries that adopt it”
Schweizerisches BG 19. 2. 2004, available at: http://wow.uriÎ1ex.info/case.cfm*
pid=1&do=case&id=979&step=FullTextW.
" Schweizerisches BG 19. 2. 2004 (precious note).
for a sirnilar statement, see C. Germain, The United Nations Convention on Contracts
for the International Sale of Goods: Guide to Research and Literature: Int. J. Leg. Informa-
tion 24 (1996) 48, 52, stating that “researchers must acquire some familiarity with any ap-
plicable foreign sales law and choice oflaw rules because the Convention does not deal
with all international sales transactions”; see also II. 'Stanton, How to Bc or lot to Be: The
Oriited Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Article 6:
Cardozo j. Int. Comp. L. 4 (1996) 400, 430.
'” For papers on CISG’s substantive sphère of application, see, e.g., G. De Cora, L’ambito
di applicazione “ratione materiae” della convenzione di Vienna: Riv. trim. dir. proc. civ. 44
(1990) 749W.; S. Höss, Der gegenständliche Anwendungsbereich des DU-Kaufrechts
(1995).
" for this statement, see, among other authors, N. Bell, The Sphere of Application of
the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Pace Int. L. Rev.
8 (1996) 237, 249; K. Giatintiezi, The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods: Temporarily Out of “Service”>: L. Pol. Int. Bus. 28 (1997) 991, 992; M. Torsello,
Common Features of Orñforrn Corrimercial Law Conventions, A Comparative Study be-
yond the 1980 Uniform Sales Law (2004) 15; F Tugge y, The 1980 United Nations Con-
vention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Will a Horrteward Trend
Emerged: Tex. Int. L.J. 21 (1986) 540, 542.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
7t (2007) THE CISG AND DOMESTIC REMEDIES 55
tion'2, but also, and for the purpose of this paper more importantly, because
the scope of application of the CISG is limited' : it does not settle all the issues
that may arise in connection with the transactions to which it applies”.
The relationship between the CISG and domestic law is therefore more
complex than appears from the above quotations. In respect of the specific re-
lationship to be discussed here — between the CISG and domestic law
remedies and defences — the need to look beyond the exclusive application of
either the CISG or domestic law can easily be derived from a provision of the
Convention itself, namely Art. 28. Pursuant to this provision, if, in accord-
ance with the provisions of the CISG, “one party is entitled to require per-
formance of any obligation by the other party, a court is not bound to enter a
judgment for specific performance unless the court would do so under its
own law in respect of similar contracts of sale not governed by this Conven-
tion.”
This provision was intended by the drafters to limit the importance of the
remedy of specific performance" which, in terms of Arts. 46(1) and 62", as
'° For a paper on CISG’s international sphere of application, see K. Siehr, Der interna-
tionale Anwendungsbereich des -Kaufrechts: RabelsZ 52 (1988) S87 W.
'^ See F. Ferrari, International Sales Law and the Inevitability of Forum Shopping: J.L.
Com. 23 (2004) 169, 184 (cited: Int. Sales Law).
" For siiiii1ar statements in legal writing, see Gianriuzxi (supra n. 11) 1016, stating that
CISG does “not provide an ‘exhaustive’ body of rules, nor is it intended to provide solu-
tions to all problems that can originate from an international sale”; see also fi. Atidreason,
MCC-Marble Ceramic Center: The Parol Evidence Rule and Other Domestic Law
Under the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Brigham Young
L. Rev. 1999, 351, 376; A. Esslinger, Contracting in the Global Marketplace: The
Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Limitation Period in
the International Sale of Goods (1999) 69, 79 (American Law Institute— American Bar
As- sociation Course of Study) ; M. Gstoehl, Das Verhdltnis von Gewahrleistung nach -
Kaufrecht und Irrtumsanfechtung nach nationalem Recht: ZRvgl. 1998, 1; Heuxé 83; J.
Loohofsle y, Loose End and Contorts in International Sales: Problems in the Harmorñzation
of Private Law Rules: Am. J. Comp. L. 39 (1991) 403, 404; P Smart, Formation of Con-
tracts in Louisiana Under the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of
Goods: La. L. Rev. 53 (1993) 1339, 1346; Schlechtriem/Schwetixer (- Schlechtriein), Commen-
tary 2005, Art. 4 p. 63-64); Hi Schroeter, Freedom of contract: Comparison between pro-
visions of USG (Article 6) and counterpart provisions of the Principles of European Con-
tract Law: Vindobona J. Int. Com. L. Arbitr. 2002, 257, 263; S. lf'alt, Implementing
ClSG’s Scope Provisions: Validity and Three-Party Cases: UCC L.J. 35 (2002) 43. In case
law, see Kammergericht (KG) Nidwalden 23. 5. 2005, available at: http://www.cisg-on-
line.ch/cisg/urtei1e/1086.p .
" For a similar a&rmation, see F. Akaddaj Application of the United Nations Conven-
tion on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) to Arab Islamic Countries: Is
the CISG Compatible with Islamic Law Principles+. Pace Int. L. Rev. 13 (2001) 1, 40;
Bambergei’/Roth (- Saeriger) Art. 28 CISG (p. 2803); Diem-'icaeo (-A. Cabanillas Sânchee)
Art. 28 (pp. 229-231) ; Rudolph 193; P kinship, Domesticating International Commercial
Law: devising DCC Article 2 in Light of the Sales Convention: Loyola L. Rev. 37
(1991) 43, 68.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
56 FRANC O FERRARI
emphasised in case law", is routinely available under the CISG’", independent

of the kind of obligation that is breached, as long as that obligation relates to
the performance of the contract'’. By allowing courts to refrain from ordering
specific performance where they would not do so under their own law, the
drafters of the Convention tried to reach a comprorriise" between those juris-
dictions, generally associated with common-law countries”, such as Eng-
land22, where the primary remedy is an award of damages, and those (basically,
civil 1aw)z’ jurisdictions, where courts will grant specific performance more
routinely. This compromise does not mean, however, that courts are pro-
hibited from entering a judgment for specific performance when they would
* J. Catalario, More Fiction than Fact: The Perceived Differences in the Application of
Specific Performance under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Interna-
tional Sale of Goods. Tul. L. Rev. 71 (1997) 1807, 1809; Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach
Art. 28 (p. 107); S. Stijns/R. Dan Ransbeeck, De rechtsmiddelen (algemeen), in: Het Weens
Koopverdrag, ed. by Cf. ras flor//e et al. (1997) 191, 205.
" See Magellan International v. Salzgitter Handel, O. S. District Court, (N.D., III.), Eastern
Division, 7 December 1999, available at: < http://www.cisg.1aw.pace.edu7cisg/wais/db/
cases2/991207u1.htm11.
'^ For a paper convincingly arguing that the remedy of specific performance is routinely
available under CISG, see VValt 211ff.
'" Thus, Art. 28 CISG does not apply, for instance, in respect of the obligation to pay
damages; see D/ez-Picazo (- Cabanillas Sânchex) Art. 28 (p. 231); H. Tti. Soeïgel (-A. Ltîderite/
C. Budzikiewicz), BürgerlÎches Gesetzbuch mit E tihrungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen”,
ed. by V . Siebert/]. F. Baur XIII (2000) Art. 28 CISG (pp. 57-58); Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger)
Art. 28 CISG . 2803); Site/Salger/Lorenx (-H. Salger) Art. 28 (pp. 221-226).
°" for this qualificaton of Art. 28 CISG, $ee Achilles 73; A#adda/(supra n. 15) 40; fi. Be-
jeshy, The Evolution in and International Convergence of Specific Performance in Three
Types of States: Ind. Int. Comp. L. Rev. l3 (2003) 353, 401; Münch. Korrim. HGB (- C.
Beiiicke) Art. 28 CISG tpp. 485, 486); B. Botzenhardt, Die Auslegung des BegriWs der
wesendichen Vertragsverletzung im UN-Kaiifrecht (1998) 54; Catalano (supra n. 16) 1813;
Etidetleiri/Maskow/Strohbach Art. 28 (p. 107); D. Frisch, Commercial Common Law, the
United Nations Convention on the International Sales of Goods, and the Inertia of Habit:
Tul. L. Rev. 74 (1999) 495, 545; H. Gabriel, General provisions, obligations of the seller,
and remedies for breach of contract by the seller, in: The Draft tJNCITRAL Digest and
Beyond 336, 342; Æ. Garro /A. Suppr, Compraventa international de mercaderias (1990)
121; I-ïerber/Cxenvenka 56; Hetieé 359; Honnold Art. 48 tp. 318); Rudolph 196.
°' See Dieu- Picazo (-Cabanillas Sànchex) Art. 28 (p. 232); Carro/Zuppi (precious note)
141&.; Honsell (-M. Karollus) Art. 28 (pp. 298-301); Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 28 CISG
(p. 2803); Stijns/ Van Ransbeeck (supra n. 16) 207; hall 218; for a comparative analysis ofspe—
cific performance in the US and in England, see, most recently, Bejesk'ÿ (previous note)
P. Piliounis, The Remedies of Specific Performance, Price Reduction and Additional

Time (Nachfrist) under the USG: Are these worthwhile changes or additions to English
Sales Laws: Pace Int. L. Rev. 12 (2001) 1, 10.
°° It should be noted, however, that many authors (see, e.g., Schlechtriem/Schivenzei’ [-M.
Mullen- Chen], Commentary 2005, Art. 28 [pp. 316, 317]) overlook that not all civil law ju—
risdictions follow the same rules; in Italy, for instance, specific performance is not readily
available “in respect of similar contracts of sale”; in this respect, see A. Fusaro, Commento
a11’art. 28 della Convenzione di Vienna: Nuove Leggi civili conirrientate 1989, 117, 118.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
7t (2007) THE CIS G AND DOMESTI C REMEDIES 57
not do so under their own law; rather, they have a discretion 2’ to grant specific
performance even if they would not do so under their own law°'. Indeed,
Art. 28 shows clearly that “courts are not obliged not to enter such a judg-
ment ”2’; an obligation merely exists where the courts would enter such a
judgment under their own 1aw 2’. In the latter case, “Art. 28 gives no discre-
tion to a court. If specific relief would be ordered under [domestic law], a
court must make the remedy available under the CISG. The injured buyer,
not the court, has discretion by way of electing between remedies ” 2'. The ob-
ligation to order specific performance thus depends on the court’s “own law
in respect of similar contracts of sale not governed by this Convention”, i.e.,
on the substantive law of the forum2’; the private international law rules of the
forum are not to be taken into account”; “[a] ny other interpretation would
defeat the apparent purpose of Article 28 of respecting the legal traditions of
the forum State””.
It should be evident from the foregoing that there is much more interaction
between the CISG and domestic law in general, and domestic law remedies
in particular, than suggested by the quotations referred to above' 2. In the
context of Art. 28, the interaction goes even so far as to create a potential for
“forum shopping”'”, due to the fact that an obligation to grant specific
performance depends, as mentioned, on the substantive law of the forum"".
°• Heuxé ?60; O. Lando, Salient Features of the Principles of European Contract Law: A
Cornparison with the UCC: Pace Int. L. Rev. 13 (2001) 339, 350; VVite/Salger (-Salger)
Art. 28 (p. 225).
^ See Eaderfeiri/Euston'/Sfrohhncfi Art. 28 (p. 108); A. Barro, Cases, Analyses and Unre-
solved Issues in Articles 25-34, 45-52, in: The Draft CITRAL Digest and Beyond 362,
368; Honsell (-Karollus) Art. 28 (p. 307); Bianca/Bonell (-Cando) Art. 28 (pp. 232, 237); Neo-
mayer/Ming 230; Piliounis (supra n. 22) 18; Batnberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 28 CISG
(p. 2804); Stijns/ Can Ransbeecb (supra n. 16) 207.
°^ 'Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 28 (p. 305).
°! C!atalano (supra n. 16) 1820.
°" Catalano (supra n. 16) 1818-1819; Dieu-Ficaxo (-Cabanillas Sânchee) Art. 28 (p. 231);
Ferrari, Int. Sales Law (supra n. 13) 189; Heuxé 360 n. 153; Honnofd Art. 28 pp. 223-224);
Honsell (-Ka ollus) Art. 28 (p. 303); P Schlechtriem, Oriiform Sales Law, The UN-Conven-
tion on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1986) 63; lnft 219.
°" Münch. Komm. HGB (-Benicbe) Art. 28 CISG (p. 487); Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach
Art. 28 (pp. 108-109); he0ze 360; A. Kastely, The Right to Acquire Performance in Inter—
national Sales: Towards an International Interpretation of the Vienna Convention: Wash. L.
Rev. 63 (1988) 607, 637; Renvoyer/Mirtg 230; Rudolph 199; With/Salgeï/Loïerix (-Salger)
Art. 28 (p. 225).
^' Bainberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 28 CISG (p. 2804); see also C arro (supra n. 25) 369;
Honsell (-Karollus) Art. 28 (p. 303); VValt 219.
^° See supra the text accompanying notes 5J.
^^ See Catalano (supra n. 16) 1530; Pifiourtis (supra n. 22) 17;J. êtes, The kennedy ofRe-
quiring Performance under the CISG and the Redevance of Domestic Rules: Ariz. j. Int.
Comp. L. 13 (1996) 253, 305; VValt 230.
°• See supra the text accompanying notes 29f.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
58 IRAN CO FERRARI
II. The CISG’s Scope of Application as a Starting Point for

