Reproduced with permission of 13 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law &

Arbitration (1/2009) 15-42

Homeward Trend and Lex Forism Despite Uniform Sales Law

Franco Ferrari [*]
1.
2.

Autonomous Interpretation v. Homeward Trend?

Defining Homeward Trend

3.

Homeward Trend in CISG Case Law: A First Example

4.

Homeward Trend in CISG Case Law: A Second Example

5.

The Homeward Trend Overcome

6.

Conclusion

1. AUTONOMOUS INTERPRETATION v. HOMEWARD TREND?

It is common knowledge, and has been for some time,[1] that 'drafting uniform words is one
thing; ensuring their uniformity is another',[2] since 'even when outward uniformity is achieved
[...], uniform application of the agreed rules is by no means guaranteed, as in practice different
countries almost inevitably come to put different interpretations upon the same enacted words'.
[3] Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of diverging [page 15] interpretations of the same text,
[4] that text must be interpreted in a uniform manner. This is necessary since, as stated by
Viscount Simonds on behalf of the House of Lords in Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd.,[5]
'it would be deplorable if the nations should, after protracted negotiations, reach agreement [...]
and that their several courts should then disagree as to the meaning of what they appeared to
agree upon'.[6]
The drafters of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
Goods [7] (hereafter 'CISG') [8] were aware of this problem. To combat it they introduced a
provision which requires that when interpreting the CISG 'regard is to be had to its international
character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good
faith in international trade'.[9] Similar provisions are found in other uniform law conventions,
such as the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations [10] and
the 1988 UNIDROIT Conventions on International Factoring and International Financial
Leasing.[11] [page 16]
Many courts [12] and commentators [13] have construed this provision to mean that the CISG is
to be interpreted 'autonomously',[14] not 'nationalistically', i.e. not in the light of domestic law,
[15] as difficult as this may be.[16] Consequently, one should not have [page 17] recourse to any
domestic concept in order to solve interpretive problems arising under the CISG.[17] As stated in
a recent Swiss court decision,[18] this 'nationalistic approach'[19] would not only lead to
divergences, but, ultimately, to the promotion of forum shopping,[20] which the CISG aims to
reduce.[21]

Many commentators have argued that the above proposition applies even where the expressions
employed by the CISG (or by other uniform law conventions for that matter) [22] are textually
the same as expressions that have a specific meaning within a particular domestic legal system -such as 'avoidance', 'reasonable', or 'good faith'.[23] [page 18]
In effect, the CISG refers to concepts that are necessarily independent [24] and different [25]
from national concepts,[26] since the expressions employed in uniform law conventions such as
the CISG are intended to be neutral.[27] This appears to be a basic principle of international
uniform law [28] resulting, in part, from the assumption that international uniform law 'does not
want to identify itself with any legal system, because it wants to conjugate with all'.[29] Indeed,
any choice of one expression rather than another is the result of a compromise [30] and generally
does not correspond to the reception of a [page 19] concept peculiar to a specific domestic law:
[31] As a result, an interpreter must be aware of so-called faux-amis.[32] Where, however, it is
apparent from legislative history that the drafters wanted a given concept to be interpreted in
light of a specific domestic law, one is allowed to have recourse to the 'domestic' understanding
of that concept.[33]
Unfortunately, however, courts do not always comply with this mandate to interpret the CISG
autonomously, nor do they seem to resort to 'nationalistic' interpretations only where justified by
the legislative history. Rather, a closer look at some decisions allows one to state that a
'homeward trend' is discernible, at least by some courts. This trend is deplorable because it
promotes parochialism [34] and thus defeats the very purpose of the CISG,[35] namely the
creation of a uniform sales law [36] aimed at the creation of legal certainty and 'the removal of
legal barriers in international trade'.[37] In effect, the homeward trend 'deprives the collective
signatories of the predictability and reliability of law which the CISG was meant to create. In
order for the CISG to truly live up to the purpose for which it was created, interpreting courts
must stay within the strict boundaries of Article 7'.[38] It is therefore rather surprising that one
commentator suggests not only that the 'categorical condemnation of the homeward trend is
unwarranted',[39] but also that '[t]he homeward trend may [...] enhance the legitimacy and
acceptability of the CISG over the long term'.[40]
This view is not tenable. The suggestion that the homeward trend enhances the CISG's
legitimacy overlooks the fact that the CISG's legitimacy is derived from the [page 20] wide
acceptance it enjoys,[41] which is in turn due to the goal it pursues -- namely the creation of a
uniform sales law able to break down the obstacles to international import/export constituted by
the plethora of existing domestic legal regimes.[42] This goal can only be achieved by applying
the CISG in one and the same manner in the various contracting States.[43]
The suggestion that the homeward trend enhances the CISG's applicability by preventing parties
from countries in the courts of which the homeward trend is discernible from opting-out [44] is
similarly misguided. It does not take due account, for example, of the fact that those parties'
reliance on the homeward trend is justified only where the dispute is to be decided by the courts
of the countries in which they are located.[45] This, however, would (generally) require the
opposing parties to agree with the former parties' choice of forum, which they may be unwilling
to do. Instead, they may want their own courts' domestic interpretation of the CISG, where one
exists, to apply (thus leading to a battle of homeward trends), or simply be reluctant to give the

opposing parties the competitive advantage of reliance on their 'domestic' interpretation. The
resolution of this potential conflict may ultimately require excluding the CISG altogether [46]
(which certainly does nothing to enhance the CISG's applicability). What is certain is that this
conflict creates unpredictability,[47] and therefore cannot be advocated.
The theory of enhanced CISG applicability as a result of the homeward trend has additional
weak points. It does not take into account, for example, that the homeward trend limits rather
than promotes the CISG's applicability because it prevents the CISG from functioning as a
neutral law to which parties can resort when they wish to avoid the application of the domestic
law of opposing parties.[48] Furthermore, a [page 21] homeward trend in any given country may
not be readily identifiable to contracting parties ex ante, which may increase transaction costs in
international contracts. If a party is unaware that his or her national courts' interpretation is the
result of a homeward trend, that party may be induced to believe that his or her courts'
interpretation is one generally accepted. Reliance upon this erroneous assumption may induce
parties to make wrong choices (regarding, for instance, the forum) and generate costs. Again, this
conflicts with one of the primary goals of the CISG (or any other uniform law instrument, for
that matter) [49] -- reducing costs by creating a uniform regime.[50]
From this only one conclusion can be drawn: 'Indulging in the homeward trend, obviously,
violates the mandate of Art. 7(1) (which requires that the CISG be interpreted with "regard" for
its international character and for "the need to promote uniformity in its application") and
constitutes a serious -- quite possibly the most serious -- threat to the main purpose of the CISG:
progress toward a uniform regime of international sales law.'[51] In other words, only if one
moves 'towards a CISG perspective that transcends domestic ideology'[52] can the CISG's main
purpose be reached.[53] This requires fighting the homeward trend, not advocating for it. [page
22]
2. DEFINING HOMEWARD TREND

How, can this -- arguably most significant [54] -- threat to the CISG's main purpose be defined?
According to those CISG commentators who have not only referred to the homeward trend,[55]
but who have also attempted to define it, the homeward trend is akin to the 'natural'[56]
'tendency of those interpreting the CISG to project the domestic law in which the interpreter was
trained (and with which he or she is likely most familiar) onto the international provisions of the
Convention'.[57] It is, in other words, the 'the tendency to think that the words we see [in the text
of the CISG] are merely trying, in their awkward way, to state the domestic rule we know so
well'.[58]
This 'natural tendency [by courts] to read the international rules in light of the legal ideas that
have been imbedded at the core of their intellectual formation'[59] is, however, to be
distinguished from recourse to domestic law for interpretive purposes in cases where that
recourse to domestic law is imposed by the CISG itself. Although it may seem contradictory to
first advocate, as has been done in Part 1, the autonomous interpretation of the CISG [60] and
then refer to the need to resort to domestic law, it is not. Rather the mandate to interpret the
CISG autonomously is not [page 23] absolute,[61] and therefore not all expressions used by the
drafters of the CISG must be interpreted autonomously.[62] Indeed there are some expressions
which an interpreter must interpret 'domestically', despite the negative effect this may have on

the uniformity the drafters of the CISG wanted to achieve. This is true, for instance, with respect
to the expression 'private international law' employed by the CISG.[63] Since the CISG
constitutes 'merely' a substantive law convention [64] that does not set forth any private
international law rule,[65] the expression 'private international law' found in Arts. 1(1)(b) and
7(2) CISG has to be understood as a reference to the private international law of the forum.[66]
Although various courts have already implicitly adopted this view,[67] an Italian court, the
Tribunale di Padova,[68] has recently done so explicitly. When examining the CISG's substantive
applicability requirements, the court first rejected the homeward trend when it stated that from a
substantive point of view, it is necessary that the contract be one for the sale of goods which,
however, the Convention does not define. Nevertheless, the lack of an express definition should
not lead one to resort to a domestic definition, such as that to be found in Art. 1470 of the
[Italian] Civil Code. In effect, the Convention's concept of "contract for the sale of goods" has to
be interpreted, as have the majority of concepts (such as that of "place of business", "habitual
residence", "goods") autonomously, i.e. without resort to concepts [page 24] characteristic of any
particular legal system.[69] The court then also stated that not all CISG expressions had to be
interpreted autonomously; by way of example it referred to the 'concept of "private international
law", which corresponds to the concept of private international law of the forum.[70] In so
stating, the court made it clear that there is a distinction between the homeward trend as defined
above -- which is to be avoided -- and recourse to domestic law, which may be required by the
CISG itself.[71]
The homeward trend, as defined above, must be distinguished not only from the legitimate, albeit
exceptional, recourse for interpretive purposes to domestic law in cases where it is imposed by
the CISG itself, but also from another trend, namely that of promoting interpretive solutions that
'by one means or another, result in the application of the forum's own internal law'.[72] This
trend of 'favor legis fori' [73] is a variation of the homeward trend and differs from the variation
referred to earlier in that it does not manifest itself in domestic interpretations of supposedly
autonomous concepts, but rather in the tendency to reach results that lead to the application of
domestic law tout court. This 'lex forism' [74] is independent from the variation of the homeward
trend mentioned initially; though they may, at times, go hand in hand.
3. HOMEWARD TREND IN CISG CASE LAW: A FIRST EXAMPLE

Examples of both variations of the homeward trend can be found in CISG case law.
Nevertheless, it appears that the variation which consists of the tendency by interpreters 'to turn
to their familiar, and nonuniform, norms of domestic law in the [page 25] interpretation of
international standards'[75] has had a larger impact on court decisions than that trend's favor
legis fori variation. This is unsurprising, as there are very few CISG provisions which can be
interpreted to allow courts to apply the lex fori.
The former variation, though it has had an impact on courts from various countries,[76] is
discernible mainly in the United States.[77] There, unfortunately, courts seem not only to rely on
it as regards specific issues,[78] but also as a matter of principle. This is evidenced by the
following statement, found in many decisions: 'caselaw interpreting analogous provisions of
Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") may also inform a court where the language
of the relevant CISG provisions tracks that of the UCC'.[79] In this author's opinion,[80] this

