The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to Professor Albert H. Kritzer, Institute of International Commercial Law, Pace University School of Law, for his most valuable help in preparing this contribution, especially for the many helpful suggestions as to certain topics.

1. United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, at 178, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.97/18, Annex I (1981) (opened for signature Apr. 11, 1980) [hereinafter CISG].

2. Id. arts. 15(1), 18(2), 24.

3. Id. arts. 15(2), 17, 20(1), 22.

4. Id. arts. 47, 48, 63, 65, 79.

5. Id. art. 63(2).

6. Id. art. 48(4).

7. Id. art. 65(2).

8. Id. art. 79(4).

9. The Secretariat Commentary distinguishes between the five cited "receipt" articles and other Part III declarations which are governed by Article 27. See John Honnold, Documentary History of the Uniform Law for International Sales 417 n.2 (1989).

10. CISG, supra note 1, art. 26.

11. Id. art.27.

12. Id.

13. Id. art. 16(1).

14. Id. art. 65(2).

15. As to the details of these declarations, see Konstantinos Noussias, Die Zugangsbedürftigkeit von Mitteilungen nach den Einheitlichen Haager Kaufgesetzen und nach dem UN-Kaufgesetz 126-30 (1982); Elisabeth Stern, Erklärungen im UNCITRAL-Kaufrecht §§ 206-40 (1990).

16. Compare Karl Neumayer & Catherine Ming, Convention de Vienne sur Les Contrats de Vente Internationale de Marchandises (Commentaire) 227 (1993). See STERN, supra note 15, § 209; Ulrich Huber, Art. 47: Nachfrist, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht 450, 455-56 (Ernst von Caemmerer & Peter Schlechtriem eds., 2d. ed. 1995); Günter Hager, Art. 63: Nachfrist, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht 552, 553-54 (Ernst von Caemmerer & Peter Schlechtriem eds., 2d. ed. 1995). As to Article 48(2), see Stern, supra note 15, § 232; Ulrich Huber, Art. 48: Recht des Verkäufers zur Nacherfüllung, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht 457, 470 (Ernst von Caemmerer & Peter Schlechtriem eds., 2d. ed. 1995). As to declarations under article 65(1), (2), see Stern, supra note 15, §§ 326-27; Günter Hager, Art. 65: Spezifizierung durch den Verkäufer, in Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht 563, 564-65 (Ernst von Caemmerer & Peter Schlechtriem eds., 2d. ed. 1995) [hereinafter Hager,Art. 65]. Regarding notice under article 79(4), see Stern, supra note 15, § 304. For further references in regard to particular declarations, see generally Stern, supra note 15.

17.CISG, supra note 1, arts. 47, 63.

18. Id. art. 48.

19. Id. art. 65.

20. See Hager, Art. 65, supra note 16, at 565.

21. CISG, supra note 1, art. 79.

22 In the Hague Sales Law of 1964 (ULIS and ULFIS), predecessor of theCISG, no general provision regulating the effectiveness of communications among absent parties could be found. Compare NOUSSIAS, supranote 15, at 44-46. Proposals and drafts for the CISG were based on theidea that it would be appropriate to generalize the provision for the riskof transport with respect to notice of a defect of non-conformity in ULISArticle 39(3) and to make it applicable to all other communications. TheGerman delegation's proposals to base effectiveness on receipt wererejected. For the different steps in the history, see id. at 50-58; STERN,supra note 15, Ss 390-407.

23 This was the opinion of the Norwegian delegation at the Vienna
Conference. See HONNOLD, supra note 9, at 524; Franz Bydlinski,

Das aligemeine Vertragsrecht, in DAS UNCITRAL-KAUFRECHT IMVERGLEICH ZUM OSTERRElCHISCHEN RECHT 57, 65-66 (Peter Doralt ea.,1985); Samuel Date-Bah, Article 27: Dispatch Principle, in COMMENTARYON THE lNTERNAnoNAL SALES LAW 226, 227-30 (C.M. Bianca & M.J.Bonell eds., 1987); FRITZ ENDERLE;N ET AL., KOMMENTAR: KoNvENnoNENDER VEREINTEN NAnoNEN OBER VERTRAGE t)BER DEN INTERNAnONALENWARENKAUF 105 (1991); JOHN HONNOLD, UNIFORM LAW FORINTERNATIONAL SALES 189-90 (2d ed. 1982) [hereinafter HONNOLD,UNIFORM LAW]; ALBERT KRITZER, GUIDE TO PRACTICAL AppLicAnoNs OFTHE 1980 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THEINTERNAnoNAL SALE OF GOODS 211 (1989); PETER SCHLECHTRIEM,EINHEITLICHES UN-KAUFRECHT 50 (1981); Peter Schlechtriem, Art. 27:Absendetheorie, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEIrLIcHEN UN-KAUFRECHT 226,226-27 (Ernst von Caemmerer & Peter Schlechtriem eds., 2d. ed. 1995).But see Hans Leser, Vertragsauthebung und Ruckabmicklung unter demUN-Kautrecht, in EINHEITLiCHES KAUFRECHT UND NAnoNALEsoBLlGAnoNENREcHT 225, 237 (Peter Schlechtriem ea., 1987); Hans Leser,Art 26: Authebungserkidrung, in KOMMENTAR ZUM ErNHEITLIcHEN UNKAUFRECHT 221, 224 (Ernst von Caemmerer & Peter Schlechtriem eds.,2d. ed. 1995). Leser bases his opinion on the argument that th~ CISGdoes not fully follow the dispatch theory.

