Zum Bücherregal
Arbeitsbereich
CISG
Verweise
in Art. 99 CISG

CISG  
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980)

Zivilrecht

Int. Privat- & Wirtschaftsrecht

(1) This Convention enters into force, subject to the provisions of paragraph (6) of this article, on the first day of the month following the expiration of twelve months after the date of deposit of the tenth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, including an instrument which contains a declaration made under article 92.
(2) When a State ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to this Convention after the deposit of the tenth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, this Convention, with the exception of the Part excluded, enters into force in respect of that State, subject to the provisions of paragraph (6) of this article, on the first day of the month following the expiration of twelve months after the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
(3) A State which ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to this Convention and is a party to either or both the Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods done at The Hague on 1 July 1964 (1964 Hague Formation Convention) and the Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods done at The Hague on 1 July 1964 (1964 Hague Sales Convention) shall at the same time denounce, as the case may be, either or both the 1964 Hague Sales Convention and the 1964 Hague Formation Convention by notifying the Government of the Netherlands to that effect.
(4) A State party to the 1964 Hague Sales Convention which ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to the present Convention and declares or has declared under article 92 that it will not be bound by Part II of this Convention shall at the time of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession denounce the 1964 Hague Sales Convention by notifying the Government of the Netherlands to that effect.
(5) A State party to the 1964 Hague Formation Convention which ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to the present Convention and declares or has declared under article 92 that it will not be bound by Part III of this Convention shall at the time of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession denounce the 1964 Hague Formation Convention by notifying the Government of the Netherlands to that effect.
(6) For the purpose of this article, ratifications, acceptances, approvals and accessions in respect of this Convention by States parties to the 1964 Hague Formation Convention or to the 1964 Hague Sales Convention shall not be effective until such denunciations as may be required on the part of those States in respect of the latter two Conventions have themselves become effective. The depositary of this Convention shall consult with the Government of the Netherlands, as the depositary of the 1964 Conventions, so as to ensure necessary coordination in this respect.
Quelle: UNCITRAL
Import:

UNCITRAL Digest CISG, Art. 28

Art. 28 CISG
ZivilrechtInt. Privat- & Wirtschaftsrecht

This Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) was prepared by the UNCITRAL Secretariat in cooperation with national correspondents and international experts. It may serve as a commentary on the CISG. The following excerpt contains the commentary on Article 28 CISG.

Recommended citation: UNCITRAL, Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (2016), Art. 28, para. #.

 

Article 28

If, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, one party is entitled to require performance of any obligation by the other party, a court is not bound to enter a judgement for specific performance unless the court would do so under its own law in respect of similar contracts of sale not governed by this Convention.
 
 

OVERVIEW: MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE PROVISION

1. The article constitutes a compromise between legal systems that deal differently with the right of a party to claim specific performance of the contract. According to article 28, a court is not obliged to grant specific performance under the Convention if it would not do so for similar sales contracts under its domestic law.

2. “Specific performance” means requiring the other party to perform its obligations under the contract through court action (see also articles 46 and 62). For example, the buyer may obtain a court order requiring the seller to deliver the quantity and quality of steel contracted for,1 or the seller may obtain an order requiring the buyer to pay.2

3. There is little case law on this provision; only a few cases, and even fewer with relevant discussion of article 28, have been reported thus far.3 In one case, a court stated that where the Convention entitles a party to claim specific performance, article 28 allows the seized court to look to the availability of such relief under its own substantive law in a like case.4If the national law would also grant specific performance in the case, there is no conflict with the Convention and no problem arises.5 If the national law would, however, disallow specific performance, alternative relief—in most cases, damages—could be granted instead.6 Article 28, however, merely provides that the court “is not bound” to adopt the solution of its national law regarding specific performance in the context of an international sale of goods governed by the Convention.

4. It has been held that a damages claim and a claim for specific performance are not necessarily inconsistent remedies; the creditor may therefore resort to both.7 And an arbitration tribunal found that the party to whom a duty is owed must raise a claim for specific performance within a reasonable time after it became aware of the non-performance of the duty.8

 
Notes

1 CLOUT case No. 417 [U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, United States, 7 December 1999].

2 Obergericht des Kantons Bern, Switzerland, 1 December 2004, CISG-online No. 1192.

3 Zürich Arbitration, Switzerland, 31 May 1996 (specific performance denied because relevant national law (Russian or Swiss) did not provide for such remedy); CLOUT case No. 417 [U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, United States, 7 December 1999]; Obergericht des Kantons Bern, Switzerland, 1 December 2004, CISG-online No. 1192; Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 2004 (Arbitral award No. 12173), Yearbook of Commercial Arbitration 2009, 111 (stating that a claim for liquidated damages does not exclude a claim for specific performance); International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, Russian Federation, 30 January 2007 (Arbitral award No. 147/2005), Unilex (stating that a claim for specific performance must be made within reasonable time after the party became aware of non-performance; merely mentioning article 28 without further consideration); CLOUT case No. 636 [Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, Argentina, 21 July 2002].

4 CLOUT case No. 417 [U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, United States, 7 December 1999] (“Simply put, [CISG article 28] looks to the availability of such relief under the UCC”). To the same effect with respect to Swiss internal law, Obergericht des Kantons Bern, Switzerland, 1 December 2004, CISG-online No. 1192.

5 That was the outcome in CLOUT case No. 417 [U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, United States, 7 December 1999].

6 Zürich Arbitration, Switzerland, 31 May 1996 (damages granted instead of specific performance; it was held that ordering specific performance of an obligation to produce and deliver aluminum for a further eight or ten years would be inappropriate).

7 Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, 2004 (Arbitral award No. 12173), Yearbook of Commercial Arbitration 2009, 111.

8 International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, Russian Federation, 30 January 2007 (Arbitral award No. 147/2005), Unilex.

 

© United Nations. This text is reproduced with permission of the United Nations.

Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Schemata
zu Int. Privat- & Wirtschaftsrecht
Notizen
zu Art. 99 CISG
Keine Notizen vorhanden.