Assessing to What Extent Domestic Contractual Remedies Can
Become Relevant — The Introductory Wording of Article 4
Article 28 is the only provision within the Convention that expressly deals
with the impact of a (specific) domestic 1aw remedy on the CISG. This does
not necessarily mean that the Convention contains no other provisions allow-
ing assessment of whether and, if so, to what extent, there can be interaction
between the CISG and (other) domestic contractual remedies and defences.
In this author’s opinion, it merely means that the impact of other provisions is
less apparent than that of Art. 28.
The provision most often referred to when assessing the extent of the
aforementioned interaction is Art. 4 — a provision that, more than any other,
defines the CISG’s scope of application°^ (as opposed to its sphère of applica-
tion)“. This cornes as no surprise, as Art. 4 distinguishes the matters governed
by the CISG from (some oÇ those that it does not govern' 7, thus drawing a
line that necessarily impacts on the interaction between the Convention and
domestic law in general, and dornestic contractual remedies and defences in
particular. Unfortunately, however, this line is not as clear as one may wish it
were.
In terms of Art. 4, CISG “governs only the formation of the contract ofsale
and the rights and obligations of the seller and the buyer arising from such a
contract. In particular, except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Conven- tion, it is not concerned with: (a) the validity of the contract or of
any of its provisions or of any usage; (b) the effect which the contract may
have on the property in the goods sold.” At first sight, this provision does not
seem to pose great difEculties", at least “as regards those aspects expressly
referred to””.
°' See Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG—Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (pp. 99-100).

°^ Arguing in favour of a clear distinction between CISG’s sphere of application and its
scope of application, see, e.g., Schlechtriem/Schweneer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Vor
Artt. 1-6 (pp. 41-42); fi Schlechtriem, Anwendungsvoraussetzungen und Anwendungsbe-
reich des CJN-Übereinkommens über Verträge über den internationalen Warerikauf
(CISG): Aktuelle juristische Praxis 1992, 339, 340; Schlechter 25; Schmid 29.
°' For a court decision expressly stating that Art. 4 CISG does not identify all issues ex-
cluded from CISG’s scope of application, see Oberster Gerichtshof(O GH) 22. 10. 2001, (1
Ob 77/01g) available in English at: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/
011022a3.html . For papers on the matters not governed by CISG, see F. Ferrari, juris-
prudence concernant les questions non abordées par la CVIM: Int. Bus. L.J. 1998, 835P.
(cited: jurisprudence); ff. Mather, Choice of Law for International Sales Issues not Re-
solved by the CISG: j. L. Com. 20 (2001) 155&.; C. Wite, CVIM: Interprétation et ques-
tions non couvertes: Int. Bus. L.j. 2001, 253ff.
'" For this assessment, see C. Mastellotie, Sales-Related Issues not Covered by the CISG:
Assignment, Set-oft, Statute of Limitations, etc., under Italian Law: Vindobona J. Int.
Com. L. Arbitr. 7 (2001) 143, 143; see also Gstoehl (supra n. 14) 1. It should be noted that

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
71 (2007) THE CISG AND D OMESTIC REMEDIES 59
However, quite the contrary is true", particularly as far as the interaction be-
tween the CISG arid domestic contractual remedies and defences, such as
mistake, is concerned.
Some commentators appear to exclude issues such as mistake (as well as du-
ress and fraud) from the GISG’s scope of application on the sole ground that
Art. 4 expressly identifies the “only” matters it governs and that rriistake (like
fraud and duress) is not expressly referred to“. This is far too simplistic and,
ultimately, untenable. In effect, despite the wording of Art. 4, the matters
listed are not the only ones the CISG is concerned with’z. It is therefore incor-
rect to state, as some courts have done”, that the Convention governs only the
listed matters". In this respect it may suffice to recall that Art. 8 sets forth rules
relating to the interpretation of any statement or conduct of a party, i.e., rules
relating to an issue that does not concern any of the matters listed in the first
part of Art. 4*. Moreover, the issue dealt with in Art. 29 CISG (modification
one commentator even considers Art. 4 to be superBuous: see Bianca/Bonell (- IV. thoo)
Art. 4 (pp. 44-45).
^" Schlechtriem/Schweneer (- Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 65).
•° See also Leyens; Mastellone (supra n. 38) 144.
•' See J. Klein/C. Bachechi, Precontractual Liability and the Duty of Good Faith Nego-
tiation in International Transactions: Houston J. Int. L. 17 (1994) l , 20 n. 144, “Art. 4
CISG states that it governs ‘only formation of the contract and the rights and obligations of
the parties to the contract.’ . It does not govern the validity of the contract. The drafting
history suggest that this article also excludes issues arising out of fraud, duress, illegality and
mistake”; see also Esslinger (supra n. 14) 79; D. Goderre, International Negotiations Gone
Sour: Precontractual Liability Under the United Nations Sales Convention: O. Cin. L.
Rev. 66 (1997) 257, 257 n. 4.
•° See Schlechtriem/Schweneer (-Ferrari), CISG-Koinm. 2004, Art. 4 (pp. 101-102);
Schlechtriem/Scl1weneer (- Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 64).
'° See Tribunal (Trib.) cantonal Valais 19. 8. 2003, available in English at: fihttp:/7
cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/030819s1.htm11; Cour de Cassation (Cass.)
5. 1. 1999, available in English at: fihttp:7/cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases27
909105f1.html (stating that “the Convention applies to international contracts for the
sale of goods and governs exclusively the rights and obligations which such a contract gives
rise to between the seller and the buyer”) ; Cour d’appe1 Paris 22. 4. 1992, available at:
<http://witz.jura.uni-sb.de/CISG/decisions/220492a.html (stating the same) .
^• For uncritical statements in legal writing that refer to the fact that CISG “governs only
the formation of the contract of sale and the rights and obligations of the seller and the
buyer arising from such contract,” see G. Brussel, The 1980 United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Legislative Study of the North-South De-
bates: N.Y. Int. L. Rev. 6 (1993) 53, 72; balder (supra n. 37) 159; ñ Smart (supra n. 14)
1346; fi. Speidel, The Revision of DCC Article 2, Sales in Light of the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods: Nw. J. Int. L. Bus. 16 (1995)
165, 179; M. Tessitore, The O.N. Convention on International Sales and the Seller’s Ineffec-
tive Right of Reclamation under the U. S. Bankruptcy Code. Willamette L. Rev. 35 (1999)
367, 377; N Turner, Osinor Industeel v. Leeco Steel Products, Inc.: N.Y. Int. L. Rev. 17
(2004) 103, 106.
^^ For a similar statement, see also Schlechtriem/Schwerixer (-Fenari), CISG-Komm. 2004,
Art. 4 (p. 102); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (- Schleclltriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 64).

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
60 IRAN CO FERRARI
of contracts) cannot be classified as one of the matters listed in the first part of
Art. 4 either".
It may therefore be more appropriate to interpret the reference to the mat-
ters the CISG is “only” concerned with as implying that these matters are
“without any doubt” governed by the Convention’ 7. In respect of the issue of
“formation of the contract of sale”, however, this statement has to be further
qualified: it is commonly stated both in legal writing’" and case law" that the
CISG merely governs the (external) mechanism” by means of which con-
tracts are concluded", i.e., the objective requirements for the conclusion of
the contract’2 rather than subjective requirements".
The above statements reveal that the introductory wording of Art. 4 is not
particularly helpful for the purpose of assessing whether, and to what extent,
there is interaction between the CISG and domestic contractual remedies,
such as rescission for mistake; i.e., to what extent there is pre-emption or
concurrence of the CISG and domestic contractual remedies.
III. The Article 4(a) “Validity-Exception”
According to many commentators, the relationship between domestic

contractual remedies and defences, such as mistake, fraud and duress, and
CISG remedies has to be solved on the basis of a different part of Art. 4 —
^^ See Schluchter 27.

^° For this conclusion, see also F. Ferrari, Scope of application: Articles 4—5, in: The Draft
CITRAL Digest and Beyond 96-97.
^" See B uriner 36; F. Bydlinsk'i, Das allgemeine Vertragsrecht, in: Das CITRAL—
Kaufrecht im Vergleich zum österreichischen Recht, ed. by P Doralt (1985) 57-60;
Münch. Komm. HGB (-Ferrari) Vor Art. 14 CISG (pp. 401-402); B. titre, Internationales
Kaufrecht, Das EN-Kaufrecht (Wiener Übereirikommen von 1950) in praxisorientierter
Darstellung (1993) 71; Stoffel, Formation du contrat, in: Wiener Übereinkommen von
1980 über den internationalen Warenkauf, Lausanner Kolloquium vorrt 19. und 20. Mo-
vember 1984 (1985) 55-56.
* See Cour d’appel de Liège 28. 4. 2003, available in English at: fihttp://
cisgw3.1aw.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/030428b1.htmll; OGH 22. 10. 2001 (1 Ob
77/01 g) (supra n. 37), available in English at: fihttp://cisgw3.1aw.pace.edu7cisg/wais/db /
cases2/011022a4.htrn1V .
^° See Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Graz 24. 2. 1999, available at: http://www.cisg-on-
line.ch/cisg/urtei1e/797.pl.
^' See, apart from the authors quoted supra (n. 48), I-Ierber/ Cxenveiika 32; M. Karollus,
N—Kaufrecht, Eine systematische Darstellung fÎir Studium und Praxis (1991) 55; Plan-
diriger (-Magnum) Art. 4 (p. 122); VVitz/Salger/Lorenx (-M. Lorene) Art. 4 (pp. 52, 58).
^" See OGH 22. 10. 2001, (1 Ob 49/01i), available at: fihttp://wow.cisg.at/
1_490l i.html ; 6. 2. 1996, available at: < http:/7www.cisg.at/10 51895.html ; Zivîlge—
richt Kanton Basel 21. 12. 1992, Baseler Juristische Mitteilungen 1993, 310, also available
at http:7/cisgw3.1aw.pace.edu/cases/921221st.htm11.
^ See Schlechtrietn/Schwerieer (- Sclllechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 64).

