Part one.

Sphere of application and general provisions 33

Article 6

The parties may exclude the application of this Convention or, subject to article 12,
derogate from or vary the effect of any of its provisions.

INTRODUCTION 5. Although the Convention does not expressly so state,

the parties cannot derogate from the public international
1. According to article 6 of the Convention, the parties law provisions of the Convention (i.e. articles 89-101)
may exclude the Convention’s application (totally or par- because those provisions address issues relevant to
tially) or derogate from its provisions. Thus, even if the Contracting States rather than private parties.15 One court
Convention would otherwise be applicable, courts must also stated that article 28 of the Convention cannot be der-
determine that the parties have not excluded the Conven- ogated from.16
tion nor derogated from its provisions,1 thus elevating the
lack of an exclusion to an applicability requirement of the 6. One court acknowledged, for instance, that parties can
Convention. It has been held that the Convention may be derogate from the “reasonable time” period for notice set
so excluded or its provisions derogated from even where it forth in article 39 (1) by stating, for example, that notice
has been incorporated into, and has thus become part of, the must be given “within five working days from the deliv-
domestic law of a Contracting State which governs the con- ery.”17 One arbitral tribunal stated that the parties can
tract in question by virtue of the applicable private interna- derogate from the two-year cut-off period provided in arti-
tional law rules.2 cle 39 (2).18 A different tribunal stated that the parties are
allowed to derogate from the concept of “delivery” as
2. According to several courts, opting-out requires a found in the Convention.19 Yet another court affirmed that
clear,3 unequivocal4 and affirmative5 agreement of the article 55, relating to open-price contracts, is only appli-
parties.6 According to one court, however, for the Conven- cable where the parties have not agreed to the contrary.20
tion not to apply it suffices that the “contract contains a The Austrian Supreme Court21 concluded that article 57
choice-of-law provision.” 7 Given that the invocation of also can be derogated from. An arbitral tribunal stated that
article 1 (1) (a) does not depend on both parties agreeing article 6 of the Convention allows parties to derogate from
upon the application of the Convention, the Convention the Convention’s rules on liability.22
cannot be excluded simply because one party makes an
objection to its application.8

3. By allowing the parties to exclude the Convention

or derogate from its provisions, the drafters affirmed the EXPRESS EXCLUSION
principle that the primary source of rules for international
sales contracts is party autonomy.9 Thus the drafters clearly 7. The parties can expressly exclude application of the
acknowledged the Convention’s non-mandatory nature10 and Convention23 through, inter alia, the incorporation of stand-
the central role that party autonomy plays in international ard contract terms containing a clause expressly excluding
commerce—specifically, in international sales.11 the Convention.24 Express exclusions come in two varieties:
exclusion with and exclusion without indication by the par-
ties of the law applicable to their contract. Where the parties
DEROGATION expressly exclude the Convention and specify the applicable
law, which in some countries can occur in the course of legal
4. Article 6 distinguishes between excluding application proceedings,25 the law applicable will be that designated by
of the Convention entirely and derogating from some of its the rules of private international law of the forum,26 resulting
provisions.12 The former is not subject to any express limi- (in most countries)27 in application of the law chosen by the
tations in the Convention, but the latter is. Where one party parties.28 Where the parties expressly exclude the Conven-
to a contract governed by the Convention has its place of tion but do not designate the applicable law, the governing
business in a State that has made a reservation under article law is to be identified by means of the private international
96,13 the parties may not derogate from or vary the effect law rules of the forum.
of article 12.14 In such cases, therefore, any provision “that
allows a contract of sale or its modification or termination 8. One court stated that the Convention was applicable,
by agreement or any offer, acceptance or other indication of despite the express exclusion in the applicable standard
intention to be made in any form other than in writing does contract terms, of the Convention’s antecedents—namely,
not apply” (article 12). Otherwise, the Convention does not the Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the
expressly limit the parties’ right to derogate from any provi- International Sale of Goods and the Convention relating to a
sion of the Convention. Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods.29
34 UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods

IMPLICIT EXCLUSION 14. The question has arisen whether the Convention’s
application is excluded if the parties litigate a dispute
9. A number of decisions have considered whether appli- solely on the basis of domestic law, despite the fact that
cation of the Convention can be excluded implicitly. Many all requirements for applying the Convention are satisfied.
tribunals expressly admit the possibility of an implicit exclu- Pursuant to various decisions, the mere fact that the parties
sion,30 as long as the parties’ intent to exclude the Conven- based their arguments on domestic law does not by itself
tion is clear31 and real.32 Although there is no express support lead to the exclusion of the Convention.56 According to
for this view in the language of the Convention, a majority different courts, if the parties are not aware of the
of delegations were opposed to a proposal advanced dur- Convention’s applicability and argue on the basis of a
ing the diplomatic conference which would have permitted domestic law merely because they wrongly believe that
total or partial exclusion of the Convention only if done law applies, judges should apply the Convention.57 Accord-
“expressly”.33 An express reference to the possibility of an ing to yet other courts, the Convention is excluded where
implicit exclusion was eliminated from the text of the Con- the parties argued their case solely under the domestic law
vention merely “lest the special reference to ‘implied’ exclu- of the forum.58 Similarly, some arbitral tribunals disre-
sion might encourage courts to conclude, on insufficient garded the Convention where the parties had based their
grounds, that the Convention had been wholly excluded”.34 pleadings solely on domestic law.59 Where the parties each
According to some court decisions35 and an arbitral award,36 base their pleadings on their respective domestic law, the
however, the Convention cannot be excluded implicitly, Convention cannot be considered to have been excluded by
based on the fact that the Convention does not expressly the parties.60
provide for that possibility.
15. According to some courts, the fact that the parties
10. Although the Convention’s exclusion is to be evaluated incorporated an Incoterm into their agreement does not
on a case-by-case basis,37 a variety of ways in which the par- constitute an implicit exclusion of the Convention.61
ties can implicitly exclude the Convention—for example, According to a different court, the Convention can be
by choosing the law38 of a non-Contracting State as the law excluded if the parties agree on terms that are incompatible
applicable to their contract39—have been recognized. with the Convention.62

11. More difficult problems are posed if the parties 16. One arbitral tribunal expressly stated that “[w]hen a
choose the law of a Contracting State to govern their con- contractual clause governing a particular matter is in con-
tract. Some arbitral awards40 and several court decisions41 tradiction with the Convention, the presumption is that the
suggest that such a choice amounts to an implicit exclu- parties intended to derogate from the Convention on that
sion of the Convention, at least when the parties refer to particular question. It does not affect the applicability of the
the “exclusive” applicability of the law of a Contract- Convention in general. The parties’ specific agreement to
ing State.42 Most court decisions43 and arbitral awards,44 reduce, to 12 months, the two-year time limit provided for
however, take a different view. They mainly reason that in article 39 [of the Convention] does not lead the Arbitral
the Convention is part of the law of the Contracting State Tribunal to another finding.”63
whose law the parties chose;45 and that the parties’ choice
remains meaningful because it identifies the national law to 17. The party alleging exclusion of the Convention bears
be used for filling gaps in the Convention.46 According to the burden of proof regarding the existence of an agreement
this line of decisions, the choice of the law of a Contracting on the exclusion of the Convention.64
State, if made without particular reference to the domestic
law of that State, does not exclude the Convention’s appli-
cability,47 not even where the law chosen is that of a State
within a Federal State,48 at least not according to some OPTING-IN
courts.49 Of course, if the parties clearly chose the domestic
law of a Contracting State, the Convention must be deemed 18. Although the Convention expressly empowers the
excluded.50 According to one court, for the Convention to parties to exclude its application in whole or in part, it does
be considered implicitly excluded, it suffices that the Con- not declare whether the parties may designate the Conven-
tract contains a clause making “Australian law applicable tion as the law governing their contract when it would not
under exclusion of UNCITRAL law”.51 otherwise apply. This issue was expressly addressed in the
1964 Hague Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the
12. According to some courts, the Convention is implicitly Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods,
excluded by the parties’ choice of “the law of a contracting which contained a provision, article 4, that gave the parties
state insofar as it differs from the law of the national law of the power to “opt in”. The fact that the Convention con-
another Contracting State.”52 tains no comparable provision does not necessarily mean
that the parties are prohibited from “opting in”. A proposal
13. The choice of a forum may also lead to the implicit by the former German Democratic Republic during the
exclusion of the Convention’s applicability.53 However, an diplomatic conference65 that the Convention should apply
exclusion of the application of the Convention cannot be even where the preconditions for its application were not
inferred solely from the fact that the standard terms pro- met, provided the parties wanted it to be applicable, was
vided for the jurisdiction of the courts of a “Contracting rejected; it was noted during the discussion, however, that
State.”54 or that an arbitration clause in the contract per- the proposed text was unnecessary in that the principle of
mitted the arbitrators to apply the domestic law of a non- party autonomy was sufficient to allow the parties to “opt
Contrating State.55 in” to the Convention.
Part one. Sphere of application and general provisions 35