statement, as well as other comparable ones,[81] which clearly show, as suggested already more
than half a century ago, that [page 26] 'the homeward trend may be prompted not only by greater
strangeness but also by greater similarity between forum and foreign [or uniform] law',[82] is
wrong. The mere fact that the wording of a particular CISG provision corresponds to that of a
specific domestic rule (whether created by statute or case law) is per se insufficient to allow one
to resort to interpretations of that domestic rule, as noted in Part 1 of this paper.[83] Thus, one
should question whether it is true that the CISG's 'foreseeability requirement [...] is identical to
the well-known rule of Hadley v. Baxendale, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (Ct. Exch. 1854), such that
relevant interpretations of that rule can guide the Court's reasoning regarding proper damages'.
[84] If the foreseeability requirement set forth in Art. 74 CISG really were based on the Hadley
v. Baxendale Common Law rule, one should indeed be allowed to have recourse to the Common
Law interpretations of that rule, despite the mandate that in interpreting the CISG regard 'be had
to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application
autonomously'. However, as has been repeatedly shown,[85] the foreseeability limit set forth in
Art. 74 CISG does not stem from the Common Law,[86] because even the rule in Hadley v.
Baxendale upon which the various expressions of the foreseeability limit to be found in Common
Law are modelled [87] is itself not a rule invented under the Common Law. Rather, as stated in
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Hamilton & Dotson, among others,[88] the Common Law foreseeability
limit 'is known [page 27] as the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale and is sometimes spoken of as
having originated in that case, though it is in reality an embodiment of civil law principles, and is
substantially a paraphrasing of a rule on the subject as it had been stated at an earlier date in the
Code Napoleon, by Pothier'.[89]
Ultimately, this means that the Art. 74 CISG foreseeability limit is not a derivative of the rule in
Hadley v. Baxendale. It is therefore incorrect to state, as did one U.S. court when interpreting the
CISG, that the 'CISG requires that damages be limited by the familiar principle of foreseeability
established in Hadley v. Baxendale'.[90] This 'frankly preposterous'[91] statement is nothing but
'a consummate illustration of a court unwittingly seeing a provision of the Convention through a
domestic lens',[92] which it should not do,[93] except in the very limited circumstances referred
to earlier.[94] The foreseeability requirement set forth in Art. 74 CISG, like most other concepts
and expressions used in the CISG, is to be interpreted autonomously and not in the light of any
given domestic law, whether U.S., English or even French [95] -- where the [page 28]
foreseeability limitation originated. In other words, the exception to the mandate to interpret the
CISG autonomously, pursuant to which one should have recourse to the 'domestic' understanding
of a concept where it is apparent from the legislative history that the drafters of the CISG wanted
to adopt that specific concept's domestic understanding, does not apply to the foreseeability limit
set forth in Art. 74 CISG. From a methodological point of view it is therefore incorrect to state,
as did one U.S. court, that the 'relevant interpretations of [the Hadley v. Baxendale] rule can
guide the Court's reasoning regarding proper damages'[96] under the CISG. This statement is
nothing but another 'excellent example of the errors that result from the failure to interpret and
apply the Convention as an international, rather than a domestic, body of law'[97] and shows that
that court, too, 'was clearly unable to overcome its own ethnocentric bias'.[98] This inability led
the court to even go so far as to state that the CISG's 'foreseeability requirement [...] is identical
to the well-known rule of Hadley v. Baxendale',[99] a statement that, as pointed out earlier, is
clearly incorrect. Even '[a] cursory reading of the two formulations of "foreseeability" illustrates
the [obviously] dissimilar content'.[100]

It is worth mentioning that under Art. 74 CISG 'the foreseeability of the loss must be judged
from the view-point of the party in breach'[101] and of that party alone,[102] 'whereas at
common law foreseeability is determined by what is in the "reasonable contemplation of the
parties"'.[103] It should be noted, however, 'that more recent English decisions, although still
always referring to Hadley v. Baxendale, essentially focus on examining foreseeability only on
the side of the party [in breach]. Despite some uncertainty, a similar tendency can be observed in
American judicial practice as well and the UCC specifically provides this very rule'.[104] [page
29]
Moreover, while Art. 74 CISG refers to the 'foreseeability' of damages; the original rule in
Hadley v. Baxendale requires their 'contemplation'.[105] There is a difference in the meaning
behind these different expressions,[106] which impacts the limitation of recoverable damages. In
effect, 'a rule that provides that damages only need to be "foreseeable" surely ought to narrow the
limitations of Hadley and widen the scope of recovery'.[107]
Additionally, Art. 74 CISG limits recovery to those damages which the party in breach 'knew or
ought to have known as a possible consequence of the breach',[108] while the (original) rule in
Hadley v. Baxendale limits recovery of lost profits to those that were 'in the contemplation of
both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach'.[109] 'Thus,
[under the CISG] a claimant need not show awareness that the loss was a "probable result" or a
substantial probability'.[110] 'This means that the breaching party ought to be liable for a greater
range of consequential damages under the CISG (those that were foreseeable as a "possible"
consequence of the breach) than under the common law or UCC (only those that were
foreseeable as a "probable" consequence of the breach)'.[111] To put it differently, 'Hadley's
[original] [page 30] "probable result" limitation is much more restrictive than the "possible
consequence" limitation of Art. 74'.[112]
Given the aforementioned differences that unequivocally show that the rules on limitation of
damages set forth in Art. 74 CISG and in Hadley v. Baxendale are rather different, only one
overall conclusion can be drawn: in interpreting Art. 74 CISG 'U.S. judges should try [much
harder] to divorce themselves from the influence of [their domestic law, such as] Hadley as much
as possible'.[113]
4. HOMEWARD TREND IN CISG CASE LAW: A SECOND EXAMPLE

CISG case law also provides examples of the other variation of the homeward trend, i.e., the
tendency to interpret the Convention in a way that permits the court 'to arrive, if possible, at the
application of domestic law'.[114] These examples relate to the interpretation of Art. 6 CISG, the
provision which allows the parties to exclude the CISG's applicability and, thus, sets forth the
CISG's dispositive nature [115] -- also emphasised in case law [116] -- as well as the 'central role
which party autonomy plays in international commerce and, particularly, in international sales'.
[117] [page 31]
In case law, there is a dispute as to whether this provision requires the parties to expressly
exclude the CISG's applicability or whether it allows them to implicitly exclude it. This dispute
arises from the fact that Art. 3 Ulis, the 'direct predecessor'[118] of Art. 6 CISG, expressly stated
that its exclusion could also be agreed upon implicitly,[119] but this express reference to the

possibility of implicit exclusion was not retained by the drafters of the CISG,[120] despite some
attempts made at the Vienna Diplomatic Conference to reintroduce it.[121]
US courts, for instance, consistently [122] exclude the possibility for parties to implicitly [page
32] opt-out of the CISG, holding that, '[w]hile the parties to a contract may exclude the
applicability of the CISG, any such exclusion must be explicit'.[123] It is therefore not surprising
that U.S. courts have stated, for instance, that the choice of the law of a contracting State to the
CISG requires courts to 'uphold application of the Convention as the law of the designated
Contracting State'[124] or that 'merely referring to a particular state's law does not opt out of the
CISG'.[125]
What is surprising, however, is the fact that various U.S. courts [126] have held that where the
parties choose to be bound by the Uniform Commercial Code, the CISG does not apply. This
solution is irreconcilable with the express opt-out agreement required, among others, by those
very same courts. It can only be explained by the aforementioned lex forism, i.e., that variation of
the homeward trend that favours an interpretation that will lead to the application of the law of
the forum.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that the view held by U.S. courts, pursuant to which parties
must expressly opt-out of the CISG for it not to apply, is not shared by many courts [127] or
commentators.[128] The majority of courts [129] and commentators [130] [page 33] (correctly)
[131] hold that under the CISG the exclusion does not always have to be expressly agreed upon.
[132] This conclusion is based, in part, on the fact that on the occasion of the CISG's drafting 'the
majority of delegations was [...] opposed to the proposal according to which a total or partial
exclusion of the Convention could only be made "expressly"'.[133] Consequently, the lack of an
express reference to the possibility of an implicit exclusion must not be regarded as precluding
such possibility.[134] Rather, it has a different meaning: to discourage courts from too easily
inferring an 'implied' exclusion or derogation.[135] Thus, an implicit exclusion of the CISG is
possible,[136] and has been confirmed by very many courts.[137] Of course, for the [page 34]
CISG to be implicitly excluded there must be clear indications that the parties really wanted such
an exclusion.[138] There must be a real -- as opposed to theoretical, fictitious or hypothetical -agreement of the parties,[139] as is supported by case law.[140]
The issue then becomes how the parties can implicitly exclude the CISG.[141] In light of the
legislative history,[142] most courts and commentators agree that while the parties may
implicitly exclude the CISG by choosing the law of a non-contracting State as the [page 35] law
governing their contract,[143] the parties' choice of the law of a contracting State as the
governing law does not per se amount to an (implicit) exclusion of the CISC.[144] Of course,
where it can be discerned either from the choice of law clause itself or the circumstances that the
purely domestic law of a Contracting State is intended to govern the contract, the CISG will not
apply.[145] According to an Italian arbitral tribunal,[146] however, the parties' agreement to
exclusively apply 'Italian law' amounted to an implicit exclusion of the CISG, even where no
reference to Italy's purely domestic law had been made. This overly simplistic interpretation of
Art. 6 CISG is nothing but a manifestation -- by the arbitral tribunal with its seat in Italy and
composed of three Italian arbitrators -- of lex forism. [page 36]

In discussing the possibility of implicitly excluding the CISG, the question has been raised
whether the CISG is implicitly excluded where the parties argue a case on the sole basis of the
substantive law of the forum. In this author's opinion,[147] the mere fact that the parties argue on
the sole basis of a domestic law does not per se lead to the exclusion of the CISG,[148] which is
a view also held by many courts.[149] It is only where it can be derived from the briefs or from
other circumstances that the parties were aware of the CISG's applicability, can the fact that they
have based their briefs solely on the purely domestic law of the forum be considered as an
implicit exclusion. One Italian court stated this very clearly: 'The fact that during the preliminary
legal proceedings in this case the parties based their arguments exclusively on Italian domestic
law without any references to the CISG cannot be considered an implicit manifestation of an
intent to exclude application of the Convention [...]. Reference in a party's brief to the nonuniform national law of a Contracting State -- even though it is theoretically some evidence of an
intent to choose the national law of that State -- does not imply the automatic exclusion of the
CISG. One has to assume that the parties wanted to exclude the application of the Convention
only if it appears in an unequivocal way that they recognised its applicability and they
nevertheless insisted on referring only to national, non-uniform law. In the present case, it does
not appear from the parties' arguments that they realised that the CISG was the applicable law
[...]; we cannot, therefore, conclude that they implicitly wanted to exclude the [page 37]
application of the Convention by choosing to refer exclusively to national Italian law'.[150]
The French Supreme Court, however, takes a completely different view.[151] It consistently
compares the pleadings of the parties on the sole basis of the French Civil Code to an implicit
exclusion of the CISG, and does so independently of whether there are any indications as to
whether the parties were aware of the CISG's applicability. This is probably the best example of a
court's tendency to read the CISG in a way that allows the court ultimately to apply its own
substantive law.
5. THE HOMEWARD TREND OVERCOME

Even though it has been suggested that there are many courts that succumb to the homeward
trend,[152] the situation is not really that grim. There are many decisions that comply with the
obligation to have regard for the CISG's international character and avoid resorting to domestic
concepts to interpret the CISG. This is also true in the U.S., as can easily be derived from some
U.S. decisions. In St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. et al. v. Neuromed Medical Systems &
Support GmbH, et al.,[153] for instance, it is stated that 'the CISG aims to bring uniformity to
international business transactions, using simple, non-nation specific language', a statement that
is clearly incompatible with the homeward trend. In MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v.
Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino, S.p.A.,[154] the need to refrain from reading domestic concepts
into the CISG is addressed more directly, as it states that 'courts applying the CISG cannot [...]
substitut[e] familiar principles of domestic law when the Convention requires a different result.'
This line of reasoning constitutes the basis for other US court decisions too, such as Geneva
Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc.,[155] stating that 'UCC case law is not per se
applicable to cases governed by the CISG'[156] and Calzaturificio Claudia S.n.c. v. Olivieri
Footwear Ltd.,[157] where it is [page 38] expressly stated that 'although the CISG is similar to
the UCC with respect to certain provisions, it differs from the UCC with respect to others,
including the UCC's writing requirement for a transaction for the sale of goods and parole

evidence rule. Where controlling provisions are inconsistent, it would be inappropriate to apply
UCC case law in construing contracts under the CISG.'
European courts as well have complied with the obligation not to interpret the CISG in the light
of domestic law, but rather by having regard for its international character. In a Swiss case from
1993,[158] a court of first instance even expressly stated that the CISG 'is supposed to be
interpreted autonomously and not out of the perspective of the respective national law of the
forum. Thus, [...] it is generally not decisive whether the Convention is formally applied as
particularly this or that national law, as it is to be interpreted autonomously and with regard to its
international character.' An express reference to the need to interpret the CISG "autonomously"
can also be found in a more recent Swiss case [159] as well as in a Spanish case,[160] an
Austrian one [161] and various recent Italian court decisions rendered by the Tribunale di Padova
in 2005 and 2004 [162] as well as by the Tribunale di Modena.[163]
While there are some courts in Germany that have simply referred to the need to interpret the
CISG by having regard for its international character and to the need to [page 39] promote its
uniform application,[164] other courts have gone further. In 1996, the German Supreme Court,
for instance, expressly stated that 'the CISG is different from German domestic law, whose
provisions and special principles are, as a matter of principle, inapplicable for the interpretation
of the CISG (Art. 7 CISG).'[165] It is this reasoning that has led the Court of Appeal of
Karlsruhe to state that 'German legal concepts such as "Fehler" and "zugesicherte
Eigenschafteri" are therefore not transferable to the CISG'.[166] More recently, in 2005, the
German Supreme Court stated that 'insofar as the Court of Appeals refers to [various German]
judgments [...] in analysing the question whether, at the time the risk passed, the delivered meat
conformed to the contract within the meaning of Arts. 35, 36 CISG, it ignored the fact that these
decisions were issued before the CISG went into effect in Germany and refer to 459 BGB [...].
The principles developed there cannot simply be applied to the case at hand, although the factual
position -- suspicion of foodstuffs in transborder trade being hazardous to health -- is similar;
that is so because, in interpreting the provisions of CISG, we must consider its international
character and the necessity to promote its uniform application and the protection of goodwill in
international trade (Art. 7(1) CISG)'.[167]
Arbitral tribunals have also referred to the need to take into account the CISG's international
character. In one instance, an arbitral tribunal, after answering the question of whether Art. 35(2)
(a) CISG obliges the seller to deliver goods of average or reasonable quality, stated that its
solution 'complies with Article 7(1) CISG imposing to take into account the international
character of CISG and its reluctance to rely immediately on notions based on domestic law'.[168]
6. CONCLUSION

As the foregoing Part shows, there are courts that do not fall into the trap of the 'homeward trend'
that 'induces tribunals both to ignore non-domestic law and assume that 'international'
interpretations reflect domestic ones'.[169] However, as long as the homeward trend comes
'naturally'[170] to interpreters, i.e., as long as interpreters cannot [page 40] 'purge [their] minds
of presuppositions derived from domestic traditions',[171] the uniformity aimed at by the drafters
of the CISG is as much at risk as its success, at least if one uses the level of uniformity reached
as a measure of that success.[172] But how to avoid the 'gravitational pull of the "homeward

trend"?'[173] Some of the reasons that may ultimately favour the homeward trend under the
CISG are intrinsically linked to the CISG itself and, therefore, cannot be corrected, as it is
unlikely that the CISG will ever be revised to amend the current situation. This is true, for
instance, as regards the 'vague standards [that] pervade the CISG'.[174] The very fact that the
CISG uses (a lot of) vague standards [175] facilitates recourse to domestic standards for
interpretive purposes [176] much more than a text that is more specific and contains itself a
number of definitions.[177] In effect, the more a uniform law instrument spells out its [page 41]
own terms, the harder it will be for an interpreter to read domestic legal concepts into it. Also,
because the CISG is the result of many compromises,[178] there are 'ambiguities inherent in the
CISG provisions themselves'[179] which also open the door to resort to domestic
preconceptions.
What, then, can be done to avoid the homeward trend, given that an amendment of the CISG
does not appear to be an option? Of course, if, as suggested, resort to one's own legal background
comes naturally [180] (due to an unconscious process),[181] recourse to 'background
assumptions and conceptions that are embedded in judges and lawyers during their intellectual
formation'[182] cannot be avoided. This does not mean, however, that nothing can be done to
correct the homeward trend's disruptive effect on the uniformity aimed at by the CISG. In this
author's opinion, the key to the solution lies in a change of those background assumptions and
conceptions. If interpreters are from the outset, i.e., during their intellectual formation, made
aware of the fact that they operate in a legal system that is composed of various layers of sales
law rules, of which the CISG is one, and that these layers are to be distinguished because they
differ from each other, when -- naturally -- resorting to their background assumptions and
conceptions, interpreters will also resort to the CISG. In other words, the CISG has to become
part of domestic background assumptions and conceptions in order for the disruptive effect of the
natural resort to domestic background assumptions and conceptions to be overcome. For this
result to be reached, law school curricula [183] as well as textbooks will have to be changed to
incorporate the study of the CISG. This, of course, will not be easy, and therefore it will still take
some time before the disruptive effects of the homeward trend visible today are fully overcome.
[page 42]

FOOTNOTES
* Professor of International Law, Verona University School of Law; Inge Rennert Distinguished
Visiting Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; this paper is an updated version
of a paper first published in (2009) Internationales Handelsrecht 8.
1. See Riese, O., "Einheitliche Gerichtsbarkeit fr vereinheitlichtes Recht" (1961) RabelsZ 604,
at pp. 607 ff; Zweigert, K., "Die Rechtsvergleichung im Dienste der europischen
Rechtsvereinheitlichung" (1951) RabelsZ. 387, at p. 395.
2. Andersen, C, "The Uniform International Sales Law and the Global Jurisconsultorium" (2005)
24 Journal of Law and Commerce (J. L. & Com.) 159, at p. 162; see also Martiny, D.,
"Autonome und einheitliche Auslegung im Europischen ZivilprozeBrecht" (1981) RabelsZ, at p.

427; McMahon, A., "Differentiating between Internal and External Gaps in the U.N. Convention
on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Proposed Method for Determining
"Governed by" in the Context of Article 7(2)" (2006) 44 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 992, at p. 999;
Rudolf, C, Einheitsrecht fr Internationale Forderungsabtretungen, 2006, Mohr Siebeck, at p.
11; Ryan, L. M., "The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Divergent
Interpretations" (1995) 4 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 99, at p. 101; Sturley, M. F., "International
Uniform Law in National Courts: The Influence of Domestic Law in Conflicts of Interpretation"
(1989) 27 Va. J. Int'l L. 729, at p. 731.
3. Munday, R. J. C, "The Uniform Interpretation of International Conventions" (1978) 27 ICLQ
450, at p. 450; for similar statements, see, more recently, Andersen, C, "Furthering the Uniform
Application of the CISG Sources of Law on the Internet", (1998) 10 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 403, at p.
404 (stating that 'uniformity does not follow automatically from a proclamation of uniform rules.
Uniformity is a difficult goal to achieve, as uniform words do not always ensure uniform results,
especially where a Convention is in effect throughout countries with completely differing social,
economic, and cultural backgrounds, and perhaps most significantly, different legal systems');
Duncan, J., "Nachfrist was Ist? Thinking Globally and Acting Locally: Considering Time
Extension Principles of the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods in
Revising the Uniform Commercial Code" (2000) Brigham Young Law Review (B.Y. L. Rev.)
1363, at p. 1368 (stating the same).
4. It has often been stated that it is only possible to reduce the danger of diverging
interpretations; it is not possible to eliminate it as such; see, e.g., Lookofsky, J. M.,
Consequential Damages in Comparative Context, 1989, Djoef Publishing, Copenhagen, at p.
294.
5. Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] A.C. 446, at p. 471.
6. For similar statements see Ferrari, F., La vendita internazionale. Applicabilit ed applicazioni
della Convenzione di Vienna del 1980, 2nd ed., 2006, Cedam, Padua, at pp. 10 ff.
7. See the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, reprinted
in (1980) 19 International Legal Materials (ILM) 668 ff.
8. Many abbreviations have been used for the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods; for a court decision listing several ones, see Oberlandesgericht
Frankfurt, 20 April 1994, available in English at: <http://www.cisgonline.ch/cisg/urteile/125.htm>. For an overview in legal writing of the various abbreviations,
see Flessner, A. and Kadner, T., "CISG? Zur Suche nach einer Abkrzung fr das Wiener
bereinkommen ber Vertrge ber den internationalen Warenkauf" (2005) ZEuP 347 ff.
9. Article 7(1) CISG.
10. See Art. 18 of the EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations,
reprinted in (1980) 19 ILM 1492, at p. 1496.

11. See Art. 4 of the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring, reprinted in (1988) 27
ILM 943, at p. 945; Art. 6 of the UNIDROIT Convention on International Financial Leasing,
reprinted in (1988) 27 ILM 931, at p. 933.
12. See, e.g., Tribunale di Forl, 11 December 2008, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081211i3.html>; Tribunale di Modena, 9 December 2005,
available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/1398.pdf>; Oberster Gerichtshof, 23 May
2005, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050523a3.html>;
Bundesgerichtshof, 2 March 2005, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050302g1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005,
available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>;
Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Audiencia Provincial de Valencia, 7 June
2003, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030607s4.html>; Handelsgericht
Aargau, 26 September 1997, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970926s1.html>; Gerichtsprsident Laufen, 7 May 1993,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930507s1.html>.
13. See, e.g., Audit, B., La vente internationale de marchandises, 1990, L. G. D. J., Paris, at p.
47; Bonell, M. J., "La nouvelle Convention des Nations-Unies sur les contrats de vente
internationale de merchandiseuse" (1981) Dr. pr. comm. int. 7, at p. 14; Diedrich, F.,
"Maintaining Uniformity in International Uniform Law via Autonomous Interprtation: Software
Contracts under the CISG" (1996) 8 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 303, at p. 303; Ferrari, F., "Interpretation
uniforme de la Convention de Vienne de 1980 sur la vente internationale" (1996) Rev. int. dr.
comp. 813, at p. 827; Hager, G., "Zur Auslegung des UN-Kaufrechts - Grundstze und
Methoden" in Baums, T. and Wertenbruch, J. (eds.), Festschrift fr Ulrich Huber zum siebzigsten
Geburtstag, 2006, Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, 319, at p. 320; Karollus, M., UN-Kaufrecht. Eine
systematische Darstellung fr Studium und Praxis, 1991, Springer-Verlag, Vienna/New York, at
p. 11; Magnus, U., Wiener UN-Kaufrecht - CISG, 2005, Gruyler, Berlin, at p. 171; Najork, E.,
Treu und Glauben im CISG, 2000, Universittsverlag, Bonn, at p. 53; Schmitt, H. F., "Intangible
Goods" in Online-Kaufvertrgen und der Anwendungsberich des CISG" (2001) CuR 145, at p.
147.
14. See, among others, Achilles, W-A., Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrechtsbereinkommen (CISG),
2000, Kriftel, Neuwied, at p. 28; Bonell, M. J., "Commento all'art. 7 della Convenzione di
Vienna", (1989) Nuove Leggi civili commentate (Nuove Leggi civ. comm.) 21, at p. 21;
Felemegas, J., "The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods:
Article 7 and Uniform Interpretation" (2000/2001) Review of the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (Rev. CISG) 115, at p. 235; Hackney, P.,
"Is the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods Achieving Uniformity?"
(2001) 61 La. L. Rev. 473, at p. 475; Jametti Greiner, M., "Der Vertragsabschluss", in Hoyer, H.
and Posch, W. (eds.), Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht, 1992, Orac, Vienna, at p. 57; Liguori,
L., "La convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale di beni mobili nella pratica: un'analisi
critica delle prime cento decisioni" (1996) Foro it. 145, at p. 148; Saenger, I., in Ferrari, F., et al.
(eds.), Internationales Vertragsrecht, 2007, C. H. Beck, Munich, Art. 7 CISG No. 2; Torsello,
M., Common Features of Uniform Commercial Law Conventions. A Comparative Study Beyond

the 1980 Uniform Sales Law, 2004, European Law Publishers, Munich, at p. 18; Vazquez
Lepinette, T., "The interpretation of the 1980 Vienna Convention on International Sales" (1995)
Dir. comm. internaz. 377, at p. 387.
15. See Honnold, J., "The Sales Convention in Action -- Uniform International Words: Uniform
Applications?" (1988) 8 J. L. & Com. 207, at p. 208; where the author states that 'one threat to
international uniformity in interpretation is a natural tendency to read the international text
through the lenses of domestic law'. See also Babiak, A., "Defining 'Fundamental Breach' under
the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (1992) 6
Temple Int'l & Comp. L. J. 113, at p. 117; Kolosky, M., "Beyond Partisan Policy: The Eleventh
Circuit Lays Aside the Parol Evidence Rule in Pursuit of International Uniformity in Commercial
Regulation" (1998) 24 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 199, at p. 200; Komarov, A. S.,
"Internationality, Uniformity and Observance of Good Faith as Criteria in Interpretation of
CISG: Some Remarks on Article 7(1)" (2006) 25 J. L. & Com. 75, at p. 77; Schlechtriem, P.,
Internationales UN-Kaufrecht, 4th ed., 2007, Mohr, at p. 45.
16. In this respect see Murray, J. E., "The Neglect of CISG: A Workable Solution" (1998) 17 J.
L. & Com. 365, at p. 367, stating that for a court it certainly is difficult to 'transcend its domestic
perspective and become a different court that is no longer influenced by the law of its own nation
state'; more recently see Dimatteo, L., et al., "The Interpretive Turn in International Sales Law:
An Analysis of Fifteen Years of CISG Jurisprudence" (2004) 24 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 299, at p.
303.
17. See also Honnold, J., (3rd. ed.), Uniform Law for International Sales under the United
Nations Convention, 1999, Kluwer Law International Deventer, at p. 89: stating that 'the reading
of a legal text in the light of the concepts of our domestic legal system [is] an approach that
would violate the requirement that the Convention be interpreted with regard to its international
character'. For similar statements, albeit without particular reference to the CISG, see Bernstein,
H., "International Contracts in European Courts: Jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Brussels
Convention" (1996) 11 Tul. Eur. & Civ. L. Forum 31, at p. 36. For a similar statement in case
law, albeit without specific reference to the CISG, see: Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines [1980] 2
All E. R. 696 (H.L.), [1980] W.L.R. 209; Corte di Cassazione, 24 June 1968, Rivista di diritto
internazionale privato e processuale (Riv. dir int priv e proc.) 1969,914.
18. See the decision by the Gerichtsprsident Laufen, 7 May 1993, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930507s1.html>.
19. For this expression see Bonell, M. J., supra fn 13, at p. 14.
20. The danger of forum shopping as a result of diverging interpretations by courts from different
countries has also been referred to by Honnold, J., supra fn 17, at p. 95, where the author states
that '[t]he settlement of disputes would be complicated and litigants would be encouraged to
engage in forum shopping if the courts of different countries persist in divergent interpretations
of the Convention'.