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
7I (2007) THE CISG AND DOMESTIC REMED IES 61
namely, that which lays down the so-called “validity exception””, according
to which “except as otherwise expressly provided in this Convention, it is not
concerned with: (a) the validity of the contract”. This does not mean,
however, that there is consensus on how the validity-exception impacts upon
the said relationship: commentators disagree on the interpretation of the term
“validity”, the vagueness of which hasled some writers to argue not only that
the validity-exception “poses ‘a particular danger’ to the development of a
uniform and coherent jurisprudence under the Convention””, but also that it
is a potential “black hole” for the Convention". The interaction of CISG
remedies and domestic contractual remedies and defences (i.e., the issue of
the pre-emption or concurrence of the CISG and domestic contractual
remedies and defences) appears to turn, in other words, on the interpretation
of the term “validity ”’7, the importance of which becomes evident if one
considers the wide variety of definitions that can be found in the various na-
tional legal systems'”.
Some commentators do not appear to recognize this and very simplistically
(and without any justification) equate mistake (and fraud and duress) with
some kind of “invalidity””. They therefore exclude mistake (as well as the
"^ For this expression, see I-I. Flechtner, The Several Texts of the CISG in a Decentralized
System: Observations on Translations, Reservations and other Challenges to the Uniform-
ity Principle in Article 7(1): J.L. Com. 17 (1997) 187, 198; H. Hartnell, Rousing the Sleep-
ing Dog: The Validity Exception to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods: Yale j. Int. L. 18 (1993) 1; F Konero, The International Interpretation of the
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: An Approach Based on
General Principles: Minnesota J. Global Trade 6 (1997) 105, 107; Leyens,]. lf'est/]. Ohrie-
sorge, The 1980 PIN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Com-
parative Analysis of Consequences of Accession by the Republic of Korea: Transnat. Law.
12 (1999) 63, 70; F 1ei/emaan, Validity and Excuse in the O.N. Sales Convention: j. L.
Com. 16 (1997) 2b5, 281.
^^ Flechtner 199; see also I-Iarttiell 7 (both previous note).
^" See F kinship, Commentary on Professor Kastely’s Rhetorical Analysis: Nw. J. Int. L.
Bus. 8 (1988) 623, 636.
^' See also Le yens, Sclimid 37.
^" For a recent comparative overview of the existing concepts of validity in general, and
mistake in particular, see E. Kramer, Der lrrtum beim Vertragsschluss: Eine weltweit rechts-
vergleichende Bestandsaufnahme (1998).
*" See B. Crawford/]. hich, Going International: International Trade for the Nonspecial-
ist, New Rules for Contracting in the Global Market Place: the CISG (1989) 115, 124
(American Law Institute— American Bar Association Course of Study), simply asserting
that “Article 4 . .. states that USG does not govern rules of validity: mistake, duress, fraud,
etc.”; Muther (supra n. 37) 161-162, stating that “[w]ith respect to a number of issues, it is
generally agreed that they are validity issues and are not expressly addressed by the CISG
rules. A list of such issues includes: .. . fraud and rriisrepresentation; duress and (7) mis-
take” (footnotes omitted); J. Murray, The Definitive “Battle of the Forms”: Chaos Re-
visited: J.L. Com. 20 (2000) 1, 2 n. 11, stating that “CISG does not deal with ‘validity’
issues such as mistake, fraud, duress or unconscionability”; G. Sakata, Sounds of Silence
Bellow Forth Under the CISG’s International Battle of Forms: Transnat. Law. 7 (1994) 141,

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
62 GRAN CO £ERRARI
other contractual defences referred to) from the CISG’s scope of application,
and suggest that the applicable domestic law should deal with it".
Most commentators, however, approach the issue as one (largely) relating
to the interpretation of the term “validity”; in other words, they deal with the
issue by asking therriselves: “Should we interpret ‘validity’ as it would be in-
terpreted parochially? Or, should we be true to the requirement of autono-
mous interpretation and insist upon a construction that transcends any Con-
tracting State?”” Not surprisingly, the replies to these questions show that
“two diametrically opposed approaches to Art. 4(a) of CISG have develo-
ped””.
Some scholars argue that since the CISG specifically excludes “validity”
from its scope of application, the concept of “validity” is a purely domestic
concept", thus “emphasiz[ing] the negative rule of CISG article 4(a) (‘not
concerned with’)”” and completely disregarding its positive part (“except as
otherwise expressly provided”). Consequently, “whether [a party] can avoid
the contract on the ground of his mistake is .. . not determined by the Con-
148, stating that the Convention “does not, however, cover the validity of the contract and
issues such as fraud, duress, illegality, and mistake”; Speidel (supra n. 44) 173, stating that
“the CISG is not concerned with the ‘validity’ of the contract or of any of its provisions or
of any usage. This excludes defenses that the contract is against public policy or should be
avoided because of mistake, fraud, duress, or unconscionability” (footnotes omitted).
^" See Bell (supra n. 11) 252, stating that the “CISG is not concerned with the validity of
the agreement (unless otherwise expressly provided in the Convention) or of any of its pro-
visions, leaving such issues as error, mistake, fraud, duress, unconscionability, and illegality
to be determined solely by the application of municipal law”; I Dodge, Teaching the
CISG in Contracts: J. Leg. Ed. 50 (2000) 72, 78, stating that the CISG “is expressly not
concerned with questions of validity, which means that domestic law continues to govern
such issues as incapacity, fraud, duress, mistake, and unconscionability.”
^' J. Murray, ]r. , The Neglect of CISG: A Workable Solution: J.L. Com. 17 (1998) 365,
372.
°° See L. Longobardi, Disclaimers of Irnplied Warranties: The 1980 United Nations Con-
vention on Contracts for the International Safe of Goods: Fordham L. Rev. 53 (1985) 863,
867-868, stating that “certain issues raised by [sales] transactions, however, are specifically
excluded from [the CISG’s] scope. If the domestic law that would govern the contract ab-
sent the Convention places in question ‘the validity of the contrast or of any of its provi-
sions’, the issue of validity must be determined under that domestic law” (footnotes
ornitted). For other commentators interpreting the term “validity” nationalistically, see By-
dfíttsbi (supra n. 48) 85ff.; i-f. Grigeia Naóa, The CM Convention on Contracts for the In-
ternational Safe of Goods, in: The Transnational Law of International Comercial Trans-
actions, cd. by N Hom/C. M. NrfirniffioQ (1982) 89, 123 (Studies in Transnational Econ-
orriic Law, 2); fi. Lessiak, ClTRAL-Kaufrechtsabkominen und Irrtumsanfechtung: J.
B1. 1989, 487, 492f.; C. Reinhart, -Kaufrecht: Kommentar zum ereinkommen der
Vereinten Mationen vom 11. April 1980 über Vertràge über den internationalen Waren-
kauf (1991) 23.
"• Le yens.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
7t (2007) THE CIS G AND D O MESTI C REMEDIES 63
vention but rather by the applicable domestic law”". According to some

scholars"", this view is supported, on the one hand, by the fact that the CISG’s
drafters discussed the inclusion of rules on rnistake, fraud, duress, etc., to be
found in the so-called Draft Law for the Harmonization of Certain Rules
Relating to the Validity of Contracts of International Sale of Goods‘ 7 and
eventually decided against their inclusion, and, on the other hand, by the fact
that the BISG’s drafters opted against the retention of Art. 34 of the Uniform
Law for the International Sale of Goods"" (hereinafter “UILIS”), according
to which domestic remedies that could apply to cases of mistake were
excluded under ULIS”.
The aforementioned arguments, however, are unconvincing. The decision
not to deal with the matters governed by the so-called Draft Law for the
Har- monization of Certain Rules Relating to the Validity of Contracts
ofInterna- tional Sale of Goods was not so much due to the drafters’
intention to leave those matters to domestic law, but rather due to their
intention to avoid un- duly delaying the drafting process of the CISG7 . The
reason, on the other hand, for not including a provision similar to Art. 34
ULIS was that “the Working Group found that its rule went too far. The
drafters feared that the exclusion would also apply to remedies for mistake
that are explicitly or im- plicitly agreed by the parties. Thus, the underlyîng
idea of the non-inclusion of art. 34 ULIS was to honour party autonomy and
leave open the issue of a coriflict between domestic and uniform remedies ”7’.
Consequently, it is not possible to infer from the legislative history of the
CISG a clear intent on the part of its drafters to allow parties always to rely
on the domestic defence of mistake, duress, fraud, etc”. Neîther is it
possible to infer that the term “validity” should not be interpreted havirig
regard to the CISG’s “international character and to the need to promote
uniforinity in its application”. There is
^•“ Bianca/Bonell (-A. Farnsu'orth) Art. 8 tpp. 95, 102); see also Bianca/Bonell (- G. Eörsi)
Art. 14 (pp. 132, 140): “In fact, rriistake belongs to the sphère ofvalidity of the contract and,
since the issue of validity is excluded from the Convention (art. 4(a)) the rules of the appli-
cable domestic law of the contract bearing on mistake have to be applied.”
^^ See Neurnayer/'Mirig 72.
^7 For the text of this draft, seeJ. ffonnofd, Documentary History of the Oniform for In-
ternational Sales (1989) 268f.
^^ See the Convention Relating to a Oniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, 1
July 1964, United Nations Treaty Series 834:1972 (1977) 107.
^ For this justification, see: L. ron Cnemmerer, Vertragspflichten und Vertragsgültigkeit
im international Einheitlichen Kaufrecht, in: Festschrift (FS) Beitzke (1979) 35, 41ff.; Ka-
rollus (supra n. 51) 42; Lessiak (supra n. 63) 490; Neuma/er/Ming 72 n. 16.
'° For this statement, see also deyetis; Schlechtriem/Schwenxet (-Schlechtriem), Commen-
tary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 64); see also International Sale of Goods, Report of the Working
Group of its rùnth session (1977), NCITRAL Yearbook IX:1978 (1981) 61, 65f.
7' Legens.
7° See also Gstoehl (supra n. 14) 3; Stauditiger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p. 133); Schleclltriem/
S hwenxer(-Schwerizer), Commentary 2005, Art. 35 (pp. 410, 430).

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
64 FRANCO FERRARI ABELS Z
no indication in the legislative history that in respect of “validity” interpreta-

tive rules other than those set forth in Art. 7(1) have to be applied”; the term
“validity”, like most expressions employed by the GISG 7', also has to be inter-
preted in an “autonomous” manner 7’. Most recently, the U. S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York attempted to define the concept (au-
tonomously) in Cerieva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr tabs. Inc.“; on this
occasion, the Court stated that a validity issue is “any issue by which the do-
mestic law would render the contract void, voidable, or unenforceable ”7'.
'" For papers on the interpretation of CISG, see, among others,J. Goddnrd, Reglas de in—
terpretación de la Convención sobre Compraventa Internacional de Mercaderías: Revista
de investigaciones jurídicas 14 (1990) 9ff.; G. Bisazza, Auslegung des Wiener -Kauf-
rechts unter Berücksichtigung auslándischer Rechtsprechung, Ein amerikanisches Beispiel:
European Legal Forum 2004, 380tT.; M. Bonell, L’interpretazione del diritto uniforme alla
luce deI1’art. 7 della convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale: Riv. dir. civ. 1986,
221W. ; 5. look, Note, The Reed for Oniform Interpretation of the 1980 United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: O. Pittsburgh L. Rev. 1988,
l97ff.; J. Felemegas, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International
Sale of Goods: Article 7 and Oriiform Interpretation: Review of CISG 2000/2001, 115ff.;
F. Ferrari, Gap-fllling and Interpretation of the CISG: Overview of International Case Law:
Vindobona J. Int. Com. L. Arbitr. 2003, 63f£.; id., Interprétation uniforme de la Conven-
tion de 1980 sur la vente internationale: Rev. int. dr. comp. 1996, 813P.; L. Grn@, L’inter-
pretazione autonoma della Convenzione di Vierina: rilevanza del precedente straniero e
disciplina della lacune: Giur. merito 2004, 873W. ; A. Canellas, La interpretación y la inte-
gración de la Convención de Viena sobre la compraventa internacional de mercaderías, de
11 abril de 1980 (2004); M. Penales Viscasillas, Una aproximación al artículo 7 de la Conven-
ción de Viena de 1980 sobre compraventa internacional de mercaderías. Quadernos de
derecho y comercio 1995, 55ff.; Ú Schlechtriem, Interpretation, Gap-filling and Further De-
velopment of the EN Sales Convention: Pace Int. L. Rev. 16 (2004) 279f ; E khan.g, Prin-
ciples of interpretation of a urúform law and functions of travaux préparatoires, comrnen-
taries and case collections for interpretation of a uniform law, in. UNCITRAL, Oniform
Commercial Law in the Twenty-First Century, Proceedings of the Congress of the OMCI-
TRAL, loew York, 18-22 May 1992 (1995) 41.
'• For a paper identifying some of the expressions to be interpreted domestically, see F.
ferrari, CISG Case Law: A New Challenge for Interpreters+: J.L. Com. 17 (1998) 245,
248ff.
'^ For this conclusion, see Bridge 235, 243-244; Srfifecfitriem/Scl1weneer -Ferrari), CISG-
Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (p. 104); Klein 660f.; Bianca/Botiell (-Whoo) Art. 4 (p. 48); Diez-P'ícano (-
L. A] uria) Art. 4 tpp. 72, 77); Schlechtriem, Oniform Sales Law (supra n. 29) 32; Schlecht-
riem /Schwenxer (- Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 65); Schlucllter 45; Schmid 43.
7 ^ Ceneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Bate La hs. Inc. , 201 F.Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N. Y, 10
May 2002), also available at: Mhttp://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db7cases2/020510

ut.htrn1>.
' 7 The definition referred to in the text was borrowed from ffarfne// (supra n. 54) 45, a
paper that the C.S. court has expressly referred to.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
71 (2007) THE CISG AND DOMESTIC REMEDIES 65
IV. The Exception to the Validity-Exception and

the Functional Equivalence Test
It must be doubted, however, whether resorting to this definition (or any

other, for that matter) is sufficient to determîne whether domestic contractual
remedies can coexist with the CISG or whether the latter pre-empts any such
remedy or defence'". In this author’s opinion, to solve that dilernma, one
must rather rely on the part of Art. 4 that provides for the exception to the
validité- exception, î.e., where it is stated that “except as otherwise expressly
provided in this Convention”, the CISG is not concerned with validity. In terms
of this wording, even where a dispute concerns a matter that qualifies as one
of “validity” (in an autonomous sense), and thus is apparently excluded
from the CISG’s scope of application, the CISG cannot simply be disregarded
in favour of domestic law remedies”. Rather, one must first examine whether
the Con- vention provides an “express” solution to the specific problem in
question’°. In other words, one has to focus more closely on the positive rule of
Art. 4 , rather than on the negative (“it is not concerned with”).
At first sight, this approach seems to favour the clairri that the CISG is not
concerned with domestic remedies, such as rescission for mistake, fraud and
duress, since nowhere does it “expressly” refer to the fact that it governs thèse
issues' 2. The lack of any “express” reference, however, is not at all conclusive,
since “except as otherwise expressly provided in this Convention” “should
not be taken to mean only those of the Convention’s provisions that expressly
indicate a deviation from domestic law or the validity of an obligation despite
the domestic prohibition””. “It is quite obvious . . . that no express, even if
anonymous, rejection of certain national concepts can be demanded .. . It is
suŒcient that the CISG contains other options to settle the problem.””
This view is corroborated by the way that the CISG deals with form re-
quirements"". When it provides that “[a] contract of sale need not be con-
cluded in or evidenced by writing and is not subject to any other requirement
'" See also cfimid 44.

'" For this conclusion, see also Schlechtriem /Schwenxer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004,
Art. 4 (p. 103).
"° See Ferrari, Jurisprudence (supra n. 37) 836.
"' See also Le yens.
"' See Lessiak (supra n. 63) 493.
^^ Srhlechti i'em, Uniform Sales Law (supra n. 29) 33.
^• F. Enderlein/D. Maskow, Uniform Sales Law, United Nations Convention on Con-
tracts for the International Sale of Goods, in: Convention on the Limitation Period in the
International Sale of Goods (1991) 40. For a similar statement, see also, K. Flesch, Mangel-
haftung und Beschaffenheitsirrtum beim Kauf (1994) 148; Schmid 46.
"° For recent papers dealing with form requirements under the CISG, see F Ferrari,
Writing requirements: Articles 11-13, in: The Draft CITRAL Digest and Beyond
206ff.; id. , Form und IN-Kaufrecht: Internationales Handelsrecht (IHR) 4 (2004) lR.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
66 ERAN CO £ERRARI
as to form”, Art. 11 does not “expressly” provide that, contrary to Art. 4(a), it
deals with something that can be analogized to a validity issue’^. Nevertheless,
there is no doubt at all that “[a] rticle 11 replaces domestic rules which make
validity conditional on the observance of requirements as to form and which
therefore render contracts invalid, void, or voidable (but possibly curable)
where those requirements are not met ”' 7
In the light of these remarks, the following rule can be established to deal
with the pre-emption or coexistence of the CISG and domestic contractual
remedies and defences: where, in relation to a specific set of facts, the CISG
provides solutions that are exhaustive" and functionally equivalent" to the
otherwise applicable domestic remedies, the CISG pre-empts recourse to
those domestic remedies"°. This approach is confirmed by the UNCITRAL
Secretariat Commentary on the Draft Convention", and operates indepen-
dently from any domestic labelling of the specific issue in question’2 (as one of
validity, non-performance, etc.). It best allows one to “give to the CISG the
^^ For a similar statement in legal writing, see Reinhart (supra n. 63) 22; Rudolph 117. In
case law see Tribunale (Trib.) Padova 31. 3. 2004, available in English at:
<http:7/cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/040331i3.htm11: “[I] t is observed
that documental proof of the conclusion of the contract of sale exists. In addition, it is not
necessary, with respect to the validity, that the act be completed in writing. In fact, even if
affirming that Article 4 of the Convention ‘is not concerned with [(a)] the validity of the
contract or of any of its provisions, the question of formal validity is however regulated by
Article 11.”
^! Schlechtriem/Schwetieer (- Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 11 (pp. 159, 163); see
also, Ileuzé 84.
"" For this requirement, see Flesch (supra n. 84) 148-149; Schlechtriem, Orñform Sales
Law (supra n. 29) 33.
"" For this requirement, see, e.g., F. Fet rant, Vendita internazionale di beni mobili,
Art. 1-13, Ambito di applicazione, Disposizioni generali (1994) 99 (cited: Vendita interna-
zionale); Schlechtriem/Schweneer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (p. 106); VVitx/Salger/
Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 4 . 60); Schluchter 46; similarly Heuxé 85, referring to the “goal”
CISG rules aim at; see also, Honnold Art. 4 (p. 67), where, however, the author limits the
fiinctional equivalence approach when stating that “the crucial question is whether the do-
mestic rule is invoked by the same operative facts that invoke a rule of the Convention.”
"° See, in addition to the authors quoted in the previous note, Enderlein/Maskow (supra
n. 84) 41; M. Kâhler, Die Haftung nach -Kaufrecht inn Spannungsverhaltnis zwischen
Vertrag und Delikt (2003) 66.
"' See Commentary on the Draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
Goods, Prepared by the Secretariat, document A/CONF.97/5, in: United Nations Con-
ference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 10 March-11 April 1980,
O&cial Records (1981) 14, 17: “Although there are no provisions in this Convention
which expressly govern the validity of the contract or of any usage, some provisions may
provide a rule which would contradict the rules on validity of contracts in a national legal
system. In case of conflict the rule in this Convention would apply.”
"° See also Honrtold Art. 4 (p. 68): “[t]he substance rather than the label or characteriza-
tion of the competing rule of domestic law determines whether it is displaced by the Con-
vention”. For a similar statement, see also Schfurfiter 46.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
widest possible application consistent with its aim as a unifier of legal rules
governing the relationship between parties to an international sale”’".
This means in practice that once the courts have decided that an issue is one
of “validity” as autonomously defined under CISG, and therefore (poten-
tially) excluded from its scope of application on the grounds of the negative
rule of Art. 4, courts will have to identify the applicable domestic law to a spe-
cific contract and determine whether domestic remedies or defences are
available to the parties in the specific case”. The courts then have to deter-
mine whether the CISG provides solutions that are functionally equivalent to
those available to the parties under the applicable domestic law. If the Con-
vention does so, it will pre-empt the corresponding domestic remedies
and defences; if it does not, then domestic law determines the remedies and
defences that the parties can rely on ia concreto.
It is unsurprising, therefore, to find all commentators agreeing that capacity
to contract is left to domestic law”; nor is it surprising that proponents of this
(positive) reading of Art. 4 “do not argue that cases of aggravated defect ofin-
tention as those of fraud or duress are addressed by CISG””, since the CISG
does not at all provide rules that, from a functional point of view, are com-
parable to those that in domestic law fall under the heading of fraud” and du-
ress”.
"^ Bianca/Bonell (-Khoo) Art. 4 (p. 48).

See Schmid 45.
"^ See A. Kritxer, Guide to Practical Applications of the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1989) 86; Schluchter 59.
"^ Le yens; see, however, R. Foch, Der besondere Gerichtsstand des Klägers/Verkäufers
im Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts: RIW 1996, 687-688.
See I-Ionnold Art. 4 (pp. 66-67): “The Convention does not interfere with the special
rights and remedies that domestic law gives to perdons who have been induced to enter into
a contract by fraud . Preserving domestic protection against intentional fraud could be
based on the general rule of Article 4 that the Convention ‘governs orily’ the obligations
‘arising from [the] contract’; the conduct that gives rise to a remedy for fraud may be dis-
tinct from the making of the contract. This result is relnforced by paragraph (a) which ex-
cludes issues of‘validity’. Even Îf domestic law characterizes a contract obtained by fraud as
‘voidable’ rather than ‘invalid’ and gives the innocent party a choice as whether to avoid the
contract, thèse rights are not disturbed by the Convention. The crucial point is that the
Convention does not address factual situations involving fraud and should not be construed
as . ..” This conclusion is also reached by Hein 654; Münch. Komm. BGB (-R fisher) Art. 45
CISG (pp. 2424, 2429-2430); VVitz/Salger/Lorene (-Loterie) Art. 4 (p. 61); Schluchter 105
and 111; Münch. Kornin. BGB (-H. Westermann) Art. 4 CISG (pp. 2174, 2179).
"" For this view, see, e.g., Achilles 19; Esslinger (supra n. 14) 79; Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-
Ferrari), CISG—Kornm. 2004, Art. 4 (p. 108); Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p. 134).

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
68 GRAN CO FERRARI UAB ELS Z
V Consequences of the Functional Equivalence Test

in Respect of Mistake
The solution to the pre-emption/coexistence dilemma is far more com-

plex in the context of mistake than in that of fraud and duress, because there
are too many types of mistake to be dealt with under a single “one-size-fits-
all” solution"". Rather, the solution depends on how one answers the ques-
tion, “what is the mistake about?”'°°
Where the mistake relates to the characteristics of the goods, and the ap-
plicable law does not itself pre-empt recourse to rescission by obliging the
rriistaken party to rely on domestic remedies for non-conformity (as is the
case under German law, for instance)'", the CISG pre-empts resort to domes-
tic (rescission) 1aw” z by providing a set of rules that exhaustively deal with the
consequences of such a mistake. These rules are to be found in Arts. 35 ff. and
45ff. ", which respectively deal with now-conformity and remedies for
breach of contract by the seller, and ought not to be circumvented'°". This
view, which certainly promotes legal uniformity’ ', has been adopted not
only by scholars from countries such as Germany'°’, the domestic law of
which obliges the mistaken party to resort to remedies for lack of conformity,
but also by scholars from countries with domestic law allowing for a concur-
rence of the aforementioned remedies’°7, such as France’°', Switzerland”’ and
"" Compare Heil 6ó1.