Notes
1
For this approach see, for example, Gerechtshof Arnhem, the Netherlands, 9 March 2010 (docket No. 104.002.936, unpublished); Kantons-
gericht St. Gallen, Switzerland, 15 January 2010, available on the Internet at www.globalsaleslaw.org; Oberlandesgericht Hamm, Germany,
2 April 2009, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch; Tribunale di Forlì, Italy, 16 February 2009, English translation available on the
Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 1203 [Rechtbank Breda, the Netherlands, 16 January 2009], English translation available
on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Polymeles Protodikio Athinon, Greece, 2009 (docket No. 2282/2009), English translation available
on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Polimeles Protodikio Athinon, Greece, 2009 (docket No. 4505/2009), English translation available
on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 867 [Tribunale di Forlì, Italy, 11 December 2008], English translation available
on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Kantonsgericht Zug, Switzerland, 27 November 2008, English translation available on the Internet
at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Hof van Beroep Ghent, Belgium, 14 November 2008, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.
law.pace.edu; U.S. District Court, New Jersey, United States, 7 October 2008, available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; U.S. Dis-
trict Court, Southern District of Florida, United States, 19 May 2008, available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht
Innsbruck, Austria, 18 December 2007, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Linz, Aus-
tria, 24 September 2007, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Handelsgericht Kanton Aargau, Switzerland,
20 September 2007, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch; CLOUT case No. 1552 [Audiencia Provincial de Valencia, sección 8ª,
Spain, 13 March 2007], English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 933 [Bundesgericht, Swit-
zerland, 20 December 2006]; CLOUT case No. 824 [Oberlandesgericht Köln, Germany, 24 May 2006]; Tribunal of International Commercial
Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation, 13 April 2006, English translation available
on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Köln, Germany, 3 April 2006, English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 749 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 21 June 2005]; CLOUT case No. 748 [Oberster Gerichtshof,
Austria, 24 May 2005]; CLOUT case No. 905 [Tribunal cantonal du Valais, Switzerland, 21 February 2005]; CLOUT case No. 651 [Tribunale
di Padova, Italy, 11 January 2005]; Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 21 April 2004, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.
pace.edu; Tribunale di Padova, Italy, 25 February 2004, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Bundesgeri-
cht, Switzerland, 19 February 2004, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch; CLOUT case No. 596 [Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken,
Germany, 2 February 2004] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 534 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 17 December 2003] (see full
text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 1136 [ China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People’s Republic of China,
10 December 2003], English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 889 [Handelsgericht Zürich,
Switzerland, 24 October 2003]; Obergericht Thurgau, Switzerland, 11 September 2003, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch;
Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation,
15 August 2003, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Landgericht Köln, Germany, 25 March 2003, English
translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen, Switzerland, 23 April 2002, English translation
available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 880 [Tribunal cantonal du Vaud, Switzerland, 11 April 2002] (see
the full text of the decision); Rechtbank van Koophandel Veurne, Belgium, 25 April 2001, English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 998 [Højesteret, Denmark, 15 February 2001], English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 378 [Tribunale di Vigevano, Italy, 12 July 2000]; CLOUT case No. 338 [Oberlandesgericht Hamm,
Germany, 23 June 1998]; CLOUT case No. 223 [Cour d’appel de Paris, France, 15 October 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT
case No. 230 [Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, Germany, 25 June 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 190 [Oberster Gericht-
shof, Austria, 11 February 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 311 [Oberlandesgericht Köln, Germany, 8 January 1997]
(see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 211 [Tribunal cantonal de Vaud, Switzerland, 11 March 1996] (Aluminum granules) (see
full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 170 [Landgericht Trier, Germany, 12 October 1995] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case
No. 106 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 10 November 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 199 [Tribunal cantonal du Valais,
Switzerland, 29 June 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 317 [Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, Germany, 20 November 1992]
(see full text of the decision).
2
See, for example, CLOUT case No. 956 [Federal Court of Australia, Australia, 20 May 2009 (Olivaylle Pty Ltd v. Flottweg AG formerly
Flottweg GmbH & Co. KGAA)], [2009] FCA 522, (2009) 255 ALR 632, available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
3
CLOUT case No. 1025 [Cour de cassation cassation, France, 3 November 2009], English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.
pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 904 [Tribunal cantonal du Jura, Switzerland, 3 November 2004]; CLOUT case No. 575 [U.S. Court of Appeals
(5th Circuit), United States, 11 June 2003, corrected on 7 July 2003] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 433 [U.S. Distrcit Court,
Northern District of California, United States, 27 July 2001], Federal Supplement (2nd Series) vol. 164, p. 1142 (Asante Technologies v.
PMC-Sierra), also available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunal de Commerce Namur, Belgium, 15 January 2002, available
on the Internet at www.law.kuleuven.be.
4
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, United States, 11 January 2011, unpublished; Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 4 July
2007, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English
translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
5
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, United States, 16 August 2005, available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, 20 October 2014, (WS Inventin Trade GmbH v. Guangzhou
6

Glomarket Trading Co. Ltd), (2013) Hui Zhong Fa Min Si Zhong Zi No. 91 Civil Judgment, available on the Internet at www.court.gov.cn;
CLOUT case No. 828 [Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands, 2 January 2007].
7
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, United States, 21 January 2010, available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
8
See Supreme People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, 30 June 2014, (ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products GmbH v. Sinochem
International (Overseas) Pte Ltd), (2013) Min Si Zhong Zi No. 35 Civil Judgment, available on the Internet at www.court.gov.cn; Supreme
People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, 30 April 2014, (C & J Sheet Metal Co. Ltd v. Wenzhou Chenxing Machinery Co. Ltd), (2014)
Min Shen Zi No. 266 Civil Ruling, available on the Internet at www.court.gov.cn; Supreme People’s Court, People’s Republic of China,
24 December 2012, (Egypt Elborsh Co. v. Geng Qunying et al.), (2012) Min Shen Zi No. 1402 Civil Ruling, available on the Internet at
www.court.gov.cn, reversing Hebei High People’s Court, (2010) Ji Min San Zhong Zi No. 59; High People’s Court of Zhejiang Province,
36 UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods

People’s Republic of China, 20 August 2014, (Grand Resources Group Co. Ltd v. STX Corp.) (2014) Zhe Shang Wai Zhong Zi No. 48 Civil
Judgment, available on the Internet at www.ccmt.org.cn; High People’s Court of Beijing Municipality, People’s Republic of China, 18 March
2005, (Beijing Chenguang Huilong Electronic Technology Co. Ltd v Thales Communications (France) Co. Ltd), (2004) Gao Min Zhong Zi
No. 576 Civil Judgment. Cf High People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality, available on the Internet at www.ccmt.org.cn, People’s Republic
of China, 17 May 2007, (H20 Recreation Inc. v Donghui Plastic (Shanghai) Co. Ltd) (2007) Hu Gao Min Si (Shang) Zhong Zi No. 6 Civil
Judgment, available on the Internet at www.ccmt.org.cn, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
9
For a reference to this principle, see CLOUT case No. 229 [Bundesgerichtshof, Germany, 4 December 1996] (see full text of the decision).
For an express reference to the Convention’s non-mandatory nature, see Obergericht Kanton Bern, Switzerland, 19 May 2008, available
10

on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch; CLOUT case No. 1401 [Tribunal cantonal de Vaud, Switzerland, 24 November 2004];] CLOUT case
No 904 [Tribunal cantonal du Jura, Switzerland, 3 November 2004]; CLOUT case No. 880 [Tribunal cantonal du Vaud, Switzerland, 11 April
2002] (see the text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 647 [Cassazione civile, Italy, 19 June 2000], also in Giurisprudenza italiana, 2001,
236; see CLOUT case No. 425 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 21 March 2000], also in Internationales Handelsrecht, 2001, 41; CLOUT case
No. 240 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 15 October 1998] (see full text of the decision); Handelsgericht Wien, Austria, 4 March 1997, unpub-
lished; CLOUT case No. 199 [KantonsgerichtWallis, Switzerland, 29 June 1994], also in Zeitschrift für Walliser Rechtsprechung, 1994, 126.
11
CLOUT case No. 432 [Landgericht Stendal, Germany, 12 October 2000], also in Internationales Handelsrecht, 2001, 32.
For decisions referring to the fact that parties may exclude the application of the Convention or derogate from or vary the effect of
12

most of its provisions, see Zivilgericht Basel-Stadt, Switzerland, 8 November 2006, English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
Russian Federation, 30 June 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria,
23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration
at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation, 16 March 2005, English translation available on the
Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Handelsgericht St. Gallen, Switzerland, 11 February 2003, English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 574 [U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, United States, 29 January 2003]; CLOUT
case No. 880 [Tribunal cantonal du Vaud, Switzerland, 11 April 2002] (see the full text of the decision).
See article 96: “A Contracting State whose legislation requires contracts of sale to be concluded in or evidenced by writing may at any
13

time make a declaration in accordance with article 12 that any provision of article 11, article 29, or Part II of this Convention, that allows a
contract of sale or its modification or termination by agreement or any offer, acceptance, or other indication of intention to be made in any
form other than in writing, does not apply where any party has his place of business in that State.”
14
For an express reference in case law to the fact that the parties are not allowed to exclude article 12, see Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria,
23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
15
CLOUT case No. 651 [Tribunale di Padova, Italy, 11 January 2005].
16
Ibid.
Rechtbank Arnhem, the Netherlands, 11 February 2009, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; see also
17

Landgericht Gießen, Germany, 5 July 1994, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report, 1995, 438.
18
Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 2002 (Arbitral award No. 11333), available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
19
Zivilgericht Basel-Stadt, Switzerland, 8 November 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
20
CLOUT case No. 151 [Cour d’appel de Grenoble, France, 26 April 1995].
21
CLOUT case No. 106 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 10 November 1994].
Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Ukraine Chamber of Commerce and Trade, Ukraine, 2005 (Arbitral award
22

No. 48), English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.

