Go to Database Directory || Go to Information on other available case data
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

2,000 cases 7,500 case annotations

Article 78. Interest

TEXT OF ARTICLE 78

If a party fails to pay the price or any other sum that is in arrears, the other party is entitled to interest on it, without prejudice to any claim for damages recoverable under article 74.


CROSS-REFERENCES

Article 74. As interest is "without prejudice to any claim for damages recoverable under article 74," an alternative to interest under article 78 may be to claim cost-of-money loss as damages recoverable under article 74.*

Article 84 (1). "If the seller is bound to refund the price, he must also pay interest on it, from the date on which the price was paid.**

__________

* Such claims are subject to the standards of proof -- and the article 77 mitigation requirement -- applicable to all article 74 damage claims. Where article 74's standards are satisfied -- by proven loss of cost of money in this case -- the rate of interest awarded may be higher than interest awarded solely on the basis of article 78 (which articulates the right to interest but not the rate of interest) and the rate of interest or rate formula specified in an otherwise applicable gap-filling law. See Annotated text of article 74 CISG.

** Like article 78, article 84(1) does not specify the applicable rate of interest. See Annotated text of article 84 CISG.


OUTLINE OF ARTICLE 78 ISSUES

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

78A Interest on delay in receiving price or any other sum in arrears

78A1 Must sum be "liquidated"? Delay in paying damages

78B Rate of interest

78B1 Provided by contract

78B2 Aggrieved party's loss from borrowing; current interest rates

78B3 Applicable domestic law; compounding

78C Other problems


DESCRIPTORS

Interest


CASE ANNOTATIONS: UNCITRAL DIGEST CASES PLUS ADDED CASES

UNCITRAL has identified relevant cases in Digests containing case annotations for each article of the CISG. UNCITRAL cites 97 cases in its Digest of Art. 78 case law:

Argentina         2           France       2           Italy        1
Austria       2           Germany       46           Netherlands   3
Belgium 8 Hungary       2 Switzerland      21
Bulgaria       1 ICC      9 TOTAL:   97

Presented below is a composite list of Art. 78 cases reporting UNCITRAL Digest cases and other Art. 78 cases. All cases are listed in chronological sequence, commencing with the most recent. Asterisks identify the UNCITRAL Digest cases, commencing with the 18 February 2002 citation reported below. Cases are coded to the UNCITRAL Thesaurus.

English texts and full-text English translations of cases are provided as indicated. In most instances researchers can also access UNCITRAL abstracts and link to Unilex abstracts and full-text original-language case texts sourced from Internet websites and other data, including commentaries by scholars to the extent available.

For a survey of over 275 cases dealing with Article 78 and rate of interest, see Francesco G. Mazzotta, Endless disagreement among commentators, much less among the courts (2004.)

There are scholars who believe that there are circumstances in which the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts may be used to interpret or supplement this Article of the CISG. See match-up of this Article with counterpart provisions of the Principles and commentary on this subject. To the extent this reasoning fits, cases on the counterpart provisions of the UNIDROIT Principles may be relevant. To the extent available, such cases may be found on the Unilex website.
 

United States 15 April 2009 U.S. District Court [New Jersey] (San Lucia S.r.l. v. Import & Storage Services, LLC) 78B

Serbia 28 January 2009 Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration, Serbian Chamber of Commerce (Medicaments case) 78A ; 78B [English text]

Netherlands 21 January 2009 Rechtsbank [District Court] Rotterdam (Sleeping Europe B.V. v. Calesco Foil A.B.)

Netherlands 16 January 2009 Rechtsbank [District Court] Breda (Watermelon case) 78B [translation available]
 

Switzerland 26 November 2008 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau (Fruit and vegetables case) 78B [translation available]

Slovak Republic 24 November 2008 District Court Dolny Kubin (Painting case) [translation available]

Germany 18 November 2008 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Brandenburg (Beer case) 78B [translation available]

Netherlands 5 November 2008 Rechtsbank [District Court] Rotterdam (Vigo-Pontevedra v. Ibromar B.V.)

Netherlands 15 October 2008 Rechtsbank [District Court] Rotterdam (Ibromar B.V. v. Krustanord S.A.) 78A [abstract available]

United States 25 July 2008 U.S. District Court [Pennsylvania] (Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Power Source Supply, Inc.)