21. For a reference to the CISG's goal of reducing forum shopping, see, e.g., Burkart, F.,
Interpretatives Zusammenwirken von CISG und UNIDROIT Principles, 2000, Nomos, BadenBaden, at p. 8; De Ly, F., "Opting out: some Observations on the Occasion of the CISG's 25th
anniversary" in Ferrari, F. (ed.), Quo Vadis CISG? Celebrating the 25' anniversary of the United
Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 2005, European Law
Publishers, Munich, 25, at p. 37; Dore, I. I., "Choice of Law under the International Sales
Convention: A U.S. Perspective" (1983) 77 Am. J. Int'l L. 521, at p. 532; Erauw, J., "Wanneer is
het Weens Koopverdrag van toepassing?" in van Houtte, H. et al. (eds.), Het Weens
Koopverdrag, 1997, Intersentia, Antwerpen/Groningen, 21, at p. 23; Klepper, C. D., "The
Convention for the International Sale of Goods: A Practical Guide for the State of Maryland and
Its Trade Community" (1991) 15 Md. J. Int'l L. & Trade 235, at p. 237; Sambugaro, G.,
"Exclusion of the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention: Does Recent US Case Law Open the door to
Forum Shopping?" (2007) IHR 231, at p. 236.
22. For a discussion of the interpretation of uniform law conventions in general (as opposed to a
discussion of the interpretation of the CISG), see Bariatti, S., L'interpetazione delle convenzioni
internazionali di diritto uniforme, 1986, CEDAM, Padua; Trompenaars, B., Pluriforme unificatie
en uniforme interpretatie -- in het bijzonder de bijdrage van UNCITRAL aan de Internationale
unificatie van het privaatrecht, 1989, Kluwer Law International, Deventer.
23. Note, however, that according to Salama, S., "Pragmatic Responses to Interpretive
Impediments: Article 7 of the CISG, An Inter-American Application" (2006) 28 U. Mia. Int-Am.
L. Rev. 225, at p. 232: 'a methodological approach that discounts the use of analogies to domestic
legal concepts seems impractical if not impossible. In particular, a judge looking to interpret a
provision needs some frame of reference to assist in understanding that provision'.
24. For this conclusion, see also Herber, R. and Czerwenka, G. B., Internationales Kaufrecht.
Kommentar zu dem bereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom II. April 1980 iiber Vertrge
ber den internationalen Warenkauf, 1991, C. H. Beck, Munich, at p. 47. For somewhat different
conclusions, see, Van der Velden, F. J. A., "Indications of the Interpretation by Dutch Courts of
the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" in Gerver, P. H.
M., Hondius E. H. and Steenhoff G. J. W. (eds.), Netherlands Reports to the Twelfth
International Congress of Comparative Law: Sydney-Melbourne 1986, 1987, T. M. C. Asser
Instituut, The Hague, 21, at pp. 33-34 (stating that where the source of uniform law is to be
found in a specific national law, recourse to a domestic interpretation is a logical aid to the
interpretation of the uniform law); Mann, F. A., "Uniform Statutes in English Law" (1983) 99
LQR 376, at p. 383 (stating that '[i]t is simply common sense that if the Convention adopts a
phrase which appears to have been taken from one legal system [...] where it is used in a specific
sense, the international legislators are likely to have had that sense in mind and to intend its
introduction into the Convention').
25. See Ferrari, F., "The Relationship between the UCC and the CISG and the Construction of
Uniform Law" (1996) 29 Loy. LA L. Rev. 1021, at p. 1026.
26. For this statement, see also Lanciotti, A., Norme uniformi di conflitto e materiali nella
disciplina convenzionale della compravendita, 1992, Scientifiche Italiane, Naples, at p. 287.

27. The presumed neutrality of the language employed by the drafters of the CISG has been
referred to, e.g., Bonell, M. J., "Art. 7" in Bianca, C. M. and Bonell, M. J. (eds.), Commentary on
the International Sales Law, 1987, Giuffre, Milan, at p. 74 ('[w]hen drafting the single provisions
these experts had to find sufficiently neutral language on which they could reach a common
understanding'). For similar statements, see more recently, Bridge, M., "A Law of International
Sale of Goods" (2007) 37 Hong Kong L. J. 17, at p. 40; Butler, P., "Celebrating Anniversaries"
(2005) 37 Vict. U. Wellington L. Rev. 775, at p. 777; Spaic, A., "Approaching Uniformity in
International Sales Law Through Autonomous Interpretation" (2007) 11 Vindobona Journal 237,
at pp. 242 ff; Zeller, B., "International Trade Law -- Problems of Language and Concepts?"
(2003) 23 J. L. & Com. 39, at p. 39; see also the statement by UNCITRAL itself to be found in
U.N. document A/CN.9/562, at p. 1: 'The drafters of the Convention took special care in
avoiding the use of legal concepts typical of a given legal tradition'.
28. See, e.g., Kropholler, J., Internationales Einheitsrecht. Allgemeine Lehren, 1974, J. C. B.
Mohr, Hamburg, at p. 265.
29. Benedetti, G., "Commento all'art. 4 della Convenzione di Vienna sui contratti di vneidta
internazionale di beni mobili" (1989) Nuove Leggi civili commentate (Nuove Leggi civ. comm.)
9, at p. 9.
30. Diedrich, F., (1996) 8 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 303, at p. 310, even states that 'the text of the CISG
consists of unique, supranational collective terms formed out of compromises between state
delegates based on several systems of laws'. For further statements stressing that the CISG
constitutes a compromise, see Diederichsen, E., "Commentary to Journal of Law & Commerce
Case I, Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M." (1995) 14 J. L. & Com. 177, at p. 177; Ferrari, F.,
"Uniform Interpretation of the 1980 Uniform Sales Law" (1994) 24 Ga. J. Int'l & Com. L. 183, at
p. 201; Koneru, P. "The International Interpretation of the UN Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods: An Approach Based on General Principles" (1997) 6 Mn. J. Global
Trade 105, at p. 105; Salama, S., (2006) 28 U. Miami Int-Am L. Rev. 225, at p. 232; Selden, B.
S., "Lex Mercatoria in European and U.S. Trade Practice: Time to Take a Closer Look" (1995) 2
Ann. Surv. Int'l & Comp. L. 111, at p. 121.
31. See also Enderlein, F., Maskow, D. and Strohbach, H., Internationales Kaufrecht:
Kaufrechtskonvention. Verjhrungskonvention. Vertretungskonvention.
Rechtsanwendungskonvention, 1991, Haufe, Berlin, at p. 61; Herber, R., "Art. 7" in
Schlechtriem, P. and von Caemmerer, E. (eds.), Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht,
2nd ed., 1995, C. H. Beck, Munich at p. 94.
32. See Honnold, J., supra fn 17, at p. 89.
33. For this conclusion, see Achilles, W-A., supra fn 14, at p. 29; Ferrari, F., "Art. 7", in
Schlechtriem, P. and Schwenzer, 1. (eds.), Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht - CISG,
4th ed., 2004, C. H. Beck, Munich, at p. 142; Magnus, U., supra fn 13, at p. 171.
34. See Rockwell, M. B., "Choice of Law in International Products Liability: Internationalizing
the Choice" (1992-1993) 16 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 69, at p. 74.

35. See Diedrich, F., (1996) 8 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 303, at p. 304 (stating that the homeward trend
'puts a uniform application of International Uniform Law at risk'); Tuggey, T. N., "The 1980
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Will a Homeward
Trend Emerge" (1985-1986) 21 Tex. Intl L. J. 540, at p. 554 (stating that '[i]f such a [homeward]
trend emerges and remains uncorrected it would defeat the purposes of the CISG in a manner
equal to a simple failure on the part of many nations to ratify the Convention').
36. In this respect, see, e.g., Malloy, S. A., "The Inter-American Convention on the Law
Applicable to International Contracts: Another Piece of the Puzzle of the Law Applicable to
International Contracts" (1995) 19 Fordham Int'l L. J. 662. at p. 667 fn 17.
37. Preamble CISG.
38. Larson, M. G., "Applying Uniform Sales Law to International Software Transactions: The
Use of the CISG, its Shortcomings, and a Comparative Look at How the Proposed U.C.C. Article
2B Would Remedy Them" (1996) 5 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 445, at p. 459.
39. Halverson Cross, K., "Parol Evidence Under the CISG: The 'Homeward Trend'
Reconsidered" (2007) 68 Ohio St. L J. 133, at p. 138.
40. Ibid.
41. See Bridge, M., "A Comment on 'Towards a Universal Doctrine of Breach' -- The Impact of
the CISG by Jrgen Basedow" (2005) 25 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ. 501, at p. 501.
42. Legitimizing the CISG on different grounds, see Gillette, C. P and Scott, R. E., "The Political
Economy of International Sales" (2005) 25 Int'l Rev. L & Econ. 446, at pp. 447 ff.
43. See also Povrzenic, N. "Interpretation and Gap-Filling under the United Nations Convention
on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods", available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/gap-fill.html>.
44. See Halverson Cross, K., (2007) 68 Ohio St. L. J. 138, stating that 'the propensity of U.S.
courts to interpret the Convention in light of domestic legal traditions may ameliorate the
tendency of U.S. parties to opt out of the CISG.'
45. For a recent analysis of the relationship between the CISG and choice of forum, see Ferrari,
F., "Choice of Forum and CISG; Remarks on the Latter's Impact on the Former" in Flechtner, H.,
Brand, R. A. and Walter, M. S. (eds.), Drafting Contracts Under the CISG, 2007, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, at pp. 103 ff.
46. See also Gillette, C. P and Scott, R. E., supra fn 42, at p. 454, stating that '[i]f the problem
solving objective of a uniform [International Sales Law] is not met, therefore, the product will be
linguistically uniform upon enactment, but the parties subsequently will either abandon the law
entirely or opt-out of disfavoured provisions thus undermining even the initial benefits of the
standard terms'.

47. See Rockwell, M. B., (1992-1993) 16 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 69, at p. 74, stating that
courts should have ways 'to enable them to avoid the temptations, and [...] unpredictability, of the
homeward trend'.
48. See, e.g., Fountoulakis, C, "The Parties' Choice of 'Neutral Law' in International Sales
Contracts" Eur. J. L. Ref. 303, at p. 314, stating that '[t]he CISG is neutral law by nature. Neither
party has a particular advantage when applying it; the parties are quasi on the same "level
playing field"'. For similar statements, see De Ly, F., supra fn 21, at p. 36 f.; McNamara, T.,
"U.N. Sale of Goods Convention: Finally Coming of Age?" (2003) 32 Feb. Colorado Lawyer
(Colo. Law.) 11, at p. 20; Nakata, G. K., "Filanto S.p.A. v. Chilewich Intl Corp.: Sounds of
Silence Bellow Forth under the CISG's International Battle of the Forms" (1994) 7 Transnat'l
Law. 141, at p. 144.
49. See Mancuso, S., "Trends on the Harmonization on Contract Law in Africa" (2007) 13 Ann.
Surv. Int'l & Comp. L. 157, at p. 158 (stating that 'following a single set of rules, instead of
having to consider various state laws, is more efficient, reduces transaction costs, and thus
facilitates the development of economic activities'); see also Beline, T., "Legal Defect Protected
by Article 42 of the CISG: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" (2007) 7 U. Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 6, at
p. 6; Berman, P. S., "Global Legal Pluralism" (2007) 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1155, at p. 1190;
Cranston, R., "Theorizing Transnational Commercial Law" (2007) 42 Tex. Int'l L. J. 597, at p.
601; Pavkovic, K., "Estonia: A Model for Success in Transition Economies" (2007) 19 Pac.
McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L. J. 531, at p. 534.
50. See, Knieper, R., "Celebrating Success by Accession to CISG" (2006) 25 J.L. & Com. 477, at
p. 478; Meyer, L., "Soft Law for Solid Contracts? A Comparative Analysis of the Value of the
UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the Principles of European
Contract Law to the Process of Contract Law Harmonization" (2006) 34 Denver Journal of
International Law and Policy (Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y) 119, at p. 122 f.; Ubertaite, E.,
"Application of the CISG in the United States" (2005) 7 Eur. J.L. Reform 277, at p. 280. See,
however, Cuniberti, G., "Is the CISG Benefiting Anybody?" (2006) 39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.
1511 ff; arguing that the CISG does not really reduce costs.
51. Flechtner, H. and Lookofsky, J., "Nominating Manfred Forberich: The Worst CISG Decision
in 25 Years?" (2005) 9 Vindobona Journal 199, at p. 203; see also Salama, S., (2006) 38 U. Mia.
Int-Am. L. Rev. 225, at p. 231 ff, stating that '[t]he "homeward trend" as a method of
interpretation in the United States remains one of the greatest obstacles to the creation of a
foreign law based jurisprudence for the CISC'
52. Flechtner, H. and Lookofsky, J., "Viva Zapata! American Procedure and CSIG Substance in a
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal" (2003) 7 Vindobona Journal 93, at p. 103.
53. See also Murray, J. E., (1998) 17 J.L & Com. 365, at p. 367, stating that courts have to
'transcend [their] domestic perspective and become a different court that is no longer influenced
by the law of [their] own nation state.'

54. See Flechtner, H., "Recovering Attorneys' Fees as Damages under the U.N. Sales
Convention: A Case Study on the New International Commercial Practice and the Role of Case
Law in CISG Jurisprudence, with Comments on Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. v. Hearthside
Baking Co." (2002) 22 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 121, at p. 122 ('probably the most significant threat
to the values embraced in Article 7(1)'); see also Thompson, D. A., "Buyer Beware: German
Interpretation of the CISG has led to Results Unfavourable to Buyers" (2000) 19 J.L. & Com.
245, at p. 254 ('arguably one of the greatest barriers to uniformity').
55. For mere references to the homeward trend, without any attempts to define it, see, e.g., Birch,
R., "Article 44 of the U.N. Sales Convention (CISG): A possible divergence in interpretation by
courts from the original intent of the framers of the compromise" (2006) 4 Regent J. Int'l L. 1, at
p. 14; Komarov, A. S., (2006) 25 J. L & Com. 75, at p. 77; Mazzotta, F., "Why Do Some
American Courts Fail to Get it Right?" (2005) 3 Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L Rev. 85, at p. 115;
McQuillen, M., "The Development of a Federal CISG Common Law in US Courts: Patterns of
Interpretation and Citation" (2007) 61 U. Mia. L Rev. 509, at p. 536; Williams, A., "Limitations
on Uniformity in International Sales Law: A Reasoned Argument for the Application of a
Standard Limitation Period under the Provisions of the CISG" (2006) 10 Vindobona Journal 229,
at p. 250.
56. Salama, S., (2006) 38 U. Mia. Int-Am. L. Rev. 225, at p. 231.
57. Flechtner, H. and Lookofsky, J., supra fn 51, at p. 203. For similar definitions, see Keily, T.,
"Good Faith and the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods
(CISG)" (1999) 3 Vindobona Journal 15, at p. 19; Nottage, L., "Who's Afraid of the Vienna Sales
Convention (CISG)? A New Zealander's View from Australia and Japan" (2005) 36 Vict. U.
Wellington L Rev. 815, at p. 838; Walt, S., "The CISG's Expansion Bias: A Comment on Franco
Ferrari" (2005) 25 Int'l Rev. L & Econ. 342, at p. 348; Whittington, N., "Comment on Professor
Schwenzer's Paper" (2005) 36 Vict. U. Wellington L Rev. 809, at p. 811.
58. Honnold, J., "The Sales Convention in Action -- Uniform International Words: Uniform
Application?" (1998) 8 J.L. & Com. 207, at p. 208.
59. Honnold, J., Documentary History of the Uniform Law for International Sales: The studies,
deliberations and decisions that led to the 1980 United Nations Convention with Introductions
and Explanations, 1989, Kluwer Law International, Deventer, at p. 1; for this exact same
definition, see also Hartnell, H. E., "Rousing the Sleeping Dog: The Validity Exception to the
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (1993) 18 Yale J. Int'l L. 1, at p. 47.
60. See the text accompanying supra fn 13.
61. See Andersen, C, (2005) 24 J. L. & Com. 159, at p. 169; Ferrari, F., "The CISG's Uniform
Interpretation by Courts -- An Update" (2005) 9 Vindobona Journal 233, at p. 241; Flechtner, H.,
"The Several Texts of the CISG in a Decentralized System: Observations on Translations,
Reservations and Other Challenges to the Uniformity Principle in Article 7(1)" (1998) 17 J.L.&
Com. 187, at p. 205.

62. For the following remarks see, Ferrari, F. "La jurisprudence sur la CVIM: un nouveau dfi
pour les interprtes?" (1998) Int'l Bus. L. J., at pp. 497ff.
63. For this conclusion, see also Ferrari, F., "Do Courts Interpret the CISG Uniformly?", in Quo
Vadis CISG?, supra fn 21, at p. 10.
64. In this respect see, most recently, Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in
English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>, expressly stating that the CISG 'is
a uniform convention on substantive law and not one on private international law as sometimes
erroneously stated'; see also Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>, stating that the CISG is a 'uniform
substantive law convention'; Oberster Gerichtshof, 29 June 1999, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990629a3.html> (stating the same).
65. For this statement see Enderlein, F. and Maskow, D., International Sales Law. United
Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Convention on the
Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods, 1992, Oceana, New York, at p. 370.
66. For this conclusion in case law, see Tribunale di Padova (Italy), 25 February 2004, available
at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.
67. See the court decisions commented on by Ferrari, F., "Der Begriff des "internationalen
Privatsrechts" nach Art. 1 Abs. 1 lit. b) des UN-Kaufrechts" (1998) Zeitschrift fr europisches
Privatrecht 162ff; Oberlandesgericht Dsseldorf, 8 January 1993, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930108g1.html>; Bezirksgericht Wien, 20 February 1992,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920220a3.html>; Landgericht Aachen,
3 April 1990, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/12.htm>.
68. Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at: <
http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid. For this statement, see also Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at:
<http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>.
71. Another concept to be interpreted domestically is that of 'party' to the contract (see Ferrari, F.,
(1998) Int'l Bus. L. J. 496 f.). Since the CISG itself is not concerned with agency (for this
conclusion see, e.g., Oberlandesgericht Kln, 13 November 2000, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001113g1.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; Oberster Gerichtshof,
20 March 1997, (1997) Zeitschrift fr Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRvgl) 204; Appellationsgericht
Tessin, 12 February 1996, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960212s1.html>; Obergericht Kanton Thurgau, 19 December
1995, (2000) Schweizersche Zeitschrift fr europisches und Internationales Recht (SZIER)
118), the issue of who is party to the contract is 'to be solved on the basis of the law applicable

by virtue of the rules of private international law of the forum', Tribunale di Padova, 25 February
2004, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.
72. Rheinstein, M., "Methods of Legal Thought and Conflict of Laws" (1942-1943) 10 U. Chi.
L. Rev. 466, at p. 475; for a reference to this kind of 'homeward trend', see also Akehurst, M.,
"Jurisdiction in International Law" (1972-1973) 46 Brit. Y. B. Int'l L. 145, at p. 185; Webb, P. R.
H., "Some Thoughts on the Place of English Law as Lex Fori in English Private International
Law" (1961) 10 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 818, at p. 818; Wong, "Case comment on Lee Cheuk v. Siu
Wai-kin" (1972) 2 Hong Kong L. J. 222, at p. 222.
73. Kahn-Freund, O., "Commercial Arbitration and the Conflict of Laws: Recent Developments
in England", (1972) 7 U. Brit. Colum. L. Rev. 155, at p. 165.
74. Lando, O., "Some Issues Relating to the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations" (19961997) 7 K.C. L. J. 55, at p. 57.
75. van Alstine, M. P., "Dynamic Treaty Interpretation" (1998) 146 U. Perm. L. Rev. 687, at p.
704.
76. See, e.g., Corte d'appello di Milano, 20 March 1998, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980320i3.html>, considered to be 'an example' of the
homeward trend by DiMatteo, L., et al., (2004) 34 Nw. J. lnt'l L. & Bus. 299, at p. 303.
77. See also Salama, S., (2006) 38 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 225, at p. 225, stating that '[i]n
practice it has been found that U.S. courts rely on the "homeward trend" more often than other
judges in interpreting the CISC'
78. See, e.g., Schmitz-Werke GmbH & Co. v. Rockland Industries, Inc.; Rockland International
FSC, Inc., U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (4th Circuit), 21 June 2002, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020621u1.html>, which 'disregarded CISG interpretive
methodology and resorted to a homeward trend analysis', Dimatteo, L., et al., (2004) 24 Nw. J.
Int'l L. & Bus. 299, at p. 398; see also Delchi Carrier S.p.A, v. Rotorex Corporation, U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals (2d. Cir.), 6 December 1995, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>, where 'the U.S. court rejected the
application of international case law and instead looked to the UCC and its domestic
interpretations for guidance'; Sheaffer, C, "The Failure of the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and a Proposal for a New Uniform Global Code in
International Sales Law" (2007) 15 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 461, at p. 477.
79. See Macromex S.r.l. v. Globex Intern., Inc., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of
New York, 16 April 2008, 2008 WL 1752530 (S.D.N.Y.); Travelers Property Casualty Company
of America et al. v. Saint-Gobain Technical Fabrics Canada Limited, U.S. Federal District Court,
Minnesota, 31 January 2007, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070131u1.html>;
Genpharm Inc. v. Pliva-Lachema A.S., U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District Court of New
York, 19 March 2005, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050319u1.html>; (stating
also, however, that 'UCC case law is not per se applicable to cases governed by the CISC) Raw

Materials Inc. v. Manfred Forberich GmbH & Co. KG, U.S. Federal District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 6 July 2004, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040706u1.html>.
80. For this author's view on the matter, see Ferrari, F., "The Relationship between the UCC and
the CISG and the Construction of Uniform Law" (1996) 29 hoy. LA L. Rev. 1021 ff.
81. See, e.g., Schmitz-Werke GmbH & Co. v. Rockland Industries, Inc.; Rockland International
FSC, Inc., U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (4th Circuit), 21 June 2002, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020621u1.html>, surprisingly stating that 'case law
interpreting provisions of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code that are similar to
provisions in the CISG can also be helpful in interpreting the Convention', after having stated
that the 'CISG directs that its interpretation be informed by its "international character and [...]
the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in
international trade".' For similar statements, see, more recently, Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v.
Northam Food Trading Co., et al., U.S. Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, 21 May 2004, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040521u1.html>;
for an earlier statement to the same effect, see Delchi Carrier S.p.A. v. Rotorex Corporation, U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals (2d. Cir.), 6 December 1995, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>.
82. Ehrenzweig, A. A., "Interstate and International Conflicts Law: A Plea for Segregation"
(1956-1957) 41 Minn. L Rev. 717, at p. 723.
83. This does not exclude that the interpreter may draw inspiration from the reasoning to be
found in domestic decisions concerning similar provisions; the interpreters may, however, not
simply use domestic solutions to solve CISG issues.
84. TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern
District of New York, 12 August 2006, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>.
85. See Ferrari, F., "Comparative Ruminations on the Foreseeability of Damages in Contract
Law" (1993) 53 La. L. Rev. 1257ff; Ferrari, F., "Prevedibilita del danno e contemplation rule"
(1993) Contr. impr. 760 ff.
86. Contra see, among others, Schlechtriem, P., "Uniform Sales Law in the Decisions of the
Bundesgerichtshof", available in English at:
http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/schlechtriem3.html; van Houtte, H., The Law of
International Trade, 1995, Sweet & Maxwell, London, at p. 146 fn 23.
87. See, e.g., Murphey, A. G., "Consequential Damages in Contracts for the International Sale of
Goods and the Legacy of Hadley" (1989) 23 Wash. J. lnt'l L. & Econ. 415, at pp. 438 ff, referring
to Restatement (Second) of Contracts 351 (1979) and UCC section 2-715(2).