For cases in which the Convention was expressly excluded, see Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber
23

of Commerce, Serbia, 17 August 2009, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Rechtbank Utrecht, the
Netherlands, 15 April 2009, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunal of International Commercial
Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation, 5 November 2004, English translation avail-
able on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu. For cases in which reference was made to the parties’ undisputed possibility of excluding the
Convention expressly, see, for example, CLOUT case No. 1057 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 2 April 2009], English translation available
on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Hamm, Germany, 2 April 2009, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch;
CLOUT case No. 867 [Tribunale di Forlì, Italy, 11 December 2008], English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, 24 August 2012 (Venter v. Ilona MY Ltd), [2012] NSWSC 1029 at [28] (exclusive juris-
24

diction clause); Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg, Germany, 20 December 2007, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.
pace.edu; Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 4 July 2007, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu. For a simple
reference to the possibility of excluding the Convention expressly by resorting to standard contract terms, see CLOUT case No. 904 [Tribunal
cantonal du Jura, Switzerland, 3 November 2004].
25
This is true for instance in Germany, as pointed out in case law; see, for example, CLOUT case No. 122 [Oberlandesgericht Köln,
Germany, 26 August 1994]; CLOUT case No. 292 [Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken, Germany, 13 January 1993] (see full text of the decision);
this is also true in Switzerland, see CLOUT case No. 331 [Handelsgericht Kanton Zürich, Switzerland, 10 February 1999], also in Schweize-
rische Zeitschrift für Internationales und Europäisches Recht, 2000, 111.
26
See CLOUT case No. 231 [Bundesgerichtshof, Germany, 23 July 1997] (see full text of the decision); Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt,
Germany, 15 March 1996, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch.
27
Where the rules of private international law of the forum are those laid down either in the 1955 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable
to International Sales of Goods Convention, 510 U.N.T.S. 149, in the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obli-
gations (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1605, No. 28023), in the Rome I Regulation, or in the 1994 Inter-American Convention on the
Part one. Sphere of application and general provisions 37

Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Organization of American States Fifth Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private Inter-
national Law: Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts, March 17, 1994, OEA/Ser.K/XXI.5, CIDIP-V/
doc.34/94 rev. 3 corr. 2, March 17, 1994, available on the Internet at www.oas.org), the law chosen by the parties will govern.
28
Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Serbia, 17 August 2009, English translation available
on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
29
CLOUT case No. 826 [Oberlandesgericht München, Germany, 19 October 2006].
30
See Cour d’appel de Rouen, France, 26 September 2013, available in French on the Internet at www.cisg-france.org; CLOUT case
No. 1057 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 2 April 2009], English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Ober-
landesgericht Hamm, Germany, 2 April 2009, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch; Obergericht des Kantons Aargau, Switzer-
land, 3 March 2009, at www.cisg-online.ch; Tribunale di Forlì, Italy, 16 February 2009, English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 1020 [Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Serbia,
28 January 2009], English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Polimeles Protodikio Athinon, Greece, 2009
(docket No. 4505/2009), English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 867 [Tribunale di Forlì,
Italy, 11 December 2008], English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Obergericht Kanton Bern, Switzerland,
19 May 2008, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch; Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 4 July 2007, English translation available on
the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 651 [Tribunale di Padova, Italy, 11 January 2005]; Tribunale di Padova, Italy, 25 February 2004,
English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 534 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 17 December
2003] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 886 [Handelsgericht St. Gallen, Switzerland, 3 December 2002] (Sizing machine case),
Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht, 2003, 104, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.
law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 880 [Tribunal cantonal du Vaud, Switzerland, 11 April 2002] (see the text of the decision); Court of Arbitration
of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 2002 ((Arbitral award No. 11333), available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu;
CLOUT case No. 605 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 22 October 2001], also available on the Internet at www.cisg.at; Cour de cassation, France,
26 June 2001, Unilex; CLOUT case No. 483 [Rechtbank van Koophandel Kortrijk, Belgium, 19 April 2001], available on the Internet at
www.law.kuleuven.be; CLOUT case No. 483 [Audiencia Provincial de Alicante, Spain, 16 November 2000]; CLOUT case No. 378 [Tribu-
nale di Vigevano, Italy, 12 July 2000]; Oberlandesgericht Dresden, Germany, 27 December 1999, Unilex; CLOUT case No. 273 [Oberland-
esgericht München, Germany, 9 July 1997] (see full text of the decision); Landgericht München, Germany, 29 May 1995, Neue Juristische
Wochenschrift, 1996, 401 f.; CLOUT case No. 136 [Oberlandesgericht Celle, Germany, 24 May 1995] (see full text of the decision). See also
the decisions cited in the following notes.
31
Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case
No. 904 [Tribunal cantonal du Jura, Switzerland, 3 November 2004]; CLOUT case No. 575 [U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Circuit), United
States, 11 June 2003, corrected on 7 July 2003] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 605 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 22 Octo-
ber 2001], also available on the Internet at www.cisg.at.
32
CLOUT case No. 904 [Tribunal cantonal du Jura, Switzerland, 3 November 2004].
Official Records of the United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 10 March–11 April 1980
33

(United Nations publication, Sales No. E.81.IV.3), 85-86.