Serbia 15 July 2008 Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration, Serbian Chamber of Commerce (Milk packaging equipment case) 78A [translation available]

Slovak Republic 17 June 2008 District Court Dolny Kubin [translation available]

Slovak Republic 29 May 2008 District Court Nitra (T.I., S.r.o. v.L.L., S.r.o.) [translation available]

Slovak Republic 22 May 2008 District Court Bratislava (F.E.G.H.C v. T S.r.o.) [translation available]

United States 19 May 2008 U.S. District Court [Florida] (Zhejiang Shaoxing Yongli Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd v. Microflock Textile Group Corporation)

Slovak Republic 29 April 2008 District Court Banska Bystrica (Timber case) [translation available]

United States 28 April 2008 U.S. District Court [Kansas] (Guang Dong Light Headgear Factory Co., Ltd. v. ACI International, Inc.) 78A ; 78B

Slovak Republic 3 April 2008 Supreme Court (Raw materials for women's coats case) 78A [translation available]

Slovak Republic 10 March 2008 Regional Court Zilina (Stainless steel sheets case) 78A [translation available

Slovak Republic 7 March 2008 District Court Banska Bystrica (Fruit and vegetables case) [translation available]

Netherlands 27 February 2008 Rechtbank [District Court] Zutphen (Frutas Caminito Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana v. Groente-En Fruithandel Heemskerk BV) 78A [abstract available]

Germany 14 February 2008 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Karlsruhe (Antique Jaguar sport car case) [translation available]

Netherlands 31 January 2008 Rechtbank [District Court] Arnhem (CONERSA v. Grid-Solar B.V.)

Germany 25 January 2008 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamburg (Café inventory case) 78A [translation available]

Serbia 23 January 2008 Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration, Serbian Chamber of Commerce (Chrystal white sugar case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Slovak Republic 21 January 2008 District Court Dolny Kubin (G & B S.r.o. v. RT) [translation available]
 

American Arbitration Association 12 December 2007 [Final Award] (Macromex Srl. v. Globex International Inc.) 78A

Slovak Republic 6 December 2007 District Court Dolny Kubin (Plastic pipes case) [translation available]

Hungary 22 November 2007 Judicial Board of Szeged [Appellate Court] (Clothing case) 78B [translation available]

Slovak Republic 29 October 2007 District Court Bardejov (Glass chaton case) [translation available]

Slovak Republic 25 October 2007 Regional Court [District Court] Zilina (Elastic fitness clothing case) 78A [translation available]

Denmark 19 October 2007 Rettin i Københaven [District Court] (Pony case)

Denmark 17 October 2007 Højesteret [Supreme Court] (Motorcycle case)

Serbia 1 October 2007 Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration, Serbian Chamber of Commerce (Timber case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 6 September 2007 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Appenzel Ausserhoden (Clothing case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 30 August 2007 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug (GMS modular case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 26 July 2007 Tribunal cantonal [Appellate Court] Jena (Industrial furnace case)

Germany 6 July 2007 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Freiburg (Shoe case) 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 25 June 2007 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich (Printed materials case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 19 June 2007 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau (Railway rails case) 78B [translation available]

Hungary 6 June 2007 Congrád County Court (Clothing case) 78B [translation available]

Austria 3 May 2007 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Vienna (Poppy seed case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 27 April 2007 Tribunal cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais (Oven case) 78B [translation available]

Ukraine 13 April 2007 Commercial Court of Donetz Region (Crucible press case) [translation available]

Stockholm Chamber of Commerce 5 April 2007 (Pressure sensors case) 78B [English text]

Slovak Republic 9 March 2007 Regional Court Bratislava (Blouses case) [translation available]

Slovak Republic 1 February 2007 Regional Court Bratislava (E.W.G. v. Ing. R.K.) [translation available]

Belgium 22 January 2007 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Antwerp (N.V. Secremo v. Helmut Papst) 78B [translation available]

Slovak Republic 8 January 2007 Regional Court Zilina (Doors and furniture case) 78A [translation available]

Netherlands 2 January 2007 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's-Hertogenbosch (G.W.A. Bernards v. Carstenfelder Baumschulen Pflanzenhandel GmbH) 78B
 

Russia 29 December 2006 Arbitration Award 54/2006 (Equipment case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 27 December 2006 Arbitration Award 20/2006

France 22 December 2006 Tribunal de grande instance [District Court] Strasbourg (Cathode ray tube case) 78A [translation available]

Croatia 19 December 2006 High Commercial Court

Slovak Republic 15 December 2006 District Court Galanta [translation available]

Germany 12 December 2006 Landgericht [District Court] Coburg (Plants case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 5 December 2006 Landgericht [District Court] Köln (Plastic faceplates for mobile telephones case) 78A [translation available]

Russia 15 November 2006 Arbitration Award 30/2006

Belarus 8 November 2006 Commercial Court of the Brest Region 78B

China November 2006 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2006/04] (Nitrile exam gloves case) 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 27 October 2006 Tribunal cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais (Bicycle and motorcycle parts case) [translation available]

Germany 23 October 2006 Landgericht [District Court] Bamberg (Plants case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 20 October 2006 Arbitration Award 43/2006

