Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography

Published by Manz, Vienna: 1986. Reproduced with their permission.

excerpt from

Uniform Sales Law - The UN-Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods

Univ. Prof. Dr. Peter Schlechtriem [*]

(...)

Conformity of the Goods

(...)

a) Defects in Quality and Quantity

(...)

The determination of whether the goods conform with the contract in the sense of Article 35 is made at the moment the risk passes to the buyer (Article 36(1)).[257]) There was a vigorous dispute concerning whether the seller should be responsible for the duration of a quality for a certain period of time. While the 1978 Draft Convention required "express guarantees" for a "specific" time, a Pakistani proposal [258] suggested that the Conference adopt "implied warranties" of suitability for ordinary purposes for a "reasonable period as the case may be."[259] Even though the Pakistani proposal failed, the word "express" (guarantees) was, in the end, deleted. Thus, the possibility remains that an implied warranty concerning the suitability for ordinary purposes will extend beyond the time the goods are accepted. Whether the replacement of "specific period" by "a period of time" should mean that the court determines the life of the warranty (naturally with due consideration to all of the circumstances), or whether some provision must be made in the contract - whereby, of course, Article 8 may be consulted - has not been clearly decided. Hence, Article 36(2) may be applied in different fashions. But presumably the majority opinion was that "a period of time" meant a time fixed by the contract.[260] [page 68]

(...)


FOOTNOTES

* The author of this book participated at the Conference as a member of the delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany. The views expressed here are personal to the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the F.R.G. or its delegation.

(...)

257. The question of burden of proof was not decided. The position taken by the British delegate - that the question could be left to the courts - was not contradicted. See A/Conf. 97/C.1/SR.21 at 4 12 (= O.R. 346).

258. A/Conf.97/C.1/L.147 (= O.R. 105).

259. See A/Conf.97/C.1/SR.15 at 2 et seq. (= O.R. 312 et seq.). This was a discussion in which countries that primarily import industrial goods formed one group and countries that export such goods formed another.

260. The discussion of the term "specific time" was also handicapped by linguistic problems. See A/Conf. 97/C.1/SR.15 at 5 et seq. (= O.R. 313 et seq.).

(...)

Go to entire contents of Schlechtriem text


Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated June 7, 2000
Comments/Contributions

Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents