Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography || Go to Entire Lookofsky Text
Published in J. Herbots editor / R. Blanpain general editor, International Encyclopaedia of Laws - Contracts, Suppl. 29 (December 2000) 1-192. Reproduced with permission of the publisher Kluwer Law International, The Hague.

[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).]

excerpt from

The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts
for the International Sale of Goods

Joseph Lookofsky

Article 94
States Having Closely Related Legal Rules

330. The Scandinavian States (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) all wished to join the international community in ratifying the CISG. As regards inter-Scandinavian sales, however, these States did not wish to replace their essentially 'uniform' sales laws with the new CISG regime. Article 94 made it possible for the Scandinavian States, at the time of their CISG ratifications, to declare that the Convention is not to apply to contracts of sale or to their formation where the parties have their places of business in those States.[l]

The Article 94 declarations presuppose and indeed require that the Scandinavian States have 'essentially similar' legal rules on matters governed by the CISG Convention. And while it is still true that the Scandinavian rules are similar with regard to the rules which govern contract formation (The Contracts Acts), recent statutory amendments to the Scandinavian sales statutes (the Sales Acts) give good [page 176] reason to question whether the Scandinavian States (still) all have the kind of 'closely related' sales law rules required by Article 94.[2]

1. As regards the Scandinavian Article 92 declarations, see supra No. 328.
2. The controversial new provisions in the revised Sales Acts now effective in Finland, Norway and Sweden - but not in Denmark - limit the seller's liability for 'indirect loss' under domestic law to cases where the breach can be attributed to the seller's fault. Given this disparity, among others, several Scandinavian commentators have suggested that the Article 94 declarations should be withdrawn.
[page 177]


Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated April 5, 2005
Comments/Contributions