Germany 19 October 2006 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz (T-Shirts case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 13 October 2006 Arbitration Award 119/2005

Germany 29 September 2006 Landgericht [District Court] Hof (Twine case) [translation available]

Germany 13 September 2006 Landgericht [District Court] Berlin (Auston Martin automobile case) 78A [translation available]

Russia 31 August 2006 Arbitration Award 9/2005

China July 2006 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2006/11] (Marble and granite case) [translation in process]

Slovak Republic 27 June 2006 District Court Nitra (Children's equipment case) [translation available]

Slovak Republic 23 June 2006 Regional Court Nitra (Raw material for women's coats case) [translation available]

Slovak Republic 26 May 2006 Supreme Court (Wafers case) [translation available]

Switzerland 23 May 2006 Tribunal cantonal [Higher Cantonal Court] Valais (Suits case) 78B [translation available]

Slovak Republic 17 May 2006 District Court Nitra (Agricultural products case) [translation available]

Switzerland 12 May 2006 Cour de justice [Appellate Court] Genève (Office furniture case) 78A [translation available]

Belgium 10 May 2006 Rechtbank van Koophandel [Commercial Court] Hasselt (Scanlift Nederland BV v. Belgian Coach Service BVBA) 78B [translation available]

Slovak Republic 10 May 2006 Regional Court Banska Bystrica (Floor tiles case) [translation available]

Netherlands 3 May 2006 Rechtbank [District Court] Rotterdam (Electric Motors case)

Germany 28 April 2006 Landgericht [District Court] Dresden (Meat case)

Belgium 24 April 2006 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Antwerpen (GmbH Lothringer Gunther Grosshandelsgesellschaft für Bauelemente und Holzwerkstoffe v. NV Fepco International) 78A [translation available]

Russia 7 April 2006 Arbitration Award 20/2005 [translation in process]

Germany 3 April 2006 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln (Strawberry plants case) [translation available]

Netherlands 21 March 2006 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] Arnhem (Toys case)

Switzerland 9 March 2006 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Appenzell-Ausserhoden (Fitness equipment case) 78B [translation available]

Slovak Republic 6 March 2006 Regional Court Zilina (Lift adaptor case) 78A [translation available]

Slovak Republic 27 February 2006 District Court Nitra (L.-K S.r.l. v. N. S.r.l.) [translation available]

Russia 14 February 2006 Arbitration Award 7/2005

Germany 13 February 2006 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln (Woolen cloth case) [translation available]

Russia 13 February 2006 Arbitration Award 102/2005 (Equipment case) [translation available]

Denmark 20 January 2006 Sø-og Handelsrets Domme [Maritime and Commercial Court] Copenhagen (Motorcycle case)

Russia 13 January 2006 Arbitration Award 137/2004 [translation available]
 

Russia 27 December 2005 Arbitration Award 41/2005 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 22 December 2005 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich (Retail fashion clothes case) 78B [translation available]

Slovak Republic 15 December 2005 Regional Court Bratislava (Machinery technologies case) [translation available]

Russia 14 December 2005 Arbitration Award 150/2004 78B [translation available]

Slovenia 14 December 2005 Higher Court [Appellate Court] Lujubljana (Door and door jamb case) 78A [translation available]

China 9 November 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2005/04] (DVD machines case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 2 November 2005 Landgericht [District Court] Heidelberg (Natural stones case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 27 October 2005 Arbitration Award 132/2004 [translation available]

China 21 October 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2005/03] (Sheet metal producing system case) 78B [translation available]

China 21 October 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/19] (FFS production line case) 78A [translation available]

China October 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/24] (Filling and sealing machine case) 78B [translation available]

China 23 September 2005 New Pudong District People's Court of Shanghai (Xi'an Yun Chang Trade Ltd. v. An Tai International (USA)) 78A [translation available]

China 21 September 2005 Supreme Court of the PRC (Panda S.r.l. v. Shunde Westband Furniture Co., Ltd.) [translation available]

Belgium 20 September 2005 Rechtbank van Koophandel [Commercial Court] Hasselt (J.M. Smithuis Pre Pain v. Bakkershuis) 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 19 September 2005 Kantonsgericht Wallis / Tribunal cantonal Valais [Canton Appellate Court]

China 2 September 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/17] (Freezing units case) 78B [translation available]

China 30 August 2005 Shanghai Higher People's Court [Appellate Court] (Shanghai Nuo Bo Metal Products Ltd. v. Tevel International Trading) 78A [translation available]

China 22 August 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/13] (Valve case) 78B [translation available]

China 12 August 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/11] (Salted ___ case) 78B [translation available]

China 20 July 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/20] (Elevator material case) 78B [translation available]