88. See, apart from the decisions quoted in the following note, Jones v. George, 61 Tex. 345
(Tex. 1884) (stating that the rule is "largely drawn from the civil law"); Rumely Products Co. v.
Moss, 175 S.W. 1084, 1088 (Tex.Civ.App. 1915) (stating that the Louisiana rule comparable to
Hadley v. Baxendale 'and its modifications are taken from the Code Napoleon, 1149, 1150, which
in turn are taken from Pothier on Obligations, Nos. 159, 160, who asserts that the rule is as old as
the Roman law'); Manss-Owens Co. v. H.S. Owens & Son, 105 S.E. 543, 549 (Va. 1921) (stating
that 'although the [Hadley v. Baxendale] rule is sometimes spoken of as having originated in that
case, it is in reality an embodiment of civil-law principles, and is substantially a paraphrasing of
the rule on the subject as it had been stated at an earlier date in the Code Napoleon, by Pothier');
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Hamilton & Dotson, 164 Va. 203, 209 (Va. 1935) (stating that 'the rule in
Hadley v. Baxendale [...] is sometimes spoken of as having originated in that case, though it is in
reality an embodiment of civil law principles, and is substantially a paraphrasing of a rule on the
subject as it had been stated at an earlier date in the Code Napoleon, by Pothier').
89. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Hamilton & Dotson 164 Va. 203, 209 (Va. 1935).
90. Delchi Carrier S.p.A. v. Rotorex Corp., U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (2d. Cir.), 6 December
1995, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>.
91. Flechtner, H., "The CISG in U.S. Courts: The Evolution and Devolution of the Methodology
of Interpretation", in Quo Vadis CISG?, supra fn 21, 91, at p. 103.
92. Murray, J. E., (1998) 17 J. L. & Com. 365, at pp. 371-372.
93. For critical remarks see also Cook, S. V., "The UN Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods: A Mandate to Abandon Legal Ethnocentricity" (1997) 16 J. L. &
Com. 257, at p. 259 (stating that the Delchi court 'incorrectly assumed, without further
investigation, that "the familiar principle of foreseeability established in Hadley v. Baxendale
applied without any deviation to the principle of foreseeability established in the Convention');
Flechtner, H., "The U.N. Sales Convention (CISG) and MCC-Marble Ceramic Centre, Inc. v.
Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino, S.p.A.: The Eleventh Circuit Weighs in on Interpretation,
Subjective Intent, Procedural Limits to the Convention's Scope, and the Parole Evidence Rule"
(1999) 18 J. L. & Com. 259, at p. 269 (criticising the fact that the Delchi court 'equated the
quintessentially common law Hadley rule regarding foreseeable damages with the foreseeability
principle of Article 74 of the CISC'); Zeller, B., "The UN Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods (CISG) -- a leap forward towards unified international sales laws"
(2000) 12 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 79, at pp. 89-90 (stating that '[t]he principle of foreseeability may
well be similar to the one expressed in Article 74 of the CISG, but to tie Hadley v. Baxendale
into Article 74 is patently wrong. [Delchi] is a good example of the danger that domestic courts
could construct the CISG within their own experience and procedures').
94. See supra text accompanying fns 33 and 59.
95. It is worth pointing out that there are differences even between that French foreseeability
limitation to the recoverable damages and the CISG's foreseeability limit. The most obvious one
relates to the fact that the French foreseeability limit (not unlike the Italian and the Spanish one)

does not apply where the breach of contract is due to fraud on the part of the breaching party; the
Art. 74 CISG foreseeability limit, on the contrary, applies even where the breach is due to fraud;
see Vekas, L., "The Foreseeability Doctrine in Contractual Damage Cases" (2002) 43 Acta
Juridica Hungarica 145, at p. 160, stating that '[i]n this regard the Vienna Convention
deliberately diverges from the 'source rule' of Article 1150 of the Code civil which, as we pointed
to before, excludes the use of the foreseeability doctrine in the case of intentional breach of
contract'; see also Prieto, P., "Art. 74" in Diez-Picazo, L. and Ponce de Leon, L. (eds.), La
compraventa internacional de mercaderias. Comentario de la Convention de Viena, 1998,
Civitas, Madrid, 579, at p. 604.
96. TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern
District of New York, 12 August 2006, available at
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>.
97. Bailey, J. E., "Facing the Truth: Seeing the Convention on Contracts for the International
Sale of Goods as an Obstacle to a Uniform Law of International Sales" (1998) 32 Cornell Int'l L.
J. 273, at p. 288.
98. Cook, S. V., (1997) 16 J. L. & Com. 257, at p. 262; see also Zeller, B., "Downs Investments
Pty Ltd (in liq) v. Perwaja Steel SDN BHD [2002] 2 Qd R 462" (2005) 9 Vindobona Journal 43,
at p. 46.
99. TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern
District of New York, 12 August 2006, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>.
100. Cook, S. V., supra fn 98, at p. 260.
101. Stoll H. and Gruber, G., "Art. 74" in Schlechtriem, P. and Schwenzer, I. (eds.), Commentary
on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG), 2nd ed., 2005, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 745, at p. 765 (emphasis added); see also Brolsch, M. W.,
Schadensersatz und CISG, 2007, Lang, Frankfurt, at p. 52.
102. See also Murphey, A. G., supra fn 87, at p. 435, stating that: Art. 74 CISG, 'in limiting
reference to the party in breach, surely does not envision delivering a windfall to the plaintiff,
because the plaintiff recovers something not foreseen. Rather, this language reflects the view that
the focus should be on the party who will have to answer for the amount of the loss'.
103. Whittington, N., "Reconsidering Domestic Sale of Goods Remedies in Light of the CISG"
(2006) 37 Vict. U. Wellington L. Rev. 421, at p. 443, according to whom, however, '[t]his is not a
significant difference'.
104. Vekas, L., supra fn 95, at p. 160 (footnotes omitted).
105. See, however, the text of Restatement (Second) of Contracts 351 (1979):

'(1) Damages are not recoverable for loss that the party in breach did not have reason to
foresee as a probable result of the breach when the contract was made.
(2) Loss may be foreseeable as a probable result of a breach because it follows from the
breach (a) in the ordinary course of events, or (b) as a result of special circumstances,
beyond the ordinary course of events, that the party in breach had reason to know.
(3) A court may limit damages for foreseeable loss by excluding recovery for loss of
profits, by allowing recovery only for loss incurred in reliance, or otherwise if it
concludes that in the circumstances justice so requires in order to avoid disproportionate
compensation.
106. See Ziegel, J. S., "The Remedial Provisions in the Vienna Sales Convention: Some
Common Law Perspectives" in Galston, N. and Smit, H. (eds.), International Sales: The United
Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1984, Matthew Bender,
New York, 9-01, at p. 9-05, where the author refers to Lord Reid's example in The Heron II, 1
A.C. 350 (H.L.) (1969), in order to illustrate the difference between the 'possible consequences'
and the 'probable result': 'to borrow from Lord Reid's example in The Heron II, if one takes a
well-shuffled pack of cards it is quite possible, though not likely, that the top card will prove to
be the nine of diamonds even though the odds are 51 to 1 against.'
107. Murphey, A. G. supra fn 87, at pp. 435-436; see also Darkey, J. M., "A U.S. Court's
Interpretation of Damage Provisions under the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods: A Preliminary Step towards an International Jurisprudence of CISG
or a Missed Opportunity?" (1995) 15 J.L. & Com. 139, at p. 145.
108. See also Brlsch, M. W., supra fn 101, at pp. 55 ff.
109. In legal writing this difference has been pointed out, e.g., by Prieto, P., supra fn 95, at p.
604; Stoll H. and Gruber, G., supra fn 101, at pp. 763-764.
110. Gotanda, J. Y., "Awarding Damages under the United Nations Convention on the
International Sale of Goods: A matter of interpretation" (2005) 37 Geo. J. Int'l L. 95, at p. 204205; for a similar statement see also Neumayer, K. and Ming, C, Convention de Vienne sur les
contrats de vente internationale de marchandises. Commentaire, 1993, CEDIDAC, Lausanne, at
p. 492.
111. Dodge, W. S., "Teaching the CISG in Contracts" (2000) 50 Journal of Legal Education (J.
Leg. Edu.) 72, at p. 92; for this conclusion, see also Cohen, K. S., "Achieving a Uniform Law
Governing International Sales: Conforming the Damages Provisions of the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Uniform Commercial Code"
(2005) 26 U. Penn. J. Int'l Ec. L. 601, at pp. 612-613; Darkey, J. M., supra fn 107, at p. 145 fn
31; Whittington, N., supra fn 103, at p. 443; contra Farnsworth, E. A., "Damages and Specific
Relief (1979) 27 Am. J. Comp. L. 247, at p. 253 stating that: '[a]lthough the use in art. 7[4] of
"possible consequence" may seem at first to cast a wider net than the Restatement's "probable
result", the preceding clause ('in the light of the facts [...].') cuts this back at least to the scope of
the Code language.'

112. Majumdar, B., and Jha, S., "The Law Relating to Damages under International Sales: A
Comparative Overview between the CISG and Indian Contract Law" (2001) 5 Vindobona
Journal 185, at p. 193.
113. Dodge, W. S., supra fn 111, at p. 92, borrowing from a statement by Murphey, A. G., supra
fn 87, at p. 417.
114. Sand, P. H., "The International Unification of Air Law" (1965) 30 Law & Contemp. Probs.
400, at p. 402.
115. See, e.g., Brunner, C., CISG. Kommentar zum bereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen ber
Vertrge ber den internationalen Warenkauf von 1980 unter Bercksichtigung der
Schnittstellen zum internen Schweizer Recht, 2004, Stampfli Verlag AG, Berne, at p. 72;
Carbone, S. M., L'ambito di applicazione ed i criteri interpretativi della convenzione di Vienna,
La vendita Internazionale. La Convenzione dell'll aprile 1980, 1981, Giuffre, Milan, at pp. 61,
78; Erauw, J., supra fn 21, at p. 47; Ferrari, F., Vendita internazionale di beni mobili. Art. 1-13
Ambito di applicazione. Disposizioni generali, 1994, Zanichelli, Bologna, at p. 110; Herber, R.,
""Lex mercatoria" und "Principles" -- gefhrliche Irrlichter im internationalen Kaufrecht" (2003)
IHR 1, at p. 1; Lanciotti, A., Norme uniformi di conflitto e materiali nella disciplina
convenzionale della compravendita, 1992, Scientifiche Italiane, Naples, at p. 146; Lindbach, J.,
Rechtswahl im Einheitsrecht am Beispiet des Wiener UN-Kaufrechts, 1996, Shaker, Aachen, at p.
67; Magnus, U., supra fn 13, at p. 149; Piltz, B., Internationales Kaufrecht. Das UN-Kaufrecht
(Wiener bereinkommen von 1980) in praxisorientierter Darstellung, 1993, C. H. Beck, Munich,
at p. 64; Witz, C, "L'exclusion de la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente
internationale de marchandises par la volont des parties (Convention de Vienne du 11 avril
1980)" (1990) Recueil Dalloz Chronique 107, at p. 107.
116. For an express reference to the CISG's non-mandatory nature, see, e.g., Tribunal Cantonal
du Jura, 3 November 2003, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/965.pdf>; Corte
di Cassazione, 19 June 2000, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000619i3.html>; Oberster Gerichtshof, 21 March 2000,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000321a3.html>; Oberster
Gerichtshof, 15 October 1998, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981015a3.html>; Handelsgericht Wien, 4 March 1997,
available at: <http://www.cisg.at/lR4097x.htm>; Kantongsgericht Wallis, 29 June 1994, available
in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940629s1.html>.
117. Bonell, M. J., "Commento all'art. 6 della Convenzione di Vienna", supra fn 14, at p. 16; for
similar statements in scholarly writing, see Date-Bah, S. K., "The United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Overview and Selective Commentary" (1979) 11
Rev. Ghana L. 50, at p. 54; Enderlein, F., "Die Verpflichtung des Verkufers zur Einhaltung des
Lieferzeitraums und die Rechte des Kaufers bei dessen Nichteinhaltung nach dem UNbereinkommen ber Vertrge ber den internationalen Warenkauf" (1991) Praxis des
Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 313, at p. 316; Hoyer, H. "Der
Anwendungsbereich des Einheitlichen Wiener Kaufrechts" in Hoyer, H. and Posch, W. (eds.),
Das Einheitliche Wiener Kaufrecht, 1992, Orac, Vienna, 31, at p. 41.