34
Ibid. article 17.
35
See U.S. District Court, New Jersey, United States, 7 October 2008, available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case
No. 845 [U.S. District Court, Eastern District Michigan, United States, 28 September 2007]; CLOUT case No. 847 [U.S. District Court,
Minnesota, United States, 31 January 2007]; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, United States, 23 August 2006, available
on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, United States, 16 August 2005, available on
the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; U.S. District Court, New Jersey, United States, 15 June 2005, available on the Internet at www.cisg.
law.pace.edu; Kantonsgericht Zug, Switzerland, 11 December 2003, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch; Landgericht Landshut,
Germany, 5 April 1995, Unilex; Court of International Trade, United States, 24 October 1989, 726 Fed. Supp. 1344 (Orbisphere Corp. v.
United States), available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
36
See CLOUT case No. 474 [Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Russian Federation, 24 January 2000], also referred to on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
37
For this statement, see Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.
pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 904 [Tribunal cantonal du Jura, Switzerland, 3 November 2004] (see full text of decision).
38
Whether such a choice is to be acknowledged at all depends on the rules of private international law of the forum.
39
See Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT
case No. 651 [Tribunale di Padova, Italy, 11 January 2005] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 904 [Tribunal cantonal du Jura,
Switzerland, 3 November 2004] (see full text of decision); CLOUT case No. 574 [U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, United
States, 29 January 2003]; CLOUT case No. 49 [Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, Germany, 2 July 1993] (see full text of the decision); see
also CLOUT case No. 483 [Audiencia Provincial de Alicante, Spain, 16 November 2000] (the parties implicitly excluded application of the
Convention by providing that their contract should be interpreted in accordance with the law of a Non-contracting State and by submitting
their petitions, statements of defense, and counterclaims in accordance with the domestic law of the forum (a Contracting State)).
40
See Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian
Federation, 16 March 2005, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunal of International Commercial
Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation, 12 April 2004, English translation avail-
able on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of
Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation, 11 October 2002, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu;
Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation,
6 September 2002, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 92 [Ad Hoc Arbitration
Tribunal, Italy, 19 April 1994].
38 UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods

41
See See Supreme People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, 20 July 1999 (Zheng Hong Li Ltd, Hong Kong v. Jill Bert Ltd), (1998)
Jing Zhong Zi No. 208 Civil Judgment, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch, the
Netherlands, 13 November 2007, unpublished; CLOUT case No. 904 [Tribunal cantonal du Jura, Switzerland, 3 November 2004] (see full
text of decision); Cour d’appel de Colmar, France, 26 September 1995, Unilex; CLOUT case No. 326 [Kantonsgericht Zug, Switzerland,
16 March 1995]; CLOUT case No. 54 [Tribunale Civile de Monza, Italy, 14 January 1993].
42
Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands, 13 November 2007, unpublished.
High People’s Court of Tianjin Municipality, People’s Republic of China, 25 November 2013, (Kemlon International v. Pang Languo),
43