China 29 June 2005 Shanghai Intermediate People's Court [District Court] (Yiwu Ma Ji Import and Export Co. Ltd. v. Y&Q International Group) 78A [translation available]

Belgium 1 June 2005 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt

China 25 May 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/09] (Iron ore case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 23 May 2005 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Nidwalden 78B [translation available]

China 10 May 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award No. G20010386 (Hat case) 78B [translation available]

United States 27 April 2005 U.S. District Court [Alabama] (Treibacher Industrie, A.G. v. TDY Industries, Inc.) 78A ; 78B

Germany 13 April 2005 Landgericht [District Court] Bamberg (Furnishings case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 23 March 2005 Arbitration Award 126/2004 [translation available]

China 24 February 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/08] (Second pork case) 78A [translation available]

Russia 10 February 2005 Arbitration Award 133/2003 78B [translation available]

Russia 9 February 2005 Arbitration Award 69/2004 78A [translation available]

Spain 31 January 2005 Audiencia Provincial [Appellate Court] Cuenca (Live calves case) 78A1 [translation available]

Switzerland 25 January 2005 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau (Floor tiles case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Russia 24 January 2005 Arbitration Award 66/2004 78B [translation available]

Russia 24 January 2005 Arbitration Award 68/2004 78B [translation available]

Greece 2005 Decision 165/2005 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Larissa 78B
 

Switzerland 22 December 2004 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Bern (Watches case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Germany 20 December 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Stuttgart [translation available]

Germany 10 December 2004 Landgericht [District Court] Bayreuth (Tiles case) 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 2 December 2004 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug (Dextrose case) 78A [translation available]

France 26 October 2004 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Poitiers [translation available]

Germany 26 October 2004 Landgericht [District Court] Saarbrücken [translation available]

Belgium 20 October 2004 Hof van beroep [Appellate Court] Ghent 78A [translation available]

Belgium 11 October 2004 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Ghent (NV Frans Bijttebier-Bouckaert v. BV Nooteboom International) [translation available]

China 29 September 2004 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2004/05] (India rapeseed meal case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 21 September 2004 Amtsgericht [District Court] Luzern-Land 78A [translation available]

Germany 15 September 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln [detailed abstract available]

China 10 September 2004 Higher People's Court [Appellate Court] of Shandong Province (WS China Import GmbH v. Longkou Guanyuan Food Company) 78A [translation available]

Germany 6 September 2004 Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg 78A [translation available]

Germany 27 July 2004 Landgericht [District Court] Kiel (Fat for frying case) [translation available]

Germany 22 July 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [translation available]

Germany 20 July 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Karlsruhe (Shoes case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 17 June 2004 Arbitration Award 186/2003 78B [translation available]

Russia 9 June 2004 Arbitration Award 125/2003 78B [translation available]

Germany 1 June 2004 Landgericht [District Court] Saarbrücken (Pallets case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 28 May 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [translation available]

Russia 28 May 2004 Arbitration Award 175/2003 78A [translation available]

United States 21 May 2004 U.S. District Court [Illinois] (Chicago Prime Packers v. Norham) 78B

Russia 19 May 2004 Arbitration Award 100/2002 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Belgium 17 May 2004 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Ghent (Cooling installation case) 78B [translation available]

China 11 May 2004 Wuhan Intermediate People's Court [District Court] of Hubei Province (Wuhan Zhongou Clothes Factory v. Hungary Wanlong International Tradet Company) 78B [translation available]

Belgium 10 May 2004 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Gent [translation available]

Switzerland 29 April 2004 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] St. Gallen [translation available]

Germany 21 April 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [15 U 30/03]

Germany 21 April 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [15 U 222/02] 78B [detailed abstract available]

China 9 April 2004 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2004/02] (Artworks: Italian charms case) 78A [translation available]

Italy 31 March 2004 Tribunale [District Court] Padova 78B [translation available]

Slovak Republic 29 March 2004 Regional Court Zilina (Polyethelene case) 78A [translation available]

China 23 March 2004 Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court [District Court] (Singapore ___ Company v. Dongling Trade Company, Shanghai Xuyang Trade Company, Yingfang Xi & Yunli, Luo) 78A [translation available]

Russia 19 March 2004 Arbitration Award 135/2003 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 12 March 2004 Amtsgericht [County Court] Willisau [translation available]

Belgium 25 February 2004 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt [AR 04/79] 78B [translation available]

Belgium 25 February 2004 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt [AR 04/601] 78B [translation available]

Belgium 18 February 2004 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt

Russia 16 February 2004 Arbitration Award 107/2002 [translation available]

Russia 3 February 2004 Arbitration Award 71/2003 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 27 January 2004 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Schaffhausen [translation available]
 

Russia 30 December 2003 Arbitration Award No. 58/2003 78B [translation available]

China 18 December 2003 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2003/12] (AOE and PECVD machines case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 18 December 2003 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau (Building material and timberware case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 12 December 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Bielefeld

Germany 26 November 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg (Phtalic Anhydride case) [translation available]

China 6 November 2003 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2003/25] (Fiberglass mesh case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 27 October 2003 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Rostock [translation available]

Switzerland 20 October 2003 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Schaffhausen 78B [detailed abstract available]

Belgium 8 October 2003 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Ghent 78A [translation available]

Russia 17 September 2003 Arbitration Award No. 24/2003 78B [translation available]

Germany 15 September 2003 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Rostock [translation available]

Germany 10 September 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg

Germany 28 August 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Düsseldorf 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 22 August 2003 Appellationsgericht [Appellate Court] Basel 78B [translation available]

Canada 21 August 2003 British Columbia Supreme Court (Mansonville v. Kurtz) 78A

Switzerland 19 August 2003 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais [translation available]

Germany 15 August 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Bielefeld (Strapping machine case) [translation available]

Germany 15 July 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Mönchengladbach 78B [translation available]

China 7 July 2003 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2003/18] (Stroller and diaper case) 78A [translation available]

China 26 June 2003 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2003/10] (Alumina case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 18 June 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Tübingen 78B [translation available]

Germany 11 June 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg (Mini-Rover automobiles case) 78B [translation available]

Belarus 20 May 2003 Supreme Economic Court of the Republic of Belarus (case No. 7-5/2003) 78B

Belarus 20 May 2003 Supreme Economic Court of the Republic of Belarus (case No. 8-5/2003) 78B

Belgium 12 May 2003 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Gent 78B

Switzerland 30 April 2003 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais (Furniture case) 78B [translation available]

China 18 April 2003 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2003/05] (Desulfurization reagent case) 78B [English text]

Germany 25 March 2003 Landgericht [District Court] Köln [translation available]

Belgium 19 March 2003 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Veurne

Belgium 3 March 2003 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Gent

China 17 February 2003 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2003/16] (Tire case) 78A [translation available]

Russia 17 February 2003 Arbitration Award No. 168/2001 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 11 February 2003 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] St. Gallen 78B [translation available]

Australia 17 January 2003 Supreme Court of Western Australia (Ginza Pte Ltd v Vista Corporation Pty Ltd) 78B

Belgium 15 January 2003 Rechtbank [District Court] van Koophandel [for commercial matters] Veurne

Belarus 3 January 2003 Supreme Economic Court 78B

Greece 2003 Decision 22513/2003 of the Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki (Machines case)

Hungary 2003 Szegedi Itelotabla [Appellate Court] (Spray pump case) 78B [translation available]

ICC 2003 International Court of Arbitration, Case 11849 (Fashion products case) 78A [English text]
 

China 30 December 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2002/30] (Manganese case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 12 December 2002 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 78B [translation available]

Russia 2 December 2002 Arbitration Award No. 18/2002 78B [translation available]

France 28 November 2002 Cour d’appel [Appellate Court] Versailles 78B

France 28 November 2002 Cour d’appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 78B [translation available]

Netherlands 28 November 2002 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's-Hertogenbosch

Germany 25 November 2002 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Saarbrücken 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 11 November 2002 Cour de Justice [Appellate Court] Genève (Iron concretes and steel bars case) [translation available]

China 6 November 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2002/25] (Pipe extrusion case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 5 November 2002 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] des Kantons Aargau 78B [translation available]

Ukraine 31 October 2002 Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration, Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Trade [translation available]

China 25 October 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2002/24] (Medical laser machine case) 78A [translation available]

Belgium 17 October 2002 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Gent

Netherlands 15 October 2002 Netherlands Arbitration Institute Case No. 2319 [English text]

Germany 14 October 2002 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln 78B [translation available]

China 10 October 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2002/10] (Curtain case) 78B [translation available]

European Court of Justice 9 October 2002 Judgment of Court of First Instance (Hans Fuchs Versandschlachterei KG v. Commission of the European Communities) 78A

Germany 25 September 2002 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Rostock 78B [translation available]

Germany 20 September 2002 Landgericht [District Court] Göttingen 78A [translation available]

Germany 22 August 2002 Landgericht [District Court] Freiburg

Germany 22 August 2002 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Schleswig 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 29 July 2002 Obergericht [Appellate Court] Luzern [translation available]

China 26 July 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2002/12] (Green beans case) 78B [translation available]

Argentina 21 July 2002 Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial [Appellate Court] [translation available]

China 16 July 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2002/06] (Diesel oil case) 787B [translation available]

China 10 June 2002 CIETAC Arbitration award [translation available]

Germany 4 June 2002 Landgericht [District Court] Stuttgart 78A [translation available]

China 28 May 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2002/31] (Headware case) [translation available]

Belgium 22 May 2002 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 78A

Netherlands 26 April 2002 Hoge Raad [Supreme Court]

Switzerland 23 April 2002 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Schaffhausen 78B [translation available]

Russia 16 April 2002 Arbitration Award No. 222/2001 78B [translation available]

Finland 12 April 2002 Hovrätt [Appellate Court] Turku 78B [translation available]

Serbia 12 April 2002 Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration, Yugoslav Chamber of Commerce (Sliced timber case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 11 April 2002 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Viechtach 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 11 April 2002 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Vaud

Belgium 6 March 2002 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt [A.R. 2703/01] 78A

China 5 March 2002 Guangxi Beihai Maritime Court 78B [translation available]

Bulgaria 28 February 2002 Bulgaria Chamber of Commerce Arbitration award, Case 26/00 78B [translation available]

Germany 27 February 2002 Landgericht [District Court] München 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 25 February 2002 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Schaffhausen 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Germany 20 February 2002 Landgericht [District Court] München 78A [translation available]

* Belgium 18 February 2002 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Ieper 78B

China 4 February 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2002/03] (Styrene monomer case) 78A [translation available]

Denmark 31 January 2002 Maritime Commercial Court [translation available]

* Belgium 15 January 2002 Tribunal de commerce [District Court] Namur 78A [translation available]
 

China 25 December 2001 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2001/04] (DVD HiFi case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 21 December 2001 Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg (Natural stones case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 28 November 2001 Arbitration Award No. 108/2001 78B [translation available]

Germany 12 November 2001 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm (Memory module case) 78A [translation available]

China 12 October 2001 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2001/03] (Boots and clothes case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 10 October 2001 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Rostock 78B [translation available]

* Belgium 3 October 2001 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Kortrijk 78B

Italy 28 September 2001 Milan Arbitration proceeding (Steel wire case) 78A [English text]

Serbia 24 September 2001 Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration, Yugoslav Chamber of Commerce (Plums and mushrooms case) 78A [translation available]

Russia 17 September 2001 Arbitration Award No. 16/1999 78B [translation available]

Germany 30 August 2001 Landgericht [District Court] München 78B [translation available]

United States 28 August 2001 U.S District Court [Illinois] (Zapata v. Hearthside) 78B

Germany 30 July 2001 Landgericht [District Court] Braunschweig 78A [translation available]

Russia 30 July 2001 Arbitration Award No. 198/2000 78B [translation available]

United States 18 July 2001 U.S District Court [Illinois] (Zapata v. Hearthside)

Belgium 10 July 2001 Rechtbank van Koophandel [Commercial Court] Oudenaarde (Textile case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 28 May 2001 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln (Motorcycle clothing and accessories case) 78A [translation available]

Serbia 25 May 2001 Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration, Yugoslav Chamber of Commerce (Berries case) 78B [translation available]

Belgium 23 May 2001 Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Gent 78B [translation available]

* Belgium 25 April 2001 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Veurne 78A ; 78C [translation available]

* Belgium 4 April 2001 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Kortrijk 78A

China 4 April 2001 Wuhan Intermediate People's Court [District Court] of Hubei Province (Korea Hendai General Trade Company v. China Hubei Province Metal Import & Export Company) [translation available]

China 22 March 2001 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2001/02] (Mung bean case) 78A [translation available]

Bulgaria 12 March 2001 Bulgaria Chamber of Commerce Arbitration award, Case 33/98 78B [translation available]

Russia 27 February 2001 Arbitration Award No. 276/1999 78B [translation available]

* Belgium 29 January 2001 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Ieper 78B

Russia 25 January 2001 Arbitration Award No. 88/2000 [translation available]

Germany 19 January 2001 Landgericht [District Court] Flensburg 78A [translation available]
 

China 6 December 2000 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2000/13] (Pharmaceutical products case) 78A [translation available]

Australia 17 November 2000 Supreme Court of Queensland (Downs Investments v. Perwaja Steel) 78A

Germany 16 November 2000 Landgericht [District Court] München 78B [translation available]

Germany 13 November 2000 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln 78B [translation available]

China 6 November 2000 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2000/12] (Marble building materials case) 78A [translation available]

Finland 26 October 2000 Helsingin hoviokeus [Helsinki Court of Appeals] 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Germany 23 October 2000 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Dresden (Powdered milk case) [translation available]

* Germany 12 October 2000 Landgericht [District Court] Stendal 78B [translation available]

Russia 24 August 2000 Arbitation Court [Appellate Court] for the Moscow Region [translation available]

China 17 July 2000 Higher People's Court [Appellate Court] of He'nan Province (Minterrnet S.A. v. He'nan Local Product Import and Export Company) [translation available]