"" F‹iteer (supra n. 95) 90; LeCens.
" For a very recent discussion of German law on this point, see fi Huber, Die Konkur-
renz von Irrtumsanfechtung und Sachmängelhaftung im neuen Schuldrecht, in: FS Wal-
ther Hadding (2004) 105, 115 W.
"' See also, Bridge 243; Schlechtriem /Schwenxer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 4
(p 107).
'"^ See ffeie 653; F Bücher, Irrtrimsanfechtung und Sachmängelhaftung (2001) 283 f.
(cited: Irrtumsanfechtung); Münch. Komm. BGB (-Tfuher) Art. 45 (pp. 2429-2430) ; File/
Salger/Lorenx (-Loretix) Art. 4 (p. 60); Schlechter 98.
'°• See Münch. Komm. BGB (—I-Iuber) Art. 45 (p. 2429).
'°^ For this argument, see Heim 660; Ü Hoher, UK-Kaufrecht und Irrturnsanfechtung:
Die Anwendung des nationalen Rechts bei einem Eigenschaftsirrtum des Käufers: ZEuP
1994, 585, 597 f. (cited. DIN-Kaufrecht); Schlechtrietn /Schwenzer (-Müller- Chen), Commen-
tary 2005, Art. 45 (pp. 519, 531).
'°^ See Münch. Komm. HGB (-Beiiicke) Art. 4 CISG (pp. 343, 345); A. Draus, Die
Gültigkeit des Vertrages und das -Kaufrecht (1998) 82; Enderlein/Maskow/Strohbach
Art. 4 (p. 51); Huber, -Kaufrecht (previous note) 597; Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4
p. 133); S‹hle‹htriem/Schwenxer (- Schlechtrietn), Commentary 2005, Art. 4 (p. 68); Schlecht-
riem/Schwenxer (- Schweriner), Commentary 2005, Art. 35 tp. 431); Münch. Komm. BGB
(- VVestermann) Art. 4 CISG tp. 2179); but see C. T. Ebenroth, Internationale Vertragsgestal—
tung im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen AGBG, IPR-Gesetz und AN-Kaufrecht: }81. 108
(1986) 681, 688.
'"7 For a discussion of the issue at hand in the light of the solutions provided by various
domestic laws, see Flesch (supra n. 84) passim,- Gstoehl (supra n. 14) 3 f.; Huber, -Kauf-

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
71 (2007) THE CISG AND DOMESTI C REMEDIES 69
the United States"’. It has also been adopted by courts’", even in countries
that allow for concurrence of rescission for mistake and remedies for lack of
conformity’’z. The same applies mutatis mutandis in respect of mistakes relating
to whether the goods are free from any right or claim of third parties”'.
Similarly, the domestic rules governing mistakes concerning the character-
istics of the other party, i.e., “those elements of a person that are important for
theoneparty when forming the intention to enter into a transaction with the
other party””’ (in particular the seller’s ability to perform and the buyer’s
creditworthiness)“’ are pre-empted”‘, as is also pointed out in case 1aw” 7.
This follows from the fact that Art. 71 CISG “offers a complete set of provi-
sional remedies for the consequences of the apparition of one party’s potential
inability to perform after the conclusion of the contract”"', and thus excludes
“all legal remedies of the applicable national law, which are envisaged for the
situation that — subsequent to the conclusion of the contract — serious
doubts arise whether the other party is able to perform her obligations””’.
recht (supra n. 105) passim, id., Irrtumsanfechtung (supra n. 103) 67ff.; F. Niyemnnn, Erreur
sur une qualité substantielle de la chose et application de la CVIM: Rev. dr. affaires int.
1994, 397f£.
'"" See Audit 118; Heuzé 85 and 248-249.
°' Bruntier 40; Here 65?; Schlecht iem/Schwenzer (-Müller- Chen), Commentary 2005,
Art. 45 (p. 531).
''° See Hortnofd Art. 35 (pp. 262-263).
"' See Landgericht (LG) Aachen 14. 5. 1993, available at: fihttp://www.cisg-on—
line.ch/cisg/urteile/86.html , stating that “Ob aufgrund der fehlenden Marktgängigkeit
der Geräte die Anwendung der Regeln über den Wegfall der Geschäftsgrundlage oder die
Anfechtung wegen Irrtums über eine verkehrswesentliche Eigenschaft der gekauften Sache
nach nationales Recht in Betracht komint, karin offengelassen werden, da diese Rechtsin-
stitute durch die Regelung des CISG verdrängt werden."
"° See OGH 13. 4. 2000, avaÎlable in English at: http:77cisgw3.1aw.pace.edu/cases/
004l3a3.htrn1V. It should be noted that Austrian scholars generally deny that the CISG pre-
empts domestic law on the point referred to in the text; B ydlinski (supra n. 48) 85-86;
Gstoehl (supra n. 14) 8 (stating that the CISG does not pre-empt Austrian rules on inistake,
but that it does pre-empt German and Swiss rules); Carottes (supra n. 51) 41-42; Lessiak
(supra n. 63) 487ff.; U Rummel, Schadenersatz, höhere Gewalt und Wegfall der Geschäfts-
grundlage, in: Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht, ed. by Tf. I-loder/ W. Posch (1992) 177,
188 n. 41; but see fi. Loewe, Internationales Kaufrecht (l 989) 66.
''" See Schmid 161; Schlechtriem/Schweneer (- Schu'enzer), Commentary 2005, Art. 41
(pp. 482, 492).
* de yens.
"^ Leyens.
''^ See Münch. Koinm. HGB (-Benicke) Art. 4 CISG (p. 345); Hu her, -Kaufrecht
(supra n. 105) 601; VVite/Salger/Lorene (-Poreux) Art. 4 (p. 61); Münch. Korriin. HGB (-F.
Manhowsbt) Art. 71 CISG (pp. 635, 644); contra Karollus (supra n. 51) 42; Les ian (supra n. 63)
494f
' 7 See OGH 12. 2. 1998, available in English at: fihttp://cisgw3.1aw.pace.edu/cisg/
wais/db/cases2/980212a3.htmlV.
'" Schlechtriem/Schwenzeï (- R. 1-Ioriiung), Commentary 2005, Art. 71 (p. 701, 711).
''" OGH 12. 2. 1998 (supra n. 117); sirrillarly in legal writing see Eriderlein/Maskow/

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
70 FRANC O FERRARI
In some countries, the effect of a inistake as to the existence of the goods at

the time the contract is concluded (i.e., a case of initial impossibility) is that
the contract is considered void' z°. In other countries'2’, the issue is treated not
as one of validity, but rather of non-performance and excuse, “because, in the
performance stage of the contractual obligations, one party could not per—
form (i.e., performance was impossible or extremely diŒcult)”’ 22. The same
can be said for the CISG, as can be derived, one the one hand, from Art. 68(3)
and, on the other, from Art. 79(1). The former provision clearly presupposes
the validity of a contract despite the non-existence of the goods at the time of
its conc1usion’2’; the latter provides a rule applicable to the case where the
goods no longer exist at the time when the contract is concluded. In other
words, “[i]f the goods were non-existent ‘at the time of the conclusion of the
contract,’ then art. 79 appears to provide a rule for the court’s decision
whether the non-performing party should be excused””’. Ultimately, this
must lead to the CISG pre-empting domestic law in respect of this type of
mistake as well'2’.
Also, where a mistake “in the transmission of the communication” has
been made, the mistaken party cannot rely on domestic rules governing res-
cission in this content, since Art. 27 exhaustively addresses the consequences
ofsuch a mistake, and thus pre-empts domestic law”". This is true not only in
respect of notices, requests or any other communication given or made by a
party in accordance with Part III of CISG (for which no express rule provides
that they must be received)”’, but also for communications that relate to Part
II (i.e., “Formation of the Contract”).
There are other types of inistake, however, for which CISG does not pro-
vide functionally equivalent solutions. This is true, for instance, in respect of a
rriistake concerning the identity of the other party' 2' — an issue which appears
to be “more discussed than seen”"’. Where one party believes, for instance,
Strohbach Art. 71 (p. 225); Schlechtriem/Schwenxer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4

(p. 69).
°° See Enderleiii/Maskow/!Strohbach Art. 68 (p. 217); Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p. 131).
'°' See R. Reischauer, Leistungsstörungsrecht des AGBGB im Vergleich zu dem BGB mit
einem Blick auf das UK-Kaufrecht, in: FS Hans Stoll (2001) 344, 350f.
'°° Weitzmann (supra n. 54) 277-278.
'°° See Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p. 131).
'°' VVeitzmann (supra n. 54).
°* See Enderlein/Mask'ow/Strohbach Art. 79 tp. 253); Witz/Salger/Lorenx (-Lorenz) Art. 4
(p. 60); Karollus (supra n. 51) 43; Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 4 (p. 131); Schlechter 41;
Schlecht-
eren/S hwetize (-1-I. Stoll/G. Gruber), Coinmentary 2005, Art. 79 Qp. 806, 813-814); contra
I-Ietixé 85-86; Neumayer/Mitig 73-74; Loewe (supra n. 112) 29; Biaiica/Bonell (-D. Tallon)
Art. 79 (pp. 572, 57S).
'°^ See Sclilechtriem/Schu'enzer (-Schlechtriem), Conimentary 2005, Art. 27 (pp. 306, 313).
'°7 See, e.g., arts. 47(2), 48(2) and (3), 63(2), 65(1) and (2) and 79(4).
'°" See Schlechter 117.
°" Leyeiis.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
that he or she is contracting with a specific person without realizing that that
person is merely an agent, recourse to the CISG is not possible, since the
Convention itself does not determine who is “party” to a contract’"°, the issue
of agency clearly falling outside its scope of application"'. Courts must there-
fore determine whether rescission for this kind of mistake is permitted on the
basis of domestic law” 2. Similarly, the CISG does not provide rules that serve
the same function as domestic rules on rescission for mistake regarding the
identity of the goods”’.
VI. The Interaction Between the CISG and Domestic Tort Law
The issue of pre-emption or concurrence of the CISG and domestic

