Burden of Proof under the CISG - Franco Ferrari
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Burden of Proof under the CISG
Franco FerrariCISG Database, Pace Institute of International Commercial Law. Also available at Pace: Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), Kluwer Law International (2000-2001) 1-8 Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database Institute of International Commercial Law ii
Contents Contents I. General Remarks 1 II. Burden of Proof and Scholarly Writings 3 III. CISG Case Law on the Issue of Burden of Proof 4 SiSU Metadata, document information 8 Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database Institute of International Commercial Law iii
Burden of Proof under the CISG
Burden of Proof under the CISG, 1
Franco Ferrari*
I. General Remarks 2
Despite a recent court decision stating that the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention on Con- 3
tracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG)1 constitutes “an exhaustive body of
rules,”2 the contrary is true. The CISG does not deal with all the issues that arise from
international sales contracts.3 This can be easily derived from the text of the CISG itself.
For instance, Article 4 states, on the one hand, that the CISG governs only the forma-
tion of the contract of sale and the rights and obligations of the seller and the buyer and,
on the other hand, except as otherwise expressly provided in it, that it is not concerned
with either the validity of the contract, any of its provisions, any usage4 or the effect the
contract may have on the property in the goods sold.5 This provision is not the only
evidence that the CISG is not an exhaustive body of rules. According to Article 5, the
CISG does not apply to the liability of the seller for death or personal injury caused by
the goods, something a recent German court decision apparently overlooked when it
awarded damages to a buyer who had to compensate its own buyer for having been
injured by the goods sold.6
These issues, as well as all the other issues that are excluded from the CISG’s sphere 4
of application (which have been referred to as “external gaps,” “lacunae praeter legem”
1
See United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, April 11, 1980, S.
TREATY DOC. NO. 98-9 (1984), 1489 U.N.T.S. 3, reprinted as United Nations: Conference on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 19 I.L.M. 668 (1980) [hereinafter CISG].
2
Gerichtspräsident von Laufen (Switz.), UNILEX (7 May 1993).
3
For a similar statement, see MAGNUS WEINER, UN-KAUFRECHT (CISG) 107 (2d ed. 1999).
4
For case law stating that the issue of validity is an issue not governed by the CISG and, thus, left to
the applicable domestic law, see AG Nordhorn (F.R.G), No. 3C 75/94, UNILEX (14 June 1994),
available at ‹http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/259.htm›; HG St. Gallen (Switz.), No. HG
48/1994, UNILEX (24 August 1995); OLG Köln (F.R.G.), No. 22 U 4/96, UNILEX (21 May 1996),
available at ‹http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/254.htm›; OGH (Aus.), No. 2 Ob 58/97m,
UNILEX (20 March 1997), available at ‹http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/269.htm›; BGH
(F.R.G.), No. VIII ZR 130/96, UNILEX (23 July 1997) (parties chose German law), available at
‹http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/285.htm›
5
For case law appyling domestic law to the proprietary effects of international sales contracts on the
basis of their not being governed by the CISG, see OLG Koblenz (F.R.G.), No. 5 U 534/91, UNILEX (16
January 1992), available at ‹http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/47.htm›; Roder Zelt- und
Hallenkonstruktionen GmbH v. Rosedown Park Pty. Ltd. and Another, 57 FED. CT. REP. 216 (1995),
available at ‹http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de./ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/218.htm›
6
See OLG Düsseldorf (F.R.G), No. 17 U 73/93, UNILEX (2 July 1993), available at
‹http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/74.htm› See also Kuhlen, Produkthaftung im
internationalen Kaufrecht. Entstehungsgeschichte, Anwendungsbereich und Sperrwirkung des Art. 5
des Wiener UN-Kaufrechts (CISG); Schneider, UN-Kaufrecht und Produkthaftpflicht (1995) (discussion
of the CISG, Art. 5).
*
Professor of Comparative Private Law, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg, the Netherlands;
J.D. (Honors), University of Bologna, Italy; LL.M., University of Augsburg, Germany.
Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database Institute of International Commercial Law 1Burden of Proof under the CISG
or, simply, “issues not governed by the CISG”),7 must be distinguished from the mat-
ters governed by the CISG but which are not expressly settled in it (which have been
referred to as “internal gaps” or “lacunae intra legem”).8 This distinction is necessary
since different types of gaps are dealt with differently. Whereas the “external gaps” are
to be filled by resorting to the “law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international
law,”9 the internal gaps “are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on
which the Convention is based.”10 Only where internal gaps cannot be settled in con-
formity with the general principles on which the Convention is based should recourse
to the law applicable by virtue of rules of private international law be possible.11
Unfortunately the CISG gives only little guidance in order to distinguish between the 5
aforementioned types of gaps.12 Thus, it is no surprise that in respect to some issues
there is a dispute as to whether or not they are governed by the CISG. This is true
where burden of proof is concerned, attracting the attention of many legal writers in
recent years.13
7
See Franco Ferrari, Interprétation Uniforme de la Convention de 1980 Sur la Vente Internationale
[Uniform Interpretation of the CISG], 1996 REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE DROIT COMPARÉ 813 (for
a reference to the different names given by the various authors to the gaps at hand).
8
See Franco Ferrari, Jurisprudence concernant les questions non abordées par la CVIM
[Implementation of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods CISG], 1998
REVUE DE DROIT DES AFFAIRS INTERNATIONALES 835 (for a detailed reference to the issues not
dealt with, even implicitly, by the CISG). See also Franco Ferrari, Die Schuldübernahme als vom
UN-Kaufrecht nicht geregelte Rechtsmaterie [Assumption of Debts as a Subject Matter Excluded from
the UN Sales Convention, Commentary on OGH (Aus.) 24 April 1997], 1997 FORUM DES
INTERNATIONALEN RECHTS 89, available at ‹http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/ferrar.html›
9
CISG, 1, art. 7(2).
10
Id. See also Trib Pavia, 29 December 1999, CORRIERE GIURIDICO (2000) 932-933 (for a
reference in recent case law to the different consequences referred to in the text).
11
See Franco Ferrari, Das Verhältnis zwischen den UNIDROIT-Grundsätzen und den allgemeinen
Grundsätzen internationaler [The Relationship Between the UNIDROIT Principles and the General
Principles of International Conventions Unifying Private Law], 53 JURISTEN ZEITUNG 9 (1998) (for a
detailed examination of the issue of gap-filling under the CISG). See also Ulrich Magnus,
Währungsfragen im Einheitlichen Kaufrecht. Zugleich ein Beitrag zu seiner Lückenfüllung und
Auslegung [Currency Issues in Uniform Sales Law. Also a Contribution to Filling of its Gaps and its
Interpretation], in 1989 RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES
PRIVATRECHT 116; Mark N. Rosenberg, The Vienna Convention: Uniformity in Interpretation for
Gap-Filling - An Analysis and Application, 20 AUSTL. BUS. L. REV. 442, 459 (1992); Paul Volken, The
Vienna Convention: Scope, Interpretation and Gap-Filling, in International Sale of Goods, in
INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS, DUBROVNIK LECTURES 19 (Sarcevic & Volken eds., 1985).
12
See CISG, supra note 1, arts. 4, 5.
13
See, e.g., ANTWEILER, BEWEISLASTVERTEILUNG IM UN-KAUFRECHT, INSBESONDERE BEI
VERTRAGSVERLETZUNGEN DES VERKÄUFERS (1995) ; Chiara Giovannucci Orlandi, Procedural
law issues and Uniform Law Conventions, 2000 UNIFORM LAW REVIEW/REVUE DE DROIT
UNIFORME 23-42; Oskar Hartwieg, Die “autonome Beweislast” der Wiener Konvention der Vereinten
Nationen über den Internationalen Warenkauf von 1980 (CISG), in 2 GRIECHISCHES RECHT IM
WANDEL (1991); HENNINGER, DIE FRAGE DER BEWEISLAST IM RAHMEN DES
UN-KAUFRECHTS: ZUGLEICH EINE RECHTSVERHLEICHENDE GRUNDLAGENSTUDIE ZUR
BEWEISLAST (1995); ALEXANDER IMBERG, BEWEISLASTVERTEILUNG BEIM
GEFAHRÜBERGANG NACH UN-KAUFRECHT 43 (Peter Lang ed., 1998); REIMERS-ZOCHER,
BEWEISLASTFRAGEN IM HAAGER UND WIENER KAUFRECHT (1995).
Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database Institute of International Commercial Law 2Burden of Proof under the CISG
II. Burden of Proof and Scholarly Writings 6
Some authors claim the issue of burden of proof is not governed by the CISG,14 which 7
is why one should, apart from very exceptional cases,15 have recourse to domestic law
to solve it.16 There is, however, no agreement between these legal writers as to how
to determine the applicable domestic law. Whereas some legal writers hold the view
that recourse should be had to the lex fori on the basis that the issue constitutes one
of procedural law,17 others propose to resort to the domestic law made applicable by
virtue of the rules of private international law in the forum.18
The prevailing view appears to be that the issue of burden of proof is a matter governed, 8
at least implicitly,19 by the CISG.20 This view has been justified on the grounds that
14
See GERT REINHART, UN-KAUFRECHT, KOMMENTAR ZUM ÜBEREINKOMMEN DER
VEREINTEN NATIONEN VOM 11. APRIL 1980 ÜBER VERTRÄGE ÜBER DEN INTERNATIONALEN
WARENKAUF [UN-SALES LAW, COMMENTARY ON THE CISG] 288 (1991).
15
See MAX HUTTER, DIE HAFTUNG DES VERKAUFERS FÜR NICHTLIEFERUNG BZW.
LIEFERUNG VERTRAGSWIDRIGER WARE NACH DEM WIENER UNCITRAL - ÜBEREINKOMMEN
ÜBER INTERNATIONALE WARENKAUFVERTRAGE VOM 11. APRIL 1980 [SELLER’S LIABILITY
FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER AND DELIVERY OF NONCONFORMING GOODS UNDER THE CISG]
art. 35(2)(b) (1988) (for an author who states that the issue of burden of proof is generally not governed
by the CISG, but who claims that there are exceptions to the rule).
16
See, e.g., Warren L. Khoo, Article 2, in COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW,
THE 1980 VIENNA SALES CONVENTION 34 (C. M. Bianca & M. J. Bonell eds., 1987) [hereinafter
COMMENTARY ON INT’L SALES LAW]; Ulrich Huber, Der UNCITRAL-Entwurf eines
Übereinkommens über internationale Warenkaufverträge [The UNCITRAL Draft Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods], 43 RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES
UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 413 (1979); Arthur Rosett, Critical Reflections on the United
Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 45 OHIO ST.L.J. 265 (1984).
17
See GRITLI RYFFEL, DIE SCHADENERSATZHAFTUNG DES VERKÄUFERS NACH DEM
WIENER ÜBEREINKOMMEN ÜBER INTERNATIONALE WARENKAUFVERTRÄGE VOM 11. APRIL
1980 [THE SELLER’S LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE CISG] 155 (1992).
18
See Shivbir S. Grewal, Risk of Loss in Goods Sold During Transit: A Comparative Study of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the Uniform Commercial
Code, and the British Sale of Goods Act, 14 LOY. L.A. INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 93, 102 (1991).
19
See Rolf Herber, Article 4, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT 77 (2d ed.,
1995); ROLF HERBER & BEATE CZERWENKA, INTERNATIONALES KAUFRECHT, KOMMENTAR
ZU DEM ÜBEREINKOMMEN DER VEREINTEN NATIONEN VOM 11, APRIL 1980 ÜBER VERTRÄGE
ÜBER DEN INTERNATIONALEN WARENKAUF, KOMMENTAR 32-33 (1991).
20
See ANTWEILER, supra note 13, at 74; JOACHIM AUE, MÄNGELGEWÄHRLEISTUNG IM
UN-KAUFRECHT UNTER BESONDERER BERÜCKSICHTIGUNG STILLSCHWEIGENDER
ZUSICHERUNGEN [WARRANTY FOR CONFORMITY UNDER THE CISG; IMPLIED WARRANTIES]
110 (1989); C.M. Bianca, Article 36, in COMMENTARY ON INT’L SALES LAW, supra note 16, at 287;
FRANCO FERRARI, VENDITA INTERNAZIONALE DI BENI MOBILI, TOMO 1 - ART. 1-13, AMBITO DI
APPLICAZIONE - DISPOSIZIONI GENERALI [THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS] 101 -102
(Scialoja & Branca eds., 1994); HENNINGER, supra note 13, at 153; Rolf Herber, Anwendungsbereich
des UNCITRAL-Kaufrechtsübereinkommens [Sphere of application of the UNCITRAL - Sales Law
Convention], in DAS UNCITRAL-KAUFRECHT IM VERGLEICH ZUM ÖSTERREICHISCHEN RECHT
28, 41 (Doralt ed., 1985); IMBERG, supra note 13, at 19-20; V. Knapp, Article 74, in COMMENTARY ON
INT’L SALES LAW, supra note 16, at 541; Ulrich Magnus, Stand und Entwicklungen des UN-Kaufrechts
[Current status and development of UN-Sales Law], 1995 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES
PRIVATRECHT 202, 207; KONSTANTINOS NOUSSIAS, DIE UGANGSBEDÜRFTIGKEIT VON
Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database Institute of International Commercial Law 3Burden of Proof under the CISG
the CISG itself provides at least one rule on the burden of proof, namely the one to
be found in Article 79,21 which is why it cannot be asserted that the CISG does not
govern the issue at hand.22 Further, the issue of burden of proof is so closely linked to
the substantive law that a rule on its allocation has to necessarily be derived from the
CISG.23 Considering this view, the issue of burden of proof is a matter governed, albeit
not expressly, by the CISG.
At this point, one must wonder how the burden of proof is in concreto to be allocated. 9
A close examination of the wording24 and the legislative history of the various provi-
sions of the CISG has led those legal writers who consider the issue of burden of proof
as one governed by the CISG to assert that the allocation is based upon the principle
ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat.25 On one hand, this means that a party
has to prove the existence of the factual prerequisites contained in the legal provision
from which it wants to derive beneficial legal consequences.26 On the other hand, this
also means that a party claiming an exception has the burden of proving its prerequi-
sites.27
III. CISG Case Law on the Issue of Burden of Proof 10
CISG case law on the issue of burden of proof basically mirrors the situation to be found 11
in legal writing. Even though there are a few voices excluding the issue of burden of
proof as being governed by the CISG, the prevailing view is that it is somehow governed
by the CISG.
In respect to the former view, it may be sufficient to recall an ICC arbitral award,28 12
MITTEILUNGEN NACH DEN EINHEITLICHEN HAAGER KAUFGESETZEN UND NACH DEM
UN-KAUFGESETZ [THE REQUIREMENT OF RECEIPT OF NOTICES UNDER ULIS AND THE CISG]
105-06 (1982); REIMERS-ZOCHER, supra note 13, at 148; KURT SIEHR, KOMMENTAR ZUM
UN-KAUFRECHT [COMMENTARY ON THE CISG] art. 4, at 71 (Honsell ed., 1997); K. Sono, Article
44, in COMMENTARY ON INT’L SALES LAW, supra note 16, at 327.
21
For this justification, see e.g., REIMERS-ZOCHERS, supra note 13, at 146.
22
See MAGNUS, supra note 3, at 122.
23
See generally Oskar Hartwieg, Prozessuale Aspekte einheitlicher Anwendung der Wiener
UN-Konvention über den Internationalen Warenkauf (CISG), Eine komparative Fallstudie zur
einheitlichen Rechtsanwendung [Procedural aspects of uniform application of the CISG: A comparative
case-study on uniform application of law], 92 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR VERGLEICHENDE
RECHTSWISSENSCHAFT 282 (1993) (discussing the importance of a uniform interpretation matters
relating to the CISG).
24
See Rolf Herber, Article 4, in COMMENTARY ON THE UN CONVENTION ON THE
INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS (CISG) 47 (Peter Schlechtriem ed. & Geoffrey Thomas trans, 2d
ed. 1998) (referencing wording as an element to be taken into account in allocating the burden of
proof). Herber states, “wording can give clues in that regard, but is not solely decisive.” Id.
25
See Franco Ferrari, Article 4, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT (CISG) 104
(Peter Schlechtriem ed., 3rd ed., 2000) (for similar, if not identical, assertions); Leonardo Graffi,
Overview of Recent Italian Court Decisions on the CISG, 2000/2001 EUROPEAN LEGAL FORUM 240,
243.
26
See MAGNUS, supra note 3, at 123; REIMERS-ZOCHER, supra note 13, at 146.
27
See Ulrich Magnus, General Principles of UN-Sales Law, 3 INT’L TRADE & BUS. L. ANN. 33, 52
(1997).
Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database Institute of International Commercial Law 4Burden of Proof under the CISG
rendered not too long after the CISG’s entry into force, in which the Arbitral Tribunal
expressly stated that the issue of burden of proof is not governed by the CISG. It was
held rather, the issue is governed by the domestic law to be determined by means of
the rules of private international law, in which it is considered to be a substantive issue,
or by the lex fori, in which it is considered a procedural one. More recently, a similar
view was held by a Swiss court.29
These, as previously mentioned, are rather isolated views. Several court decisions 13
expressly state that even though the issue of burden of proof is not one explicitly set-
tled in the CISG, it is implicitly governed by it.30 In other words, the issue of alloca-
tion of the burden of proof is an internal gap which, as expressly stated by a Swiss
court in 199331 and more recently by an Italian one,32 has to be settled by resorting
to the CISG’s general principles. Several courts, including a German33 and an Aus-
trian one,34 have expressed their view on the general principles governing the issue
de quo.35 They seem, however, to have best been summarized by recent Swiss36 and
Italian37 decisions which rightly list, like some legal writers,38 the following three general
principles:
(1) Any party which wants to derive beneficial legal consequences from a legal provision 14
has to prove the existence of the factual prerequisites of that provision;
(2) Any party claiming an exception has to prove the existence of the factual prerequi- 15
sites of that exception; and
(3) Those facts that are exclusively in a party’s sphere of responsibility and which there- 16
fore are, at least theoretically, better known to that party have to be proven by that party,
since it is that party who exercises the control over that sphere.
28
See Maaden v. Thyssen (ICC Arbitral Award n. 6653), JOURNAL DU DROIT INTERNATIONAL
1040 (Int’l Comm. Arb. 1993).
29
See Tribunal de la Sane, 20 February 1997, SCHWIZERISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR
INTERNATIONALES UND EUROPÄISCHES RECHT 195-96 (1999).
30
See, e.g., HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG930138 U/HG93, UNILEX (9 September 1993); Repubblica e
Cantone del Ticino, Tribunale d’appello (seconda Camera civile), 15 January 1998, No. 12.97.00193,
1999 SCHWEIZERISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR INTERNATIONALES UND EUROPÄISCHES
RECHT/REVUE SUISSE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL ET DE DROIT EUROPÉEN 189-90.
31
See HG Zürich (Switz.), supra note 30.
32
See Tribunale di Vigevano (Italy), 12 July 2000, 2001 GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA 280-288,
available at ‹http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html›; for a first comment on this decision, see Franco
Ferrari, Problematiche tipiche della Convenzione di Vienna sui contratti di vendita internazionale di beni
mobili risolti in una prospettiva uniforme [Typical problems of the Vienna Convention on contracts for
the international sale of goods solved in a uniform light], 2001 GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA 281-285.
33
See LG Frankfurt (F.R.G), No. 2/1 O 7/94, UNILEX (6 July 1994).
34
See OLG Innsbruck (Aus.), No. 4R 161/94, UNILEX (1 July 1994), available at
‹http://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de/ipr1/cisg/urteile/text/107.htm›
35
For affirmation of this principle, see LG Frankfurt (F.R.G), No. 2/1 O 7/94, supra note 33.
36
See HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG 930634/O, 1999 SCHWEIZERISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR
INTERNATIONALES UND EUROPÄISCHES RECHT/REVUE SUISSE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL
ET DE DROIT EUROPÉEN 186, 188; HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG 920670, UNILEX (26 April 1995).
37
See Tribunale di Vigevano, supra note 32.
38
See Ferrari, supra note 25, at 104; Magnus, supra note 27, at 52.
Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database Institute of International Commercial Law 5Burden of Proof under the CISG
It is upon the aforementioned principles that the courts of several countries have relied 17
in order to in concreto allocate the burden of proof. This led various courts, two Swiss39
and one Italian,40 to state that the buyer who asserts the non-conformity of the goods
has to prove the non-conformity as well as the existence of a proper notice of non-
conformity. Similarly, an Austrian court decided that the buyer had to pay the price and
was not entitled to damages or to avoidance of the contract for non-conformity of the
goods since it had not proved the non-conformity of the goods according to Article 35.41
Prior to the Austrian court, a German court had already allocated the burden of proof
in the same way.42 More recently, a Belgian court, in dealing with a dispute relating
to an alleged non-conformity, decided that the buyer had lost its right to rely upon the
non-conformity since it had not been able to prove that timely notice was given to the
seller.43
In two Dutch cases, the aforementioned general principles induced the courts to state 18
that under Article 42,44 the buyer has the burden of proving that the seller knew or could
not have been unaware of the third party industrial or intellectual property rights.45
The foregoing general principles were also the basis for several decisions dealing with 19
the issue of damages. In this respect, a Swiss court decision46 and an Italian court
decision47 are worth mentioning since they stated very clearly that according to the
CISG the damaged buyer has the burden of proving the objective prerequisites of his
claim for damages. Thus, he has to prove the damage, the causal link between the
breach of contract and the damage, as well as the foreseeability of the loss.48 In another
Italian case, the court stated more generally that the party claiming damages has to
prove the damage suffered.49 This appears to be the view also held by courts from
other countries, such as Germany50 and Spain.51
39
See HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG 930634/O, 1999 SCHWEIZERISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR
INTERNATIONALES UND EUROPÄISCHES RECHT/REVUE SUISSE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL
ET DE DROIT EUROPÉEN 186, 188; HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG 920670, UNILEX (26 April 1995).
40
See Tribunale di Vigevano, supra note 32.
41
See OLG Innsbruck (Aus.), supra note 34.
42
See LG Düsseldorf (F.R.G.), No. 31027/92, UNILEX (25 August 1994).
43
See Kh Hasselt (Belg.), No. A.R. 1972/96, UNILEX (21 January 1997).
44
See CISG, supra note 1, art. 42. Article 42 states, “[T]he seller must deliver goods which are free
from any right or claim of a third party based on industrial property or other intellectual property, of
which . . . the seller knew or could not have been unaware.” Id.
45
See Rb Zwolle (Neth.), No. HA ZA 92-1180, UNILEX (1 March 1995); Hof Arnhem (Neth.), No.
95/246, UNILEX (21 May 1996).
46
See HG Zürich (Switz.), No. HG 920670, supra note 39. See also, HG Zürich (Switz.), HG 950347,
UNILEX (5 February 1997) (another Swiss case dealing with the issues of damages and burden of proof
which states that a buyer is generally entitled to interest on the loss of profit, but that in the case at hand
the buyer lost his right to interest as he did not prove the time in which the profit would have been made).
47
See Tribunale di Vigevano, supra note 32.
48
See Id.
49
See Trib. Pavia, supra note 10.
50
See LG Düsseldorf (F.R.G.), No. 31027/92, UNILEX (25 August 1994).
51
See Audencia de Barcelona (Spain), No. 755/95-C, 1997 REVISTA JURIDICA DE CATALUNYA
110, available at ‹http://www.uc3m.es/cisg/sespan2.htm›
Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database Institute of International Commercial Law 6Burden of Proof under the CISG From what has been said, a conclusion can be drawn: the issue of burden of proof 20 is a matter governed by the CISG, albeit not expressly settled in it. Like all internal gaps, this one has to be dealt with by means of the general principles underlying the CISG. This solution is preferable to the other, whereby one should resort to domestic law, since it is the only one that promotes uniformity - the ultimate goal of any uniform commercial law convention. Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database Institute of International Commercial Law 7
Burden of Proof under the CISG SiSU Metadata, document information Document Manifest @: ‹http://www.jus.uio.no/pace/en/manifest/burden_of_proof_under_cisg.franco_ferrari.html› Title: Burden of Proof under the CISG Creator: Franco Ferrari Rights: Copyright: CISG Database, Pace Institute of International Commercial Law. Also available at Pace: Review of the Con- vention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), Kluwer Law International (2000-2001) 1-8 Publisher: SiSU on behalf of CISG Database, Pace Institute of International Commercial Law Date available: 2002-11-05 Date: 2000 Topics Registered: CISG:burden of proof Version Information Sourcefile: burden_of_proof_under_cisg.franco_ferrari.sst Filetype: SiSU text 2.0, UTF-8 Unicode text, with very long lines Source Digest: SHA256(burden_of_proof_under_cisg.franco_ferrari.sst)=354d39e6e89644a48bc9576baa763828- 3ad8d86fc6e1aaf9db2a019c01693133 Generated Document (ao) last generated: 2014-12-11 19:33:34 -0500 Generated by: SiSU 6.4.0_pre_rel of 2014w49/1 (2014-12-08) Ruby version: ruby 2.1.5p273 (2014-11-13) [x86_64-linux-gnu] Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database Institute of International Commercial Law 8
You can also read