Russia 6 June 2000 Arbitration award 406/1998 78A [translation available]

Belarus 31 May 2000 International Court of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Belarus Republic 78B

Belarus 30 May 2000 International Court of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Belarus Republic 78B

* Germany 9 May 2000 Landgericht [District Court] Darmstadt 78A [translation available]

Belgium 13 April 2000 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court]

Germany 13 April 2000 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Duisburg 78B [translation available]

Germany 6 April 2000 Landgericht [District Court] München 78B [translation available]

* Germany 28 February 2000 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Stuttgart 78B [translation available]

Belgium 17 February 2000 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 78B

Russia 10 February 2000 Arbitration Award No. 340/1999 78B [translation available]

China 31 January 2000 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2000/09] (Clothes case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 25 January 2000 Landgericht [District Court] Köln

China 7 January 2000 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2000/06] (Cysteine case) 78A [translation available]

ICC 2000 International Court of Arbitration, Case 10329 78B [English text]

ICC 2000 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8790 78B [English text]
 

* Italy 29 December 1999 Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 78A ; 78B [translation available]

* Germany 27 December 1999 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Dresden 78B [translation available]

ICC 20 December 1999 International Court of Arbitration (Copper cable case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 26 November 1999 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamburg 78B [translation available]

Germany 18 November 1999 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz 78B

Germany 28 October 1999 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Braunschweig 78A [translation available]

* Switzerland 21 October 1999 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 78A [translation available]

Germany 12 October 1999 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Stendal

Canada 31 August 1999 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (La San Giuseppe v. Forti Moulding Ltd) 78A

China 10 August 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 1999/35] (Raincoat case) 78A [translation available]

Russia 27 July 1999 Arbitration award 302/1996 78B [translation available]

ICC July 1999 International Court of Arbitration, Case 9448 [English text]

China 30 June 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/30] (Peppermint oil case) 78B [translation available]

China 30 June 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/31] (Bearings case) 78A [translation available]

China 11 June 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/29] (Agricultural chemical products case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 11 June 1999 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Russia 10 June 1999 Arbitration award 55/1998 78A [translation available]

China 4 June 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/28] (Industrial raw material case) 78A [translation available]

Belgium 2 June 1999 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt

* ICC June 1999 International Court of Arbitration, Case 9187 78B [English text]

China 31 May 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/27] (Indium ingot case) 78B [translation available]

China 28 May 1999 CIETAC Arbitration award 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Germany 25 May 1999 Landgericht [District Court] Berlin 78A [translation available]

China 21 May 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/26] (Excavator case) 78A [translation available]

China 20 May 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award (Red tiles case) 78B [translation available]

China 20 May 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/25] (Waste aluminum ingots case) 78A [translation available]

Belgium 18 May 1999 Hof van beroep [Appellate Court] Antwerpen (Vandermaesen Viswaren v. Euromar Seafood) [translation available]

China 12 April 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/22] (Bud rice dregs case) 78A [translation available]

China 7 April 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/20] (PVC suspension resin case) [translation available]

China 5 April 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/19] (Air conditioner equipment case) 78B [translation available]

China 29 March 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/14] (Flanges case) 78A [translation available]

China 25 March 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/13] (Women's pants case) 78B [translation available]

* Germany 24 March 1999 Landgericht [District Court] Flensburg 78B [translation available]

* Germany 19 March 1999 Landgericht [District Court] Zwickau

ICC March 1999 International Court of Arbitration, Case 9978 [English text]

China 25 February 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/11] (Women's trousers case) 78B [translation available]

China 25 February 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/10] (Cotton vest case) 78B [translation available]

* Switzerland 25 February 1999 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 78A [translation available]

China 12 February 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/08] (Chrome plating production line equipment case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 10 February 1999 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich [translation available]

China 13 January 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/05] (Latex gloves case) 78A [translation available]

China 6 January 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/04] (Australian raw wool case) 78A [translation available]

ICC 1999 International Court of Arbitration, Case 10274 78B [English text]
 

China 25 December 1998 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1998/10] (Basic pig iron case) 78B [translation available]

China 15 December 1998 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1998/09] (Shirt case) 78A [translation available]

Italy 11 December 1998 Corte di Appello [Appellate Court] Milano 78A [translation available]

Belgium 2 December 1998 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 78A

* ICC December 1998 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8908 78B [English text]

Switzerland 30 November 1998 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 78A [translation available]

China 26 November 1998 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1998/06] (Leather gloves case) 78A [translation available]

China 26 November 1998 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1998/07] (Waste paper case)

* Belgium 4 November 1998 Hof van beroep [Appellate Court] Antwerpen [translation available]