(2013) Jin Gao Min Si Zhong Zi No. 91, Civil Judgment, available on the Internet at www.ccmt.org.cn; High People’s Court of Zhejiang
Province, People’s Republic of China, 11 September 2013, (Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import and Export Co. Ltd v. Heltiji Food-
stuffs Ltd), (2013) Zhe Shang Wai Zhong Zi No. 83 Civil Judgment, available on the Internet at www.court.gov.cn; Bundesgerichtshof, Ger-
many, 11 May 2010, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch; CLOUT case No. 1057 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 2 April 2009],
English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Obergericht des Kantons Aargau, Switzerland, 3 March 2009, at
www.cisg-online.ch; Polimeles Protodikio Athinon, Greece, 2009 (docket No. 4505/2009), English translation available on the Internet
at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Rechtbank Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 5 November 2008, unpublished; CLOUT case No. 1232 [Oberlandes-
gericht Stuttgart, Germany, 31 March 2008], English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 845
[U.S. District Court, Eastern District Michigan, United States, 28 September 2007]; Hof van Beroep Antwerpen, Belgium, 24 April 2006,
English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Rechtbank van Koophandel Hasselt, Belgium, 15 February 2006,
English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English trans-
lation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 8 August 2005, English translation available
on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 26 January 2005, English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 651 [Tribunale di Padova, Italy, 11 January 2005] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case
No. 1401 [Tribunal cantonal de Vaud, Switzerland, 24 November 2004];] Hof van Beroep Ghent, Belgium, 20 October 2004, English translation
available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Landgericht Kiel, Germany, 27 July 2004, English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 534 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 17 December 2003] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case
No. 575 [U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Circuit), United States, 11 June 2003, corrected on 7 July 2003]; CLOUT case No. 574 [U.S. Dis-
trict Court, Northern District of Illinois, United States, 29 January 2003]; CLOUT case No. 886 [Handelsgericht St. Gallen, Switzerland,
3 December 2002] (Sizing machine case), Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht, 2003, 104, English trans-
lation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken, Germany, 26 July 2002, English translation
available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 881 [Handelsgericht Zürich, Switzerland, 9 July 2002] (see full text of
the decision); Hof van Beroep Ghent, 15 May 2002, available on the Internet at www.law.kuleuven.be; CLOUT case No. 447 [U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, United States, 26 March 2002]; CLOUT case No. 541 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 14 January 2002
(see full text of the decision approving lower appeals court reasoning); CLOUT case No. 482 [Cour d’appel de Paris, France, 6 November
2001]; CLOUT case No. 605 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 22 October 2001], also available on the Internet at www.cisg.at; CLOUT case
No. 631 [Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, 17 November 2000]; CLOUT case No. 429 [Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, Germany,
30 August 2000], also available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 630 [Court of Arbitration of the International
Chamber of Commerce, Zurich, Switzerland, July 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 270 [Bundesgerichtshof, Germany,
25 November 1998]; CLOUT case No. 297 [Oberlandesgericht München, Germany, 21 January 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT
case No. 220 [Kantonsgericht Nidwalden, Switzerland, 3 December 1997]; CLOUT case No. 236 [Bundesgerichtshof, Germany, 23 July
1997]; CLOUT case No. 287 [Oberlandesgericht München, Germany, 9 July 1997]; CLOUT case No. 230 [Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe,
Germany, 25 June 1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 214 [Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich, Switzerland, 5 February
1997] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 206 [Cour de cassation, France, 17 December 1996] (see full text of the decision);
CLOUT case No. 409 [Landgericht Kassel, Germany, 15 February 1996], also in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungs-Report,
1996, 1146 f.; CLOUT case No. 125 [Oberlandesgericht Hamm, Germany, 9 June 1995]; Rechtbank s’-Gravenhage, the Netherlands, 7 June
1995, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 1995, No. 524; CLOUT case No. 167 [Oberlandesgericht München, Germany, 8 February
1995] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 120 [Oberlandesgericht Köln, Germany, 22 February 1994]; CLOUT case No. 281
[Oberlandesgericht Koblenz, Germany, 17 September 1993]; CLOUT case No. 48 [Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, Germany, 8 January 1993].
44
See Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation,
22 October 2004, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration
at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation, 17 September 2003, English translation available on the
Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Russian Federation, 25 June 2003, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunal of International
Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation, 16 June 2003, English translation
available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 2002 (Arbitral
award No. 11333), available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1999
(Arbitral award No. 9187), Unilex; CLOUT case No. 166 [Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Hamburg, Germany, 21 March, 21 June 1996];
Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Hungary, 17 November 1995, Unilex; Court of Arbitration
of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 1995 (Arbitral award No. 8324), Journal du droit international, 1996, 1019 ff.; Court of
Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 1994 (Arbitral award No. 7844), Unilex; CLOUT case No. 302 [Court of Arbi-
tration of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 1994 (Arbitral award No. 7660)], Unilex; CLOUT case No. 300 [Court of Arbi-
tration of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 1994 (Arbitral award No. 7565)], Journal du droit international, 1995, 1015 ff.;
CLOUT case No. 103 [Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1993 (Arbitral award No. 6653]; CLOUT case
No. 93 [Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft—Wien, Austria, 15 June 1994].
45
See, for example, CLOUT case No. 1513 [Cour de cassation, France, 13 September 2011]; CLOUT case No. 1057 [Oberster Ger-
ichtshof, Austria, 2 April 2009], English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria,
26 January 2005, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 21 April 2004, Eng-
lish translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federa-
tion Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Russian Federation, 20 April 2004, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.
pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken, Germany, 26 July 2002, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu;
Oberlandesgericht Rostock, Germany, 10 October 2001, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
Part one. Sphere of application and general provisions 39

46
CLOUT case No. 575 [U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Circuit), United States, 11 June 2003, corrected on 7 July 2003] (B.P. Petroleum Inter-
national Ltd v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos de Ecuador (Petroecuador)), U.S. App. LEXIS 12013, June 11, 2003, available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu. Note, however, that this line of reasoning was not explicitly relied upon in the Chinese court decisions cited above,
and was inconsistent with Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, 24 August 2012, (Japon Elektronik Teknoloji
Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Qingdao Hisense Import and Export Co. Ltd), reported at the Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court, Vol. 2013,
at page 540 (CISG not applied to a Sino-Turkish contract for sale of goods where both parties chose during court proceedings the PRC law
to govern the contract).
47
Oberlandesgericht Rostock, Germany, 10 October 2001, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu. One
court stated that, even though the choice of the law of a Contracting State without any reference to its domestic law may not per se amount to
an implicit exclusion of the Convention, it may be looked at as one factor from which to derive the parties’ intention to exclude it, when the
law chosen is that of a Contracting State different from those where the parties have their place of business; CLOUT case No. 1401 [Tribunal
cantonal de Vaud, Switzerland, 24 November 2004].]
48
CLOUT case No. 847 [U.S. District Court, Minnesota, United States, 31 January 2007]; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Penn-
sylvania, United States, 16 August 2005, available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu, U.S. District Court, New Jersey, United States,
15 June 2005, available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 574 [U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
United States, 29 January 2003].
49
Contra United States District Court, Rhode Island, United States, 30 January 2006, available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu
(the choice of the law of Rhode Island excludes the applicability of the Convention).
50
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, United States, 29 May 2009, available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu;
Obergericht des Kantons Aargau, Switzerland, 3 March 2009, at www.cisg-online.ch; Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 4 July 2007, English
translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Landgericht Kiel, Germany, 27 July 2004, English translation available on
the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 429 [Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, Germany, 30 August 2000], also available on the
Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, Germany, 15 March 1996, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch.
51
CLOUT case No. 956 [Federal Court of Australia, Australia, 20 May 2009].
CLOUT case No. 1057 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 2 April 2009], English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu;
52

Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
53
CLOUT case No. 1232 [Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, Germany, 31 March 2008], English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
54
CLOUT case No. 1511 [Cour d’appel de Rennes, France, 9 May 2012]; Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, Germany, 31 March 2008, English
translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
55
High People’s Court of Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China, 20 August 2014, (Grand Resources Group Co. Ltd v. STX Corp.)
(2014) Zhe Shang Wai Zhong Zi No. 48 Civil Judgment, available on the Internet at www.ccmt.org.cn
56
See Landgericht Bamberg, Germany, 23 October 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Landg-
ericht Saarbrücken, Germany, 2 July 2002, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 378
[Tribunale di Vigevano, Italy, 12 July 2000]; CLOUT case No. 125 [Oberlandesgericht Hamm, Germany, 9 June 1995]; Landgericht Land-
shut, Germany, 5 April 1995, Unilex.
57
See Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Tribunale
di Padova, Italy, 25 February 2004, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 596 [Oberland-
esgericht Zweibrücken, Germany, 2 February 2004] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 136 [Oberlandesgericht Celle, Germany,
24 May 1995] (see full text of the decision).
58
Corte Suprema, Chile, 22 September 2008, English summary available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 733
[Tribunal Supremo, Spain, 24 February 2006], English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case No. 837
[Cour de cassation, France, 25 October 2005]; High Commercial Court, Serbia, 9 July 2004, English translation available on the Internet at
www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Cour de cassation, France, 26 June 2001, Unilex; Oregon [State] Court of Appeals, United States, 12 April 1995, 133
Or. App. 633.
China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People’s Republic of China, 2006 (Arbitral award No. CISG/2006/17),
59

English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce,
October 1995 (Arbitral award No. 8453), ICC Court of Arbitration Bulletin, 2000, 55.
60
CLOUT case No. 590 [Landgericht Saarbrücken, Germany, 1 June 2004] (see full text of the decision).
CLOUT case No. 605 [Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 22 October 2001], also available on the Internet at www.cisg.at; Rechtbank van
61

Koophandel Kortrijk, Belgium, 19 April 2001, available on the Internet at www.law.kuleuven.be.

62
Obergericht Kanton Bern, Switzerland, 19 May 2008, available on the Internet at www.cisg-online.ch.
63
Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 2002 (Arbitral award No. 11333), available on the Internet
at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; see also CLOUT case No. 237 [Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Sweden, 5 June
1998], also available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
64
Oberlandesgericht Linz, Austria, 23 January 2006, English translation available on the Internet at www.cisg.law.pace.edu; CLOUT case
No. 482 [Cour d’appel de Paris, France, 6 November 2001].
See Official Records of the United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 1 0 March–11 April 1 980
65

(United Nations publication, Sales No. E.81.IV.3), 86, 252-253.