118. Bonell, M. J., "Commento all'art. 6 della Convenzione di Vienna", supra fn 14, at p. 17.
119. See Art. 3 Ulis: 'The parties to a contract of sale shall be free to exclude the application
thereto of the present Law either entirely or partially. Such exclusion may be express or implied'.
120. See Samson, C, "La Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale
de marchandises: Etude comparative des dispositions de la Convention et des rgies de droit
qubcois en la matire" (1982) 23 Cah. dr. 919, at p. 931.
121. Both the representatives of England and Belgium made proposals to reintroduce a reference
to the possibility of implicitly excluding the CISG's application; for a reference to these attempts,
see Magnus, U., supra fn. 13, at p. 150; United Nations (ed.), Official Records: Documents of the
Conference and Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Main
Committees (Vienna, 10 Mars-11 Avril 1980), 1981, New York/Geneva, at pp. 249 ff.
122. See Sky Cast, Inc v. Global Direct Distribution, LLC, U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern
District of Kentucky, 18 March 2008, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080318u1.html>; Easom Automation Systems, Inc. v.
Thyssenkrupp Fabco, Corp., U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District Michigan, 28
September 2007, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070928u1.html#iv>; Travelers
Property Casualty Company of America et al. v. Saint-Gobain Technical Fabrics Canada
Limited, U.S. Federal District Court, Minnesota, 31 January 2007, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070131u1.html>; TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard
Schubert GmbH, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 August 2006,
available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>; BP Oil International v.
Empresa Estatal Petroleos de Ecuador, U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Circuit), 11 June 2003,
available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/cases/030611u1.html>; Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v.
Can-Eng Manufacturing Ltd., U. S. Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 29
January 2003, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030129u1.html>; St. Paul
Insurance Company et al. v. Neuromed Medical Systems & Support et al., U.S. Federal District
Court, Southern District of New York, 26 March 2002, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020326u1.html>; Helen Kaminski PTY, Ltd. v. Marketing
Australian Products, Inc., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 23 July
1997, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970721u1.html>; Delchi Carrier, S.p.A. v.
Rotorex Corp., U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Cir.), 6 December 1995, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951206u1.html>; Orbisphere Corp. v. United States, Court of
International Trade, 24 October 1989, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/891024u1.html>. Most recently, see, however, Zhejiang
Shaoxing Yongli Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd. v. Microflock Textile Group Corp., U.S. Federal
District Court, Southern District of Florida, 19 May 2008, where the court did not at all refer to
the need for an express exclusion, but simply stated that the 'CISG automatically applies to
international sales contracts between parties from different contracting states unless the parties
agree to exclude the application of the CISG, as stated in Article 6 of the CISG. Because the
parties did not agree to exclude the application of the CISG, the CISG provides the substantive
law governing this contractual dispute'.

123. Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Dongbu Hannong Chemical Co., Ltd., U.S. Federal District
Court, Southern District of New York, 19 July 2007, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070719u1.html>.
124. Easom Automation Systems, Inc. v. Thyssenkrupp Fabco, Corp., U.S. Federal District Court,
Eastern District Michigan, 28 September 2007, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070928u1.html#iv>.
125. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al. v. Saint-Gobain Technical Fabrics
Canada Limited, U.S. Federal District Court, Minnesota, 31 January 2007, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070131u1.html>.
126. TeeVee Tunes, Inc. et al. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern
District of New York, 23 August 2006, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060823u1.html>.
127. See, however, Rechtbank Zwolle, 21 May 2003, IHR 2005 34, at p. 35; Rechtbank Hasselt,
4 October 1999, available at: <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/ipr/eng/cases/1999-10-04.html>;
Landgericht Landshut, 5 May 1995, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950405g1.html>.
128. See, however, Dore, I. I., (1983) 77 Am. J. Int'l L. 521, at p. 532; Dore I. I. and Defranco, J.
F., "A Comparison of the Non-Substantive Provisions of the UNCITRAL Convention on the
International Sale of Goods and the Uniform Commercial Code" (1982) 23 Harv. Int'l L. J. 49, at
p. 53; Dutton, K. P., "Risky Business: The Impact of the CISG on the International Sale of
Goods, Guide for Merchants to Limit Liability and Increase Certainty Inside and Outside of the
CISG" (2005) 7 Eur. J. L. Ref. 239, at p. 246; Klepper, C. D., "The Convention for the
International Sale of Goods: A Practical Guide for the State of Maryland and Its Trade
Community" (1991) 15 Md. J. Int'l L. & Trade 235, at p. 238; Murphy, M. T., "United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Creating Uniformity on
International Sales Law" (1989) 12 Fordham Int'l L. J. 727, at p. 728; Ostendorf, P., Neumann,
N. and Ventsch, V., "Mglichkeiten und Grenzen von Haftungsbeschrnkungen in internationalen
Liefervertrgen zwischen Unternehmern" (2006) IHR 21, at p. 22; Rendell, R. S., "The New
U.N. Convention on International Sales Contracts: An Overview" (1989) 15 Brook. J. Int'l L. 23,
at p. 25.
129. See, e.g., Tribunale di Forl, 16 February 2009, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090216i3.html>; Tribunale di Forl, 11 December 2008,
available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/081211i3.html>; Oberlandesgericht Linz, 8
August 2005, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050808a3.html>;
Rechtbank van Koophandel Tongeren, 25 January 2005, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050125b1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005,
available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>;
Oberlandesgericht Mnchen, 9 July 1997, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970709g1.html>; Landgericht Mnchen, 29 May 1995,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950529g1.html>.

130. See, e.g., Bell, K., "The Sphere of Application of the Vienna Convention on Contracts for
the International Sale of Goods" (1996) 8 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 231, at p. 255; Czerwenka, G. B.,
Rechtsanwendungsprobleme im internationalen Kaufrecht. Das Kollisionsrecht bei
grenzberschreitenden Kaufvertrgen und der Anwendungsbereich der internationalen
Kaufrechtsbereinkommen, 1988, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, at p. 170; Garro, A. M. and
Zuppi, A. L., Compraventa internacional de mercaderias, 1990, Ediciones LaRocca, Buenos
Aires, at p. 98; Graffi, L., "L'applicazione della Convenzione di Vienna in alcune recenti
sentenze italiane" (2000/2001) European Legal Forum (Eur. L. For.) 240, at p. 241.
131. For this author's view, see Ferrari, F., "Remarks on the UNCITRAL Digest's Comments on
Article 6 CISG" (2006) 25 J. L. & Com. 13, at pp. 20 ff.
132. For this conclusion, see, e.g., Achilles, W-A., supra fn 14, at p. 25; Audit, B., La vente
Internationale de marchandises, 1990, L. D. G. J., Paris, at p. 38; Bell, K., supra fn 130, at p.
255; Brunner, C, supra fn 115, at p. 68; Cappuccio, J., "La deroga implicita nella Convenzione di
Vienna del 1980" (1994) Dir. comm. int. 867, at p. 868; Czerwenka, G. B., supra fn 130, at p.
170; Date-Bah, S. K., (1979) 11 Rev. Ghana L. 50, at p. 54; Garro, A. M., and Zuppi, A. L.,
supra fn 130, at p. 98; Holthausen, R., "Vertraglicher Ausschlu des UN-bereinkommens ber
intemationale Warenkaufvertrge" (1989) RIW 513, at p. 515; Lacasse, N., "Le champ
d'application de la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente intemationale de
marchandises" in Lacasse, N. and Perret, L. (eds.), Actes du colloque sur la vente intemationale,
1989, Wilson & LaFleur, Montreal, 23, at p. 37; Richards, B. J., "Contracts for the International
Sale of Goods: Applicability of the United Nations Convention", (1983) 69 Iowa L. Rev. 209, at
p. 237.
133. Bonell, M. J., "Art. 6", supra fn 27, 51, at p. 52; see also Audit, B., supra fn 132, at p. 38.
134. Ferrari, F., "Art. 6", supra fns. 33 and 123, at pp. 128 ff.
135. For a similar justification of the lack of reference to the possibility of implicitly excluding
the CISG's application, see Ebenroth, C. T., "Internationale Vertragsgestaltung im
Spannungsverhltnis zwischen ABGB, IPR-Gesetz und UN-Kaufrecht" (1986) sterreichische
Juristische Bltter (JZ) 681, at p. 684; Ferrari, F., supra fn 115, at p. 128; Official Records of
the United Nations Conference, supra fn 121, at p. 17; Reifner, C, "Stillschweigender Ausschluss
des UN-Kaufrechts im Prozess?" (2002) IHR 52, at p. 55; Schlechtriem, P., Uniform Sales Law.
The UN-Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1986, Manz, Vienna, at p.
35.
136. See, apart from the commentators cited supra fn 130, Audit, B., supra fn 132, at p. 38;
Grijalva, E. and Imberg, A. P., "The Economic Impact of International Trade on San Diego and
the Application of the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods to San
Diego/Tijuana Commercial Transactions" (1998) 35 S.D. L. Rev. 769, at p. 776; Kennedy, A. J.,
"Recent Developments: Nonconforming Goods Under the CISG - What's a Buyer to Do?" (1998)
16 Dick. J. Int'l L. 319, at pp. 321 ff; Magnus, U., supra fn 13, at p. 153; Richards, B. J., supra fn
132, at p. 237.

137. See, apart from the decisions cited in supra fn 129, Landgericht Bamberg, 23 October 2006,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/061023g1.html>; Oberlandesgericht
Linz, 23 January 2006, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060123a3.html>; Cour de Cassation, 25 October 2005,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051025f1.html>; Tribunale di Padova,
31 March 2004, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>;
Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Tribunale di Rimini, 26 November 2002,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>; Oberster Gerichtshof,
22 October 2001, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011022a3.html>;
Cour de Cassation, 26 June 2001, available at: <http://witz.jura.unisb.de/CISG/decisions/2606012v.htm>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available in English
at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; Oberlandesgericht Desden, 27 December
1999, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991227g1.html>;
Oberlandesgericht Celle, 24 May 1995, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950524g1.html>.
138. For a similar statement, see Bonell, M. J., supra fn 13, at p. 113 (stating that a 'tacit
exception may only be admitted if there are valid elements of indications showing the parties
"true" intention'); Enderlein, F. and Maskow, D., supra fn 65, at p. 48 (stating that there must be
clear indications that an implicit exclusion is wanted); Erauw, J., supra fn 21, at p. 47 (stating the
same); Rovelli, L., "Conflitti tra norme della Convenzione e norme di diritto internazionale
privato", in Convegno di studi di S. Margherita Ligure, La vendita internazionale. La
convenzione di Vienna dell'll aprile 1980, 1981, Giuffre, Milan, 89, at p. 105 (stating that 'of
course, the determination of the applicable law can result from an implicit choice of the parties,
but is must be "certain": this means that the intention of implicitly excluding the Convention
must be real, not hypothetical').
139. For a similar statement, see Honnold, J., supra fn 17, at p. 80 (stating that '[...] although an
agreement to exclude the Convention need not be "express" the agreement may only be implied
from fact pointing to real -- as opposed to theoretical or fictitious -- agreement'); for similar
statements, see supra fn 135, at p. 55; Wasmer, W., Vertragsfreiheit im UN-Kaufrecht, 2004,
Thesis Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tubingen 2003, J. Kovac, Hamburg, at p. 34. Note, however,
that according to Murphy, M. T., supra fn 128, at p. 749, the possibility of implicitly excluding
the CISG contrasts with the need for certainty of law.
140. See Oberlandesgericht Linz, 23 January 2006, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060123a3.html>; Tribunal Cantonal du Jura, 3 November
2004, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/965.pdf>; Kammergericht Berlin, 24
January 1994, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940124g1.html>.
141. For an overview in legal writing of how the CISG can be implicitly excluded, see Ferrari,
F., supra fn 134, at pp. 128 ff; Magnus, U., supra fn 13, at pp. 153 ff; for an overview in case
law, see, e.g., Oberlandesgericht Linz, 23 January 2006, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060123a3.html>.