* Switzerland 28 October 1998 Bundesgericht [Federal Supreme Court] (Meat case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 22 October 1998 Arbitration award 196/1997 [translation available]

Russia 2 October 1998 Arbitration award 113/1997 [translation available]

ICC October 1998 International Court of Arbitration, Case 9333 78A [translation available]

China 25 September 1998 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 1998/12] (Health supplement case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 24 September 1998 Landgericht [District Court] Regensburg 78B [translation available]

* Switzerland 21 September 1998 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich (Catalogue case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 16 September 1998 Bezirksgericht [District Court] Unterrheintal

ICC August 1998 International Court of Arbitration, Case 9574 78A [English text]

Germany 29 July 1998 Landgericht [District Court] Erfurt [translation available]

Switzerland 30 June 1998 Kantonsgericht Wallis / Tribunal cantonal Valais [Canton Appellate Court] (Granite stones case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 29 June 1998 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais 78B

Russia 25 June 1998 Arbitration award 478/1996 78B [translation available]

China 22 June 1998 Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court [District Court] (China Yitou Group Company. v. Germany Gerhard Freyso LTD GmbH & Co.) 78A [translation available]

* Belgium 17 June 1998 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt

Russia 10 June 1998 Arbitration award 83/1997 78B [translation available]

Russia 25 May 1998 Arbitration award 104/1997 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Russia 25 March 1998 Arbitration award 491/1997 78B [translation available]

Germany 24 March 1998 Landgericht [District Court] Berlin (Knitwear case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 24 March 1998 Obergericht [Appellate Court] Zug

Austria 11 March 1998 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Graz (Timber case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 11 March 1998 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 78B [translation available]

Russia 11 March 1998 Arbitration award 487/1996 78B [translation available]

Russia 5 March 1998 Arbitration award 160/1997 78B [translation available]

Netherlands 20 February 1998 Hoge Raad [Supreme Court] 78A

Russia 18 February 1998 Arbitration award 243/1996 78B [translation available]

* Bulgaria 12 February 1998 Bulgaria Chamber of Commerce Arbitration award, Case 11/1996 78B [translation available]

Germany 28 January 1998 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München [translation available]

Russia 22 January 1998 Arbitration award 102/1997 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Russia 16 January 1998 Arbitration award 309/1996 [translation available]

Switzerland 15 January 1998 Tribunale d'appello [Appellate Court] Lugano 78B [translation available]

Russia 12 January 1998 Arbitration award 152/1996 [translation available]
 

* Switzerland 19 December 1997 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau 78A [translation available]

Austria 10 December 1997 Vienna Arbitration award S 2/97 78B1 [translation available]

* Switzerland 3 December 1997 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Nidwalden (Furniture case) 78A [translation available]

ICC December 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8817 [translation available]

China 20 November 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/32] (Rebar coil case) 78A [translation available]

Russia 6 November 1997 Arbitration award 451/1996 [translation available]

Germany 5 November 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 28 October 1997 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais 78B

Switzerland 16 October 1997 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 78B

Germany 15 October 1997 Landgericht [District Court] Hagen 78B [translation available]

China 8 October 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/29] (Industrial tallow case) 78A [translation available]

Belgium 6 October 1997 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Kortrijk 78B [translation available]

Netherlands 2 October 1997 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's Hertogenbosch 78A

Russia 29 September 1997 Arbitration award 470/1996 78B [translation available]

* Switzerland 26 September 1997 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau (Cutlery case) 78B [translation available]

* ICC September 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8962 78A ; 78B [English text]

China 18 August 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/26] (Vitamin C case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

China 31 July 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/24] (Axle sleeves case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 31 July 1997 Landgericht [District Court] Göttingen

China 23 July 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/23] (Polypropylene case) 78A [translation available]

China 21 July 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/22] (Yam-dyed fabric case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 18 July 1997 Landgericht [District Court] Saarbrücken

Germany 9 July 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München [7 U 2070/97] 78A [translation available]

Germany 9 July 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München [7 U 2246/97] (Fitness equipment case) [translation available]

China 4 July 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/19] (Gear processing machine case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 3 July 1997 Bezirksgericht [District Court] St. Gallen 78B [translation available]

Hungary 1 July 1997 Fovárosi Bíróság [Metropolitan Court] [translation available]

China 26 June 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/17] (Monohydrate zinc sulphate case) 78A [translation available]

China 25 June 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/16] (Art paper case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 23 June 1997 Landgericht [District Court] München

China 16 June 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/15] (Leather case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 6 June 1997 Landgericht [District Court] Bielefeld

Russia 4 June 1997 Arbitration award 256/1996 78A [translation available]

Russia 29 May 1997 Arbitration award 439/1995 [translation available]

China 22 May 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/13] (Soybean oil case) [