remedies does not arise only in respect of domestic remedies based on con-
tract law, but also where such remedies are based on tort law’”, since conduct
that qualifies as a breach of contract under the CISG (delivery of non-
conforming goods) may at the same time constitute a tort under domestic law”’.
Despite some statements to the contrary"‘, it is very important in practice
to determine whether the CISG pre-empts domestic tort law'”, because,
' See F. Ferrari, La jurisprudence sur la CVIM: Un nouveau défi pour les interprètes°:
Int. Bus. L.J. 1998, 495, 496f.; Bambetger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 1 CISG pp. 2757, 2767).
'°' For sirnilar statements in case law, see Trib. Padova 25. 2. 2004, avaÎlable at:
fihttp:/7www.unilex.info/case.cfrrt?pid=1&do=case&id=972&step=Fu11Text1; OGH
22. 10. 2001 (1 Ob 49/01i) (supra n. 52); Trib. Vigevano 12. 7. 2000, available at:
<http://www.unilex.info/case.chn?pid= 1&do=case&id=387&step=FullTextV; KG Aar-
gau 11. 6. 1999, available at: http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm°pid=1&do=case&id=485
&step=Fu1lTextW; KG Zürich, 30. 11. 1998, available at: fihttp.//www.cisg-online.ch/
cisg/urtei1e/415.pdf; LG Berlin 24. 3. 1998, available at: http://www.uni1ex.info/
case.cfm+pid= 1&do=case&id=440&step=FullTextV; OGH 20. 3. 1997, avaÎlable at:
<http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urtei1e/269.html.
'°° For this conclusion, see Le yens.
'°^ See Bianca/Botiell(-A, Farnsworth) Art. 8 (pp. 95, 101); Le yens, in case law see BG
11. 12. 2000, available in English at: http://cisgw3.1aw.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/
001211sl.htm1V.
"• See Le yens; Schlechtrietn, Borderland 467.
'"^ Seen LookoJsk y, CISG Case Commentary on Pre-einption in Geneva Pharmaceuti-
cals and Stawski: Review of CISG, 2003/2004, 115-116; id., In Dubio Pro Conventione+,
Some Thoughts about Opt-Outs, Computer Programs and Pre-emption under the 1980
Vienna Sales Convention (CISG): Duke J. Comp. Int. L. 13 (2003) 263, 286; file/Malher/
Lorene (-Lorenz) Art. 4 tp. 63).
'°^ See Herher/Ceeriuenka 39; D. Otto, Produkthaftung nach dem EN-Kaufrecht: MDR
1992, 533, 537 (cited: Produkthaftung).
'°' For an overview of the reasons why the issue at hand is important in practice, see B.
Ernst, Das Wiener Ùlbereinkorninen von 1980 Fiber Verträge über den internationales
Warenkauf (UN-Kaufrecht) im Recht der Produkthaftung (2002) 52ff.; R. Herbcr, Man-
gelfolgeschäden nach dem CISG und nationales Deliktsrecht: IHR 1 (2001) 187, 187; D.
Schneider, -Kaufrecht und Produktehaftpfiicht: zur Auslegung von Art. 4 Satz 1 und

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
72 IRANCO FERRARI DAB EL S Z
among other reasons, unlike the damages recoverable under the CISG'"', do-
mestic tort law may allow recovery of unforeseeable damages”’ or even puni-
tive damages"°; moreover, unlike the GISG’“, domestic tort law often grants
damages regardless of whether adequate notice of non-conformity has been
given” 2. In addition, while Art. 6 perrriits derogation from the Convention’s
damages provisions, domestic tort laws generally cannot be excluded as easily.
Of course, these are but some of the many reasons indicating the importance
of solving the pre-emption/concurrence dilemma”’.
The solution can be found partially in the CISG itself"’, namely, in Art. 5,
which provides that the Convention “does not apply to the liability of the sel-
ler for death or personal injury caused by the goods to any person””’. This
does not mean, as suggested by one scholar"‘, that the seller is not liable for
death or personal injury caused by the goods'" 7, but rather that a domestic lia-
bility regime applies, to be identified by means of the private inter national
Art. 5 CISG und zur Abgrenzung vertraglîcher und auflervertraglicher Haftung aus der
Sicht des CISG (1995) 21f£.
'^" For studies on the foreseeability of damages under the CISG, see, e.g., F. Faust, Die
Voraussehbarkleit des Schadens gemäE Art. 74 Satz 2 -Kaufrecht (CISG) (1996); fi Fer-
rari, Comparative Ruininations on the Foreseeability of Damages in Contract Law: La. L.
Rev. 53 (1993) 1257 f .; id., Prevedibiltà del danno e contemplation rule: Contratto e im-
presa 9 (1993) 760s.; A. Murphe y, Consequential Damages in Contracts for the Interna-
tional Sale of Goods and the Legacy of Hadley: Geo. Wash. J. Int. L. Econ. 23 (1989/90)
415&.
This is true, for example, in Italy: although Art. 1225 of the Italian Civil Code ex-
pressly lÎrriits contractual damages to those that are foreseeable (where the breach of con-
tract is not an Întentional one), this provision, and thus the foreseeability limitation, does
not apply to tort law.
'•" For statements to the effect that the CISG does not allow for recovery of puntive
damages, see Audit 163; Biatica/Boiiell (-V. Knapp) Art. 74 (pp. 538, 544); V ito/Salger/Lo-
reno (-Lorene) Art. 4 (p. 62); Staudiiiger (-Magnus) Art. 74 (p. 724).
'•' For a statement m case law that a notice of non-conforrriity is required to successfully
claim damages where the damage is caused by defective goods, see Handelsgericht (HG)
Kanton Zürich 26. 4. 1995, avaÎlable at: fihttp://www.unÎ1ex.info/case.cfm°pid=1&
do=case&id= 166&step—Fu11TextN.
'•° See Brunn.er 65-66;J. LookoJsb y, CISG foreign case law: How much regard should we
haven, in: The Draft CITRAL Digest and Beyond 216, 227; Staudiriger (-Magnum) Art. 5
(p. 144); Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Müller- Chen), CISG—Komm. 2004, Art. 44 (p. 512); Ru-
dolph 126; Bamberget/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 5 CISG tpp. 2777-2778).
"^ For other reasons, see Schlechtriem, Borderland 467.
"• Rudolph 122.
'•^ For papers dealing with the issue referred to in the text see, apart from those cited in
n. 137, fi. Herber, ON- Kaufrechtsübereinkommen: Produkthaftun—g Verjährung. MDR
1993, 105II.; Kuhlen, D. Otto, Nochmal—s -Kaufrecht und EG-Produkthaftungsricht-
linie: MDR (1993) 306ff.; id., Produkthaftung (supra n. 136) passim.
'^^ See F. Niggemann, Die Bedeutung des Inkrafttretens des UN-Kaufrechts fiir den
deutsch-französischen Wirtschaftsverkehr: RIW 1991, 372, 377.
'^' For this conclusion, see also I-Ionsell (-K. Siehr) Art. 5 (pp. 76-77).

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
71 (2007) THE CISG AND D O MESTIC REMEDIES 73
law rules of the forum"’ (which may qualify the issue as one relating to tort or
contract law)”’.
It is important, however, to determine the extent to which this provision,
introduced to avoid convicts between the CISG and domestic product lia-
bility regimes”’, leaves the liability of the seller for death or personal injury to
domestic law, i.e., whether this really constitutes a general exclusion from the
CISG’s scope"', and whether the exclusion covers liability for death or
personal injury caused by the goods to “any person”. In this respect, it has been
correctly pointed out by commentators" 2 that the exclusion covers “both in-
jury to the buyer or others persons participating at least indirectly in the con-
tract and also injury to non-participating third parties””’. As a consequence
of this exclusion, any claim of the buyer for pecuniary loss fiowing from a
prior claim against him or her for personal injury caused by purchased goods,
which the buyer sold on in a “sub-sale”, is also excluded from the CISG’s
scope of appLcation'^", despite a German court decision stating the contra-
ry’^^. This view has been justified on the ground that “only in that way can the
damages claim be passed back to the producer through the contractual
claim”'”; in effect, the application of CISG “would mean that recourse ac-
tions could be barred for lack of notice under Art. 39, so that the buyer/re-
'• See Ru/tfen 47.

"" For this distinction, see Schlechtriem/Schweneer (-Ferrari), CISG—Komm. 2004, Art. 5
(pp. 118-119); Schlechtrietn /Schwenxer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 5 p. 76—
78)
'^° See Bridge 246; Ernst (supra n. 137) 32; OJicial Records (supra n. 91) 245; fi Schlecht-
Diem, Internationales OM-Kaufrecht’ (2003) (cited: Int. N-Kaufrecht); Schneider (supra
n. 137) 33; for a different justification of Art. 5 USG, see Honnold Art. 5 . 71): “The
strong protection that the Convention gives to the international sales contract made it
necessary to limit the Convention’s scope lest the Convention collide with the special pro-
tection that some domestic rules provide for the noncommercial consumer”; for a similar
justification, see S. Date-Batt, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Inter-
national Sale of Goods 1980. Overview and Selective Commentary: Rev. Ghana L. ll
(1979) 50, 53.
'"' For a court decision from which one can derive that the Art. 5 exclusion of liabiÏity
for death or personal injury is a general one, see HG Kanton Zürich 26. 4. 1995 (supra
n. 141).
'*° See Audit 36; J. Plantard, En nouveau droit uniforme de la vente internationale. La
Convention des Nations frites du 11 avril 1980: J. dr. int. 1988, 311, 327.
'"° P. Schlechtriem (-R. Herbes), Commentary on the CISG (2. ed. in translation) (1998)
Art. 5 (p. 50) (cited: Commentary 1998); for similar statements, see also Kuhlen 61; Stau-
diriger (-Magnus) Art. 5 tp. 143); Reinhart (supra n. 63) 25.
'^• See Achilles 24; Audit ? b; Brurtrier 65; Ernst (supra n. 137) 36-37; Schlechtriem (-Herber),
Commentary 1998 (previous note) Art. 5 p. 50); Herber/ Czenverika 38; Kuhlen 61; U.
Magnus, Wesentlîche Fragen des EN-Kaufrechts: ZEuP 1999, 642, 645; Rudolph 122;
Münch. Komm. BGB - We5termanrt) Art. 5 CISG (pp. 2183, 2185); contra Bridge 246.
'^^ See OLG Düsseldorf 2. 7. 1993, available at: http:// .cisg-online.ch/cisg/ur-
teîle/74.html.
'^^ Sclilechtriem (-Herber), Commentary 1998 (supra n. 153) Art. 5 (p. 50).

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
74 £RANCO FERRARI DAB EL SZ
seller either would be unable to pass on these damages or would have to revert
to concurring actions under domestic law anyway ”" 7.
Whereas liability for death and personal injury is expressly excluded from
the CISG’s scope, provided that the death or personal injury is “caused by the
goods”"", liability for damage caused to property is not excluded, as has been
pointed out in legal writing”’ and case law"'. Here, once again, the pre-emp-
tion/concurrence dilerrima may rear its head'". Thus, where the party who
suffers loss either does not wish to, or cannot, claim damages in terms of the
CISG, he or she may want to turn to tort law'"’. The issue, then, is whether
that party is entitled to do so.
In this author’s opinion"^, the view that CISG is exclusively applicable"‘
i.e., that it pre-empts (basically)"’ all domestic tort law"‘ — is to be rejected"’.
'°7 Schlechtriem/Schweneer (- Schlechtriein), Corrimentary 2005, Art. 5 (p. 78); see also Audit
37.
'^" For this requirement, see Schlechtriem/Schwetizer (-Ferrari), CISG-Komm. 2004, Art. 5
(pp. 119-120); Kähler (supra n. 90) 118-119; Schlechtriem/Schwenxer (- Schlechtriem), Com-
mentary 2005, Art. 5 (p. 77). In those cases where the requirement referred to is not met,
the CISG can also govern the liability for death and personal injury; see Achilles 24; Brenner
65; ileYber/Cxerwerika 38; VVitz/Salger/Lorenz (-Lorenx) Art. 5 (pp. 67-68); contra Kuhlen
56-57.
'^" See Audit 36; Münch. Kornm. HGB (—Beniche) Art. 5 CISG (pp. 348, 349); Bridge
246; Enderlein/Masbow/Strohbach Art. 5 (p. 56); ferrari, Vendita internazionale (supra n. 89)
106; Heueé 86; Münch. Komm. BGB (-Huber) Art. 45 (p. 2431); Köhler (supra n. 90) 121;
Kritzer (supra n. 95) 95; file/SalgeY/Lorenz (-Lorenz) Art. 5 (p. 69); Schlechtriem, Borderland
471; Schlechtriem/Schweneer (- Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 5 (p. 76); contra M.
Udulo, The Vierina Sales Convention 1980 and the Hague klriiform Laws on International
Sale of Goods 1964: A Comparative Analysis: Int. Comp. L. Q. 38 (1989) 1, 5.
'^° See HG Kanton Zürich 26. 4. 1995 (supra n. 141).
'"' As the CISG pre-empts the applicability of domestic contract law, domestic rules that
classify product liability as a contract law issue cannot be applied concurrently with the
CISG: Schlechtriem (-Herbes), Cornmentary 1998 (supra n. 153) Art. 5 (p. 50).
'^° See With/Salger/Lorerix (-Lorene) Art. 5 (p. 67).
'^" See also 'Schlechtriem/Schweneer (-Ferrari), CISG—Konim. 2004, Art. 5 (pp. 120-121).
'^^ For this view see, e.g., Etiderlein/Maskou'/Strohbach Art. 5 (p. 56); ffeoeé 86; Kuhlen
114s.; Otto, Produkthaftung (supra n. 136) 537; Mather (supra n. 37) 161; G. R yffel, Die
Schadenersatzhaftung des Verkäufers nach dem Wiener Übereinkorrirnen über interna-
tionale Warenkaufverträge vom 11. AprÎ1 1980 (1992) 136; K. V arteiiberg, CISG und deut-
sches Verbraucherschutzrecht: das Verhàltnis der CISG insbesondere zum VerbrKrG,
HaustürWG und ProdHaftG (1998) 92.
Various authors arguing in favour of the exclusive applicability of the CISG make an
exception as far as domestic product liability law is concerned, which they derive from the
EC Product Liability Directive of 25. 7. 1985 (infra n. 188); see, e.g., Herber (supra n. 137)
191.
'^^ See fi. Herbcr, Zum Verhältnis von -Kaufrechtsübereirikommen und deliktischer
Haftung, in: FS Peter Schlechtriem (2003) 207, 2l8ff.; in case law, see Geneva Fharmaceuti-
cals Tech. Corp. v. Baer Labs. Inc. (supra n. 76), < http:7/cisgw3.1awpace.edu/cisg/wais/db/
cases27020510u1.htm1#svibV (“The CISG clearly does not pre-empt the claims sounding
in tort.”); Viva Vino Import Corp. v. Farnese fini S.r.1, 2000 O.S. Dist. LEXIS 12347; 2000