24 CISG, supra note 1, art. 27.

25 MART[N KAROLLUS, UN-KAUFRECHT 100-01 (1991); Leser, supra note 23,at 224; NEUMAYER & MING, supra note 16, at 223-24, 226-27; STERN,supra note 15, 55 454-55.

26 Under Article 84(2), the seller could have offset these benefits againstbuyer's claim for restitution of the purchase price.

27 See NEUMAYER & M;NG, supra note 16, at 254-55 (allowing revocation
and modification with the consequences for the risk of loss described in
the text). But see STERN, supra note 15, __ 148-53 (denying such a right
of revocation). See also Ulrich Huber, Art. 32: Verttlichtungen hin
sichtlich der Beforderung der Ware, in KOMMENTAR ZUM E;NHEITLICHEN
UN-KAUFRECHT 296, 299 (Ernst von Caemmerer & Peter Schlechtriem
eds., 2d. ed. 1995) (pointing out that the buyer might have already acted
upon the notice of specification).

28 See Hans Stoll, Inhalt und Grenzen der Schadensersatzpplicht sowie
Befreinng von der Haftung im VN-Kaufrecht im Vergleich zu EKG und
BGB, in ErNHEITLIcHEs KAUFRECHT UND NAnoNALEs OBLIGATIONENRECHT
257, 260 (Peter Schlechtriem ea., 1987).

29 These conclusions apply even with respect to the revocation of a declaration of avoidance. Although the revocation "re-animates" the avoidedcontract, this effect occurs at the date of the conclusion of the contractand the revocation of avoidance; therefore, it has no bearing on thequestion as to when the contract again becomes effective.

30 Ulrich Huber, Art. 45: Rechtsbehelfe des Kbuters; keine zusatzliche Frist,in KOMMENTAR ZUM ErNHE~TL~cHEN UN-KAuFREcHT 401, 412-13 (Ernstvon Caemmerer & Peter Schlechtriem eds., 2d. ed. 1995) thereinafterHuber, Art. 45]. German law on buyer's claims in case of non-conformityprovides that the buyer's demand of avoidance or price reduction is onlya kind of offer to be accepted by the seller and that, until acceptance, thebuyer can change his demand. BURGERUCHES GESETZBUCH [BOB] _ 465.In other words, the seller is protected against a change of mind of thebuyer only after he has acted upon the buyer's demand by agreeing to theavoidance or price reduction; from then on the buyer is bound by hischoice of remedies. As to the "transplantation" of this solution to theCISG, see Huber, Art. 45, supra, at 413. See also Hube4 Art. 50:Minderung, in KOMMENTAR ZUM E~NHEmJcHEN UN-KAuFREcHT 401,412-13 (Ernst von Caemmerer & Peter Schlechtriem eds., 2d. ed. 1995).

31 See also Honnold's commentary on the situation in which "a buyer notifies the seller of price-reduction ...and later seeks to prove a more generous measure of loss available under Article 74." HONNOLD, UNIFORMLAW, supra note 23, at 323-26. He states: "Perhaps the buyer should beheld to have elected the price reduction formula of Article 50 only if thishad been part of an agreement to settle damages or if the seller hadchanged its position relying on the seller's notification." Id. The need forconcern over election of remedies between Article 50 and Article 74should, of course, rarely arise when Article 50 has been first selected,because "where the buyer had declared the price reduced ...the remedyscheme of the Convention should not preclude the buyer from obtaining[additional damages, for instance because of delay.]" 8 UNCITRAL Y.B.42, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/SER.S/1977 (1977). However, there can beinstances in which the remedial amount for the same type of harm candiffer between Article 50 and Article 74 because of the different calculation formulas contained in these articles. If the buyer has asked for andreceived damages from the seller, he should be prevented from revertingto price reduction and claiming more money by arguing that under theprice reduction formula a higher portion of the purchase price had to berestituted to him than was claimed and paid as damages.

32 See Hager, Art. 65, supra note 16, at 564-65. However, a different com
mentator regards the specification as binding when "made," so that the
buyer can no longer change his specification. See Victor Knapp, Article
65, in COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW 477 (C.M. Bianca
& M.J. Bonell eds., 1987). Unfortunately, Knapp does not explain exactly
what he means by "made."

33 CISG, supra note 1, art. 16(2)(b).

34 Id. art. 65(2).

35 Id. art. 7(2).

36 For other CISG application of the reliance principle, see id. arts. 29(2),35(2)(b), 80.