142. On the occasion of the Vienna Diplomatic Conference, a large number of delegations
rejected the proposals by Canada and Belgium (for these proposals, see Official Records of the
United Nations Conference, supra fn 121, at p. 250) pursuant to which the domestic sales law,
and not the CISG, would have to be applied whenever the parties indicated the law of a
Contracting State as the proper law for their contract.
143. For this view see, in legal writing, Achilles, W-A., supra fn 14, at p. 25; Audit, B., supra fn
132, at p. 39; Bonell, M. J., supra fn 133, at p. 56; Chiomenti, C, "Does the choice of a-national
rules entail an implicit exclusion of the CISG?" (2005) Eur. Leg. For. 141, at p. 144; Enderlein,
F., Maskow, D. and Strohbach, H., supra fn 31, at p. 58; Ferrari, F., supra fn 134, at p. 129;
Garro, A. M., and Zuppi, A. L., supra fn 130, at p. 95; Lando, O., "The 1985 Hague Convention
on the Law Applicable to Sales" (1987) RabelsZ 60, at p. 84; Lindbach, J., supra fn 115, at p.
308; Thiele, C, "Das UN-Kaufrecht vor US-amerikanischen Gerichten" (2002) IHR 8, at p. 9;
Wasmer, W., supra fn 139, at p. 29. In case law, see Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005,
available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050111i3.html>; Oberlandesgericht Dsseldorf, 2
July 1993, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930702g1.html>.
144. For this conclusion see, in legal writing, Achilles, W-A., supra fn 14, at p. 25; Audit, B.,
supra fn 132, at p. 39; Dokter, D., "Interpretation of exclusion-clauses of the Vienna Sales
Convention", (2004) 68 RabelsZ 430, at p. 435; Erauw, J., supra fn 21, at pp. 25 and 48;
Farnsworth, E. A., "Review of Standard Forms or Terms under the Vienna Convention" (1988)
21 Cornell Int'l L. J. 439, at p. 442; Grijalva, E. and Imberg, A. P., supra fn 136, at p. 777;
Winship, P., "International Sales Contracts under the 1980 Vienna Convention", (1984) 17 UCC
L. J. 55, at p. 65. In case law, see, e.g., OLG Stuttgart, 31 March 2008, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/080331g1german.pdf>; ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral
award n. 11333, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021333i1.html>; ICC Court of
Arbitration, Arbitral award n. 9187, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/999187i1.html>; Arbitral Tribunal of the Hamburg Chamber
of Commerce, 21 March 1996, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960321g1.html>; Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian
Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 17 November 1995, available at:
<http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=217&step=FullText>; ICC Court of
Arbitration, Arbitral award n. 8324, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958324i1.html>.
145. For this conclusion, see Bonell, M. J., (1989) supra fn 14, at p. 18; Brunner, C, supra fn
115, at p. 70; Cappuccio, J., supra fn 132, at p. 873; Chiomenti, C, supra fn 143, at p. 144;
Erauw, J., supra fn 21, at p. 49; Ferrari, F., supra fn 134, at p. 131; Reifner, C, supra fn 135, at p.
56. In case law, see OLG Stuttgart, 31 March 2008, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/080331g1german.pdf>; Oberlandesgericht Linz, 23
January 2006, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060123a3.html>; Hof
Leeuwarden, 31 August 2005, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050831n1.html>; Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005,
available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>;
Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, 30 August 2000, available in English at:

<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/000830g1german.html>; Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, 15

March 1996, available at: <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/284.htm>.
146. See Ad Hoc Arbitral Tribunal Florence, 19 April 1994, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940419i3.html>; Tribunale di Monza, 14 January 1993,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930114i3.html>.
147. See Ferrari, F., "Nuove e vecchie questioni in materia di vendita internazionale tra
interpretazione autonoma e ricorso alia giurisprudenza straniera" (2004) Giur. it. 1405, at p.
1416; Ferrari, F., "Zum vertraglichen Ausschluss des UN-Kaufrechts" (2002) ZEuP 737, at pp.
744 ff
148. See also Bazinas, S. V., "Uniformity in the Interpretation and the Application of the CISG:
The Role of CLOUT and the Digest" in UNCITRAL-SIAC Conference (2005: Singapore),
Celebrating Success: 25 Years United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International
Sale of Goods, 2006, SIAC, Singapore, 18, at p. 26; Graffi, L., supra fn 130, at p. 241; Grijalva,
E. and Imberg, A. P., (1998) 35 S.D. L. Rev. 769, at p. 776; Mazzotta, F. G., "The International
Character of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: An Italian
Case Example" (2003) 15 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 437, at p. 442; Piltz, B., "Neue Entwicklungen im
UN-Kaufrecht" (2000) NJW 553, at p. 555; Schlechtriem, P., "Aufrechnung durch den Kufer
wegen Nachbesserungsaufwand -- deutsches Vertragsstatut und UN-Kaufrecht" (1996) IPRax
256, at p. 256; Spiegel, N., "Exclusion tacite de la Convention de Vienne par les parties et
dnonciation des dfaits de conformit" (2002) Recueil Dalloz-Sirey Jurisprudence 395, at p.
395; Wasmer, W., supra fn 139, at pp. 31 ff.
149. See Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, 31 March 2008, unpubl.; Landgericht Bamberg, 23
October 2006, available in English at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/061023g1.html>;
Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Landgericht Saarbriicken, 2 July 2002,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020702g1.html>; Oberlandesgericht
Rostock, 10 October 2001, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011010g1.html>; Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>; Kantonsgericht
Nidwalden, 3 December 1997, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971203s1.html>; Oberlandesgericht Hamm, 9 June 1995,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950609g1.html>; Landgericht
Landshut, 5 April 1995, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950405g1.html>.
150. Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>.
151. Cour de Cassation, 25 October 2005, available in English at: <http://www.cisgfrance.org/decisions/251005v.htm>; Cour de Cassation, 26 June 2001, available at:
<http://witz.jura.uni-sb.de/CISG/decisions/2606012v.htm>.

152. See, most recently, Sheaffer, C, supra fn 78, at p. 477.

153. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. et al. v. Neuromed Medical Systems & Support GmbH et
al., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 26 March 2002, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020326u1.html>.
154. MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D'Agostino, S.p.A., U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals (11th Circuit), 29 June 1998, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980629u1.html>.
155. Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., U.S. Federal District Court,
Southern District of New York, 10 May 2002, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html>.
156. Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., U.S. Federal District Court,
Southern District of New York, 10 May 2002, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html>; for the statement referred to in the text, see
most recently Hilaturas Miel, S.L. v. Republic of Iraq, U.S. Federal District Court, Southern
District of New York, 20 August 2008, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080820u1.html#c>; Genpharm Inc. v. Pliva-Lachema A.S.,
U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District Court of New York, 19 March 2005, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050319u1.html>; Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam
Food Trading Co., et al., U.S. Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, 21 May 2004, available at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040521u1.html>;
Orbisphere Corp. v. United States, U.S. Court of International Trade, 24 October 1989, available
at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/891024u1.html>.
157. Cahaturificio Claudia S.n.c. v. Olivieri Footwear Ltd., U.S. Federal District Court, Southern
District of New York, 6 April 1998, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941005b1.html>.
158. Gerichtsprsident Laufen, 7 May 1993, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930507s1.html>.
159. Handelsgericht Aargau, 26 September 1997, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?
pid=l&do=case&id=404&step=FullText>.
160. See Audiencia Provincial de Valencia, 7 June 2003, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030607s4.html>, stating that '[s]cholars maintain that the
international character of the Convention obliges an autonomous interpretation of the
Convention independent of domestic law, for this purpose, it is necessary to adopt a different
methodology than used to apply domestic law. The only way to assure the uniformity of the
Convention is to take into account decisions from tribunals of other countries when applying the
Convention and to consult expert opinions of scholars in the subject, in order to achieve
uniformity.' For a favourable comment on this decision when discussing the uniform
interpretation of the CISG, see Perales Viscasillas, M. P., supra fn 21, at pp. 240-241.

161. See Oberster Gerichtshof, 23 May 2005, available in English at:

<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050523a3.html>, stating that '[t]he CISG creates substantive
law [...] and is to be interpreted autonomously in accordance with CISG Art. 7. Therefore,
discussions on the Austrian legal situation [...] have to be omitted'.
162. Tribunale di Padova, 11 January 2005, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?
pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in
English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>.
163. Tribunale di Modena, 9 December 2005, available at: <http://www.cisgonline.ch/cisg/urteile/1398.pdf>.
164. See, e.g., Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, 20 April 1994, available at: <http://www.cisgonline.ch/cisg/urteile/125.htm>.
165. Bundesgerichtshof, 3 April 1996, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960403g1.html>.
166. Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, 25 June 1997, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970625g1.html>.
167. Bundesgerichtshof, 2 March 2005, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050302g1.html>.
168. Netherlands Arbitration Institute, Arbitral award no. 2319, available at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021015n1.html>.
169. Gillette, C. P and Scott, R. E., supra fn 42, at p. 472.
170. See, apart from the author cited in supra fn 56, Halverson Cross, K., (2007) 68 Ohio St. L. J.
133, at p. 136; Harjani, S., "The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods in
United States Courts" (2000) 23 Hous. J. Int'l L 49, at p. 50; Honnold, J., supra fn 59, at p. 1;
Honnold, J., (1988) 8 J. L. & Com. 207, at p. 208; Sondahl, E., "Understanding the Remedy of
Price Reduction -- a Means to Fostering a More Uniform Application of the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (2003) 7 Vindobona Journal 255,
at p. 274; Van Alstine, M. P., supra fn 75, at p. 693.
171. Honnold, J., Uniform Law for the International Sale of Goods, 3rd ed., 1999, Kluwer Law
International, Deventer, at p. 476; see also Flambouras, D., "The Doctrines of Impossibility of
Performance and clausula rebus sic stantibus in the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for
the International Sale of Goods and the Principles of European Contract Law: A Comparative
Analysis" (2001) 13 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 261, at pp. 266-267.
172. See, e.g., Tuggey, T. N., supra fn 35, at p.544, stating that 'one true test of the CISG's
success as a uniform law will be the extent to which it may implicitly permit national variations
in its application.' For a different measure of the CISG's success, see Gillette, C. P. and Scott, R.

E., supra fn 42, at p. 447, where the authors suggest that the success is to be measured on the
basis of whether the rules of the CISG 'do for the parties what the parties cannot as easily do for
themselves' and thus, lead to the parties not wanting to opt-out of the CISG (Ibid, at p. 454).
173. Flechtner, H., supra fn 54, at p. 146.
174. Gillette, C. P. and Scott, R. E., supra fn 42, at p. 474.
175. For some examples, see, e.g., Gillette, C. P. and Scott, R. E., supra fn 42, at pp. 474 ff.
176. See also Bell, K., "Review of 'International Sales Law: A Critical analysis of CISG
Jurisprudence"' (2005/2006) Bar News 105, at p. 105, stating that the CISG's 'open ended
language, however, opens up the possibility of varying interpretations which is anathema for a
Convention which was adopted to promote uniformity and certainty in an important area of
commercial law'; Note by Law Student, "Unification and Certainty: The United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (1984) 97 Harv. L. Rev. 1984, at p.
1999, stating that: 'indeterminate rules permit judicial interpretation guided by diverse national
doctrines and values.'
177. It may suffice to recall that CISG does, for instance, not define the sales contract, as often
pointed out both in legal writing (see Bell, K., supra fn 130, at p. 250; Chiomenti, C., supra fn
143, at p. 142; Gottlieb Grieser, S., Die Behandlung von atypischen Kaufvertrdgen im UNKaufrecht, 2004, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, at p. 35; Kahn, P., "Qu'est-ce que la vente?" (2001) Int'l
Bus. L. J. 241, at p. 242 Niemann, C, Einheitliche Anwendung des UN-Kaufrechts in
Italienischer und deutscher Rechtsprechung und Lehre: Eine Untersuchung zur einheitlichen
Auslegung unbestimmter Rechtsbegriffe und intemer Luckenfullung im CISG, 2006, Peter Lang,
Frankfurt, at p. 82; Richards, B. J., supra fn 132, at p. 227) and case law (see, e.g., Tribunale di
Padova, 11 January 2005, available at: <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?
pid=l&do=case&id=1005&step=FullText>; Tribunale di Padova, 25 February 2004, available in
English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225i3.html>; Tribunale di Rimini, 26
November 2002, available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>;
Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen, 25 February 2002, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020225s1.html>; Cour d'appel de Colmar, 12 June 2001,
available in English at: <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010612f1.html>; Tribunal cantonal de
Vaud, 11 March 1996, available in English at:
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960311s2.html>), nor does it define 'goods' (in this respect
see, e.g., Bailey, J. E., supra fn 97, at p. 306; Niemann, C. Einheitliche Anwendung des UNKaufrechts, (this fn), at p. 89; Rudolph, H., Kaufrecht der Export- und Importvertrgs -Kommentierung des UN-bereinkommens ber Internationale Warenkaufvertrge mit Hinweisen
fr die Vertragspraxis, 1996, Haufe, Freiberg, at p. 103; Wulf, H. M., UN-Kaufrecht und eCommerce: Problembereiche bei der Anwendung des Wiener bereinkommens auf InternetVertrdge, 2003, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, at p. 37).
178. See supra text accompanying fn 30.
179. Tuggey, T. N., supra fn 35, at p. 554.

180. See supra text accompanying fns 56 and 170.

181. Harjani, S., "The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" (2000) 23
Hous. J. Int'l L. 49, at p. 70.
182. Ibid. For a similar definition of the homeward trend, see Schwenzer, I., "National
Preconceptions that Endanger Uniformity" (2007) Pace Int'l L. Rev. 103, at p. 103.
183. For an analysis of the effects of the failure to incorporate the CISG into law school
curricula, see supra fn 111, at pp. 72 ff. For the integration of transnational legal perspectives
into law school curricula in general, see Association of American Law Schools, Workshop on
Integrating Transnational Legal Perspectives Into the First Year Curriculum (4 January 2006),
at: <http://www.aals.org/am2006/program/transnational/index.html>.
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated January 19,
2010
Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography
Comments/Contributions