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
71 (2007) THE CIS G AND D O MESTIC REMEDIES 75
The reason is to be found in the functional equivalence approach discussed

above. According to this approach, which is based on the positive rule con-
tained within Art. 4 and is not limited to “validity” issues, the CISG preempts
domestic law only where it provides for a comprehensive solution to a specific
problem that is functionally equivalent to the solution provided by domestic
law. Tort law is based on different policy considerations’"" and serves a func-
tion different to that served by contract law (and, thus, also by the rules of the
CISG); therefore, it follows that the CISG cannot pre-empt all domestic tort
law”". Whereas contract law’7’, and thus the CISG, protect “what [a party] is
entitled to expect under the contract””’ — i.e., interests shaped by the parties’
agreement’72 — tort law protects a much wider and more fundamental range of
interests that exist independently from any contractual relationship between
the parties”^. This, however, does not mean that where such a contractual re-
lationship exists, the protection of those fundamental interests is no longer
necessary"’: contracting parties are entitled to expect from each other at least
WL 1224903 (E.D. Pa.), 29 August 2000, also available at: http:7/cisgw3.law.pace.edu/

cisg/wais7db/cases2/00829u1.htnil (stating that “[t]he CISG does not apply to tort
c1aùrs").
°7 For this conclusion, see also Achilles 24; Münch. Komm. HGB (-Berticke) Art. 5 CISG
tp. 349); Bridge 246; B. Ceewen!ea, Rechtsanwendungsprobleme iiri internationalen Kauf-
recht: Das Kollisionsrecht bei grenzüberschreitenden Kaufverträgen und der Anwendungs-
bereich der internationalen Kaufrechtsübereinkommen (1988) 168 f.; like/Salger/Lorenx (-
Lorenz) Art. 5 (p. 67); U. Magnus, Aktuelle Fragen des EN-Kaufrechts: ZEuP 1993, 79,
95f.; Neumayer/Ming 81; Flantard (supra n. 152) 327; P. Scfifech/riern, Einheitliches —
Kaufrecht: Das ereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom 11. April 1980 über Ver-
träge über den internationalen Warenkauf (CISG): jZ 1988, 1037, 1040.
'^" For this statement, see Staudinger (-Magnus) Art. 5 tp. 145); Bamberger/Roth (- Saenger)
Art. 5 CISG (p. 2779).
See S hl«htriem/Schiueiizer (-Ferrari), CISG-Kornm. 2004, Art. 5 (p. 121).
"" See K. 'weigert/H. Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law’ (1998) 596, stating
that the law of contract entitles people to claim compensation for the harm suffered “only
in a rather limited area, where the plaintiŒ has been disappointed in his justifiable expecta-
tion that the defendant would honour his promise”
'" Article 25 CISG.
'7° See Sclilechttiem, Borderland 473, where the author states that “[t]he obligation of the
seller to deliver goods conforming to the contract in time corresponds to interests of the
buyer to use, to consume, or to resell the goods purchased, and therefore to receive them in
Une and coriforrning to the contract. Thèse economic interests are basically contractual,
for they are created by a contract. Their shape and extent depends on the parties’ agree-
ment; time of delivery, conformity of the goods and the corresponding interests of the par-
ties are ‘offspring’ of the contract. There were in general no extra-contractual obligations of
private parties to provide other private parties with goods and their use. Extracontractual
duties—duties of care or duties to manufacture and market goods free of defects—are desig-
nated to protect interests such as health and property existing independently of contractual
obligations, but also to protect certain economic interests.”
' 7° See VVite/Salger/Lorene (-Lorenx) Art. 4 (p. 63).
'• C. Schinid, Das Verhältnis von Einheitlichem Kaufrecht und nationalem Deliktsrecht
am Beispiel des Ersatzes von Mangelfolgeschäden: RIB 1996, 904, 908.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
76 FRAN CO FERRARI KABELS Z
the same degree of care in protecting each others’ fundamental interests as

they could reasonably expect if no contract existed between them’ 7'. Ulti-
mately, this means that “[t]here is no difficulty in regarding the imposition of a
duty of care in tort as independent of any contractual liability, and the
CISG”' 7’, which was designed to deal only with the contractual side, and not
with tort law.
Thus, to the extent that the protected interests overlap (as is the case where
the purchased goods are damaged), the CISG applies exclusively’” and
trumps domestic law”'. Where there is no overlap, domestic tort law is not
excluded u priori’7’; rather, whether domestic tort law may be concurrently
applied depends on the answer, provided by the relevant conflict of law
rules"’, to the question whether such a cii rnul is excluded, as in French law"',
or whether it is admitted, as in German law (A aspror/tsñ ort#o rrettz )" z,“'.
In practice, this means, for instance, that where the CISG governs, the ag-
grieved party will riot, in the light of Art. 74 CISG, be able to claim unfore-
seeable damages on the basis of the applicable domestic tort law; it also means
that where domestic tort law is relevant, “a tort action for property damages
“° Schmid (previous note) where the author also states that “[d] er Geschädigte soll auch
richt schlechter stehen, weil er gleichzeitig der Vertragspartner des Schadigers ist”. For
similar reasoning, see also Witz/Salger/Loretie (-Lorenz) Art. 4 (p. 62): “Es erscheint auch
wenig eirdeuchtend, dass ein Abnehmer seiner Ansprüche aus deliktischer Produzenten-
haftung gegen den Hersteller nur deshalb verlustig gehen soll, weil er in direkter vertrag-
licher Beziehung steht.”
'7^ Lookofsk y (supra n. 135) 286. This has also been pointed out in case law; see Cenera
Pharmaceuticals Tech. Coup. v. BaYr Labs. Inc. (supra n. 76), < http:/7cisgw3.1aw.pace.edu/
cisg/wais/db/cases2/020510u1.htm1#svib ; Visa Vino Import Corporation v. Farnese Vini
S. r. f. (supra n. 166).
'77 See Crest (supra n. 137) 72-73; Münch. Komm. BGB (-Huber) Art. 45 (p. 2431);
VVitz/Salger/Lorenx (-Lorenz) Axt. 4 (p. 64); Bamberger/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 5 CISG
. 2278); Schneider (supra n. 137) 231; contra H. Gabriel, Practitioner’s Guide to the Con—
vention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) and the Uniform Com-
mercial Code (1994) 21.
' 7" See Rudolph 127.
' 7" This also appears to be the result reached by various courts; see Bundesgerichtshof
(BGH) 23. 7. 1997, available at: http://www. cisg-online.ch/cisg/urtei1e/276.htrriM;
OLG Frankfurt7Main l5. 3. 1996, available at: fihttp://www.cisg-onhne.ch/cisg/urteile/
275.html; OLG München 8. 2. 1995, available at: http:/7vvww. cisg-online.ch/cisg/ur-
teile/142.html.
'"° See Bridge 246; Brunner 66; Schlechtriem/Schwetieer (-Müller- Chen), CISG—Komm.
2004, Art. 45 (513); Rudolph 123-124; Schlechtriem, Int. ON—Kaufrecht (supra n. 150) 33;
for a detailed analysis of the conßict of laws issue referred to in the text, see Ü Lluber, Man-
gelfolgeschäden: Deliktsstatut trotz Einheitskaufrechts: IPrax 1996, 22f.
'"' See Audit 37 n. 1; Niyetnariri (supra n. 146) 377; Schlechtriem, Borderland 468.
'"° See Honnold Art. 5 (p. 76); S‹hlechtriem, Borderland 470.
'"° For a very detailed study of the interaction between domestic contract and tort law
see, niost recently, Drobiiig/C. von Bar, The Interaction of Contrast Law and Tort and
Property Law in Europe, A Comparative Study (2004).

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
71 (2007) THE CIS G AND DOMESTI C REMED IES 77
caused by defective and non-conforming goods should not be barred by an

omission to give notice within reasonable time under Art. 39 CISG”'"'.
It is worth mentioning that the suggested solution is compatible with the
CISG’s dispositive nature'" : if the Conventlon were exclusively to deal with
liability for damages to property and such liability were excluded in terms of
Art. 6, the damaged party would remain without protection"‘, a result which
seems inappropriate" 7.
This solution also holds true irrespective of whether the domestic tort 1aw
in question is based upon the EC Product Liability Directive of 25 July
1985’ ". Article 90 CISG states that under certain circumstances the Conven-
tion “does not prevail over any international agreement which has already
been or may be entered into and which contains provisions concerning the
matters governed by this Convention.” Some commentators"’ have argued
that this provision requires (by analogy) the prevalence of domestic rules en-
acted to give effect to the aforementioned Directive over the rules of the
CISG'"'. But this view is untenable for several reasons'"’, one of which is
that
'"^ Schlechtriem, Borderland 473-474.

