[For more current case annotated texts by this author, see Bernstein & Lookofsky, Understanding the CISG in Europe, 2d ed. (2003) and Lookofsky, Understanding the CISG in the USA, 2d ed. (2004).]
293. As an alternative to the contract/cover differential, a more 'abstract' measure of damages available to a party electing to avoid is set forth in Article 76. If there is a 'current' (i.e. market) price for the goods concerned, the party claiming damages may, if he has not covered by purchase or resale under Article 75, recover the difference between the price fixed by the contract and such current price at the time of avoidance. In addition, the injured party may recover further damages under Article 74.
An injured seller or buyer who has in fact entered a substitute (cover) transaction cannot claim market-price damages under Article 76.
Unlike the avoidance analogues of certain domestic law, the Convention does not make a formal distinction between rejected and accepted goods. If, however, the party claiming damages has avoided the contract after taking over the goods, the current price at the time of such taking over shall be applied instead of the current price at the time of avoidance.