• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.27-55
• /
• 2008

The concept of non-conformity is stipulated at Art. 35, CISG. According to the Art. 35, there is no directly stipulated concept of non-conformity. But Art. 35 said that the Seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. Accordingly, the concept of non-conformity contains the conformity of quality, quantity, description, delivery of different goods and documents. Art. 39 does not specify the form of notice required. So parties can require a particular form by agreement. If there is no agreed form of notice, buyer' s notice must be sent by means appropriate in the circumstances. And Art. 39 states that the required notice of lack of conformity must be given to the seller. Notice of defects conveyed by the buyer to an independent third party is not found to have been given by means appropriate in the circumstances. And Art. 39 is subject to the parties' power under Art. 6 to derogate from or vary the effect of any provision of the Convention. When determining which requirement must be satisfied by the buyer is specifying the nature of any lack of conformity, a mixed objective-subjective standard should be applied, which has regard to the respective commercial situation of the buyer and the seller, to any cultural differences, but above all, to the nature of the goods. Also to determine the specificity requirement is to satisfy the purpose of notice of lack of conformity.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this paper is to provide a legal implication about conformity of goods in the international commercial transactions. There are so many legal relationship after the formation of contract. The most of important thing among the obligations of seller is to provide conformal goods which are of quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. If seller violate above duties, seller take the warranty liability. However, CISG describe the conformity of the goods instead of the warranty as follows. First, CISG Art.35(1) states standards for determining whether goods delivered by the seller conform to the contract and Art.35(2) describes standards relating to the goods' quality, function and packaging that, while not mandatory, are presumed to be a part of sales contracts. Article 35(2) is comprised of four subparts. Two of the subparts (article 35(2) (a) and article 35(2)(d)) apply to all contracts unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Second, CISG Art.36 and 38 deals with the time at which a lack of conformity in the goods must have arisen in order for the seller to be liable for it. If seller lack of conformity becomes apparent only after that time, seller is liable for a lack of conformity existing when risk passed to the buyer. Third, CISG Art.49 describe that a buyer who claims that delivered goods do not conform to the contract has an obligation to give the seller notice of the lack of conformity. The most of important things about CISG articles and precedents is that buyer is aware of the lack of conformity and notice it to seller. Failure to satisfy the notice requirements of article 39 eliminates a buyer's defence, based on a lack of conformity in delivered goods, to a seller's claim for payment of the price. Consequently, parties of contract had better agree to the notifying times about lack of conformity. Also, If seller fined the non-conformity, seller has to notify this circumstance to the buyer within short period or agreed time.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.27-52
• /
• 2007

As in more than half of the litigated cases, non-conformity of the goods is alleged by the buyer and, hence, the question aries of whether the buyer has given notice within a reasonable time and is thus allowed to rely on the lack of conformity at all, differences in interpreting the meaning of "reasonable time" in Article 39(1) CISG endanger uniformity of international sales law in a core area. This uniform interpretation of the "reasonable time" in Article 39(1) CISG can, however, not be achieved by merely making recommendations to courts and arbitral tribunals that case law from other CISG jurisdictions should be considered. This can at best lead to confusing results. As you know, the determining of reasonable time is depending on the circumstances concerned with the particular case. So the term 'reasonable time' has proven too imprecise due to its flexibility without defined uniform scale to assist the practitioners in a uniform application of Art. 39(1). Therefore I suggested the factors that influenced the determining of the reasonable time. The factors currently influencing whether an Art. 39(1) notice is given within reasonable time in international practice are: any international trade usage and practices, the nature of the remedy chosen by buyer, the nature of the goods delivered and the mode of dealing with the goods.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.83-100
• /
• 2020

This study aimed to provide the most accurate analysis possible regarding the buyer's duty to examine goods and give notice, or the like, of non-conformity to the seller under Belgian law in comparison with the CISG and CESL. Even though Belgium is the capital of the Europe Union, most of its laws remain untranslated in English. Therefore, this study may offer key insights into the specificities of Belgian law, which while being derived from the French Napoleon Code has its own practices coded into its Case Law. It also makes a comparison with the new CESL and CISG in order to evaluate their respective influence on national law and other infructuous attempts to harmonize Belgian law for the internal European market. Evaluating the differences of each system in the spirit of comparative law may be a good basis for the development of laws in each jurisdiction.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.37-58
• /
• 2016

CISG Article 50 contains the remedy of price reduction but limits it if the seller has a right to cure. Reduction of price presupposes that the seller delivers non-conforming goods, and that the buyer decides to accept them nevertheless. The remedy of price reduction differs from all other remedies provided in CISG with regard to it effects and to the time-limits. As to the time-limits, unlike Articles 46 and 49, Article 50 does not contain the element within a reasonable time. CISG imposes no period of time for his reducing the price. The buyer's right to declare a reduction of the price is expressly subject to the seller's right to remedy any failure to perform his obligations pursuant to Articles 37 and 48. The problem lies in determining from where to take the figures for comparing the value of the goods contracted and of those delivered. The price level in this place will usually determine his considerations as to resale or repair of the defective goods. The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within, as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.253-276
• /
• 1999

CISG articles 34 and 37 clearly allow the seller to cure any nonconformity in documents of sale or performance prior to the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable expense. CISG article 48 allows a seller to cure the performance even after the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable delay, unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable uncertainty of reimbursement by the seller of expenses advanced by the buyer. The wording any failure to perform is broad enough to include a delay. The seller's right to cure relates to all his obligations. The seller may remedy 'any failure to perform his obligations'. This language is broad enough to include a defect in documents. In some cases the fact that the seller is able and willing to remedy the non-conformity of the goods without inconvenience to the buyer, may mean that there would be no fundamental breach unless the seller failed to remedy the non-conformity within an appropriate time. It cannot generally be said what unreasonable inconvenience means. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. The seller must bear the costs involved in remedying a failure to perform. The curing of a failure to perform may have influence on the amount of the damage claimed. Insofar as the seller has the right to cure, the buyer is in that case obliged to accept the cure. If he refuses to do so, he can neither avoid the contract nor declare a reduction in price. This rule clearly shows the underlying concept of the CISG, to keep to the contract, if possible. Should the buyer requires delivery of substitute goods and the seller offers repair, it depends on the expense each case. The buyer must receive the request or notice by the seller. The relationship between the seller's right to cure and the buyer's right to avoid the contract is unclear. The buyer's right to avoid the contract should not nullify the seller's right to cure if the offer is reasonable. In addition, whether a breach is fundamental should be decided in the right of the seller's offer to cure.