'"^ For references in legal writing to the CISG’s dispositive nature, see N. Carbone, L’am-
bito di applicazione ed i criteri interpretativi della convenzione di Vienna, in: La vendita
internazionale: La Convenzione deI1’11 aprile 1980 (1981) 61, 78; S. Carbone/R. Luzxatto,
I contratti de1 commercio internazionale, in: Trattato di diritto privato, ed. by F Rescigno
(1984) 111, 131; J. Erauw, Waneer is het Weens koopverdrag van toepassing+, in: Het
Weens Koopverdrag (supra n. 16) 21, 47; Ferrari, Vendita internazionale (supra n. 89) 110;
A. Lanciotti, forme uniforriii di conHitto e materiali nella disciplina convenzionale della
compravendita (1992) 146; A. Lohmann, Parteiautonomie und N-Kaufrecht (2005) 193;
Piltz (supra n. 48) 64; Reinhart (supra n. 63) 26; G. Sacerdoti, I criteri di applicazione della
convenzione di Vierina sulla vendita internationale: diritto uniforme, diritto internazionale
privato e autonomia dei contratti: Riv. trim. dir. proc. civ. 44 (1990) 733, 744; P Volken,
Das Wiener Überelnkornmen über den internationales Warenkauf: Anwendungsvoraus-
setzungen und Anwendungsbereich, in: Einheitliches Kaufrecht und nationales Obliga-
tionenrecht, ed. by fi Schlechtriem (1987) 81, 92; Û Marty, Das Wiener Übereinkonwnen
über internationale Warerikaufverträge vom 11. April 1980 unter besonderer Berücksichti-
gung des Auflerihandels: ZvglRWiss. 1988, 184, 188; N. Wite, L’exclusion de la Conven-
tion des Nations unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises par la vo-
lonté des parties (Convention de Vienne du 11 avril 1980): D. chron. 1990, 107. For ref-
erences to CISG’s non-rriandatory nature in case law, see Cass. civ. 19. 6. 2000: Giur. it.
2001, 236; OGH 21. 3. 2000, IHR 1 (2001) 41; 15. 10. 1998, ZRvgl. 63 (1999); HG Wiert
4. 3. 1997, available at: fihttp://www.cisg.at/1R4097x.html; KG Wallis 29. 6. 1994:
Zeitschrift fiir Walliser Rechtsprechung 1994, 126.
'"^ See Ilonsell(-Siehr) Art. 5 (pp. 76, 78).
'^' See 'Sch lechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG—Komm. 2004, Art. 5 tp. 121); Staudinger (-
Magnus) Art. 5 (p. 146); Bamberge£/Roth (-Saenger) Art. 5 (p. 2779).
'"" See EC Council Directive 85/374/EEC, OfFicial Journal 1985 L 210/29.
' ®" S ce Herber/Cxenvenka ?9, With/Salger/Lorenx (-Lorenx) Art. 5 tp. 69-70); R yffel
(supra n. 164) 137.
'"° A direct application of Art. 90 to the domestic statutes enacted on the basis of the EC
Product Liability Directive mentioned in the text is not possible; this has been acknowl-

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
78 FRANCO FERRARI
the Directive does not constitute an “international agreement” in the sense

intended by Art. 90” z. Furthermore, an argument by analogy is inadmissible
here because Art. 90, being an exception to the general rule (i.e., that the
CISF prevails over domestic law where it regulates an issue exhaustively),
should be interpreted restrictively”'.
VII. Final Considerations
The importance of an exact determination of the interaction between the

CISG and domestic law remedies such as those discussed above — i.e., res-
cission for mistake and remedies in tort law — can easily be understood, as the
solution to this pre-emption/concurrence dilemma has a direct impact on the
CISG’s scope of application. The solution can be found in the functional
equivalence approach developed above. Thus, whether a party is entitled to
rescind a contract governed by the CISG for mistake, or whether an ag-
grieved party can recover damages on the basis of domestic tort law, will de-
pend on whether the CISG provides a solution that is ‘functionally
equivalent’ to the one provided by domestic law.
It is worth mentioning, though, that the usefulness of the functional equi-
valence approach is not restricted to the issues dealt with in this paper. It can
be, and indeed frequently is (although riot always consciously), employed to
resolve the pre-emption/concurrence dilemma in other respects. Thus, for
example, there is the issue whether “a problem of common-law ‘consider-
ation’ [can] arise within the area governed by the Convention”"”. Given that,
at common law, a prorriise that lacks consideration may not be enforceable be-
cause the presence of consideration is a precondition of validity for all con-
tracts in Anglo-American law”’, and given that consideration also constitutes
an issue of “validity” as autonomously defined under CISG, it may appear at
first sight that consideration is required where the domestic law determining
“validity” calls for it, despite the applicability of the CISF”^.
edged even by some of the authors who suggest that the domestic statute prevails over
CISG; see, e.g., Ernst (supra n. 137) 116; hether (supra n. 145) 105f.; Kuhleri 123.
'"' For this conclusion, see also Achilles 261; Brunner 532-533; Kâhler (supra n. 90) 151—
152; Otto, Mochmal ON-Kaufrecht (supra n. 145) 306; Schlechtriem, Int. PIN—Kaufrecht
—s
(supra n. 150) 29.
'"° For this argunlent, see Ernst (supra n. 137) 96-97; Schlechtriem/Schweneer (-Ferrari), CISG-
Komm. 2004, Art. 5 tp. 122); B. Eilte, Gestaltung von Exportverträgen nach der
Schuldrechtsreform: IHR 2 (2002) 2, 4; Rudolph 438; contra Honsell (-Siehr) 1061.
'"^ For this conclusion, see also U. Schroeter, UJN-Kaufrecht und europäisches Gemein—
schaftsrecht: Verhältnis und Wechselwirkungen (2005) 318.
'"' Honnold Art. 29 (p. 232).
'"^ See Zweigert/Köte (supra n. 170) 390ff.
'"^ For a reference to the issue at hand, see also ff. Flechtiier, Mose W.$. Decisions on the

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
71(2007) TM CISG AND D O MESTIC REMEDIES 79
However, according to the Convention, the offeror can make an offer irre-
vocable by mere prorriise or indication to that effect" 7; also, a contract may
“be modified or terrriinated by the mere agreement of the parties””'. The
convention thus rejects “on each occasion when [the issue] came to the fore
. ‘consideration’ as a barrier to enforcing the [promise or the] agreement”'”.
This is why scholars"’, some courts2", and the UNICITRAL Secretariat
O.N. Sales Convention: Scope, Parol Evidence, “Validity” and Reduction of Price under
Article 50: J.L. Com. 14 (1995) 153, 166-167.
'"7 See Art. 16(2)(a) CISG.
'"" Article 29(1) CISG; for a court decision applying this provision and stating that con-
sideration is irrelevant under CISG, see Shuttle Pack'aging Systems v. Tsonakis et al., 2001 O.S.
Dist. LEXIS 21630; 2001 WL 34046276 D. Mich.), 17 December 2001, also available
at: fihttp://cisgw3.1aw.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/0112l7u1.htmlV (“under the
Convention, a contract for the sale of goods may be modified without consideration for the
modification”).
" Ilonnold Art. 29 (p. 234).
°°° See Audit 32 n. 4 (excluding in general that consideration can be relevant under
CISG); L. DiMatteo et al., The Interpretive Turn in International Sales Law: An Analysis of
Fifteen Years of CISG Jurisprudence: Nw.j.Int.L.Bus. 24 (2004) 229, 334 (excluding in
general that consideration can be relevant under CISG); 6. Eiselen, Remarks in which the
Onidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts May be Used to Interpret or
Supplement Article 29 of the CISG: Pace Int. L. Rev. 14 (2002) 379, 380 (stating that the
requirement of consideration, which may be applicable in common law legal systems, is ex-
cluded); Enderlein/Mask'ou'/Strohbach Art. 29 tp. 109) (stating that consideration is irrelevant
in respect of contract modification); Miinch. Komm. HGB (-F. Ferrari) Art. 11 USG
(pp. 390, 393) (excluding in general that consideration can be relevant under the CISG);
OaSrief (supra n. 177) 88 (stating that consideration is irrelevant in respect of contract modi-
fication); Herber/Ceerivenka 141 (stating that consideration is irrelevant in respect of con-
tract modification); M. Steiner, Der Vertragsabschluss, in: Das Einheitliche Wiener Kauf-
recht (supra n. 112) 43, 46 (excluding in general that consideration can be relevant under
the CISG); Henning Lute, The CISG and Common Law Courts: Is There Really a Prob-
lems: Victoria O. Wellington L.Rev. 35 (2004) 711, 724 (acknowledging a general non-re-
quirement of consideration under the CISG); J. Mattera, United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) and Geneva Pharmaceuticals
Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.7Apothecon, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.:
The C. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s application and Interpre-
tation of the Scope of the CISG: Pace Int. L. Rev. 16 (2004) 165, 186-187 (excluding that
consideration can at all be relevant under the CISG); Wife (supra n. 48) 105 (excluding in
general that consideration can be relevant under the CISG); Reinhart (supra n. 63) 74 (stat-
ing that consideration is irrelevant in respect of contract modification); Schlechtriem, Uni-
formSales Law (supra n. 29) 45 (excluding in general that consideration can be relevant
under the CISG).
°°' See, apart from the decision quoted above in note 198, ICC International Court of
Arbitration, Arbitral Award no. 9474 of February 1999, available at: http://cisgw3.
law.pace.edu/cases/999474i1.htm1+. But see also Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr
Labs. Inc. (supra n. 76), <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg7wais/db/cases2/0205l0u1.
htm1#svib (regarding consideration as a validity issue governed by domestic law); for
critical comments, see Auto 721-722; Mattera 181H. (both previous note).

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00
80 PRAN CO £ERRARI
Corrunentary on the Draft Convention 2” conclude that “consideration” is

not an issue where the CISG is applicable. This view is based on the func-
tional equivalence approach. The fact that some of its proponents are not
aware of it, and do not use that label, in no way diminishes the value of this ap-
proach. It is fully consistent with one of the key prerriises of the functional
equivalence approach, i.e., that labels are irrelevant.
"°" See O&cial Records (supra n. 91) 28.

93.109.80.170 on Sat, 23 Dec 2023 06:52:52 +00:00

Ferrari InteractionUnitedNations 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ferrari InteractionUnitedNations 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Interaction between the United Nations Conventions on Contracts for the

This content downloaded from

I. Article 2 8 CIS G and Domestic Rules on Specific Peformance 53

RabelsZ Bd. 7l (2007) S. 52-80

This content downloaded from

I. Article 28 CISG and Dorriestic Rules on Specific Performance

This content downloaded from

Goods’ (hereinafter “CISG” or “the Convention”)' constitutes “a compre-

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

emphasised in case law", is routinely available under the CISG’", independent

P. Piliounis, The Remedies of Specific Performance, Price Reduction and Additional

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

II. The CISG’s Scope of Application as a Starting Point for

°' See Schlechtriem/Schwenzer (-Ferrari), CISG—Komm. 2004, Art. 4 (pp. 99-100).

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

III. The Article 4(a) “Validity-Exception”

According to many commentators, the relationship between domestic

^^ See Schluchter 27.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

vention but rather by the applicable domestic law”". According to some

S hwenxer(-Schwerizer), Commentary 2005, Art. 35 (pp. 410, 430).

This content downloaded from

no indication in the legislative history that in respect of “validity” interpreta-

May 2002), also available at: Mhttp://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db7cases2/020510

This content downloaded from

IV. The Exception to the Validity-Exception and

It must be doubted, however, whether resorting to this definition (or any

'" See also cfimid 44.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

"^ Bianca/Bonell (-Khoo) Art. 4 (p. 48).

This content downloaded from

V Consequences of the Functional Equivalence Test

The solution to the pre-emption/coexistence dilemma is far more com-

"" Compare Heil 6ó1.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

In some countries, the effect of a inistake as to the existence of the goods at

Strohbach Art. 71 (p. 225); Schlechtriem/Schwenxer (-Schlechtriem), Commentary 2005, Art. 4

This content downloaded from

The issue of pre-emption or concurrence of the CISG and domestic

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

'• See Ru/tfen 47.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

The reason is to be found in the functional equivalence approach discussed

WL 1224903 (E.D. Pa.), 29 August 2000, also available at: http:7/cisgw3.law.pace.edu/

This content downloaded from

the same degree of care in protecting each others’ fundamental interests as

This content downloaded from

caused by defective and non-conforming goods should not be barred by an

'"^ Schlechtriem, Borderland 473-474.

This content downloaded from

the Directive does not constitute an “international agreement” in the sense

VII. Final Considerations

The importance of an exact determination of the interaction between the

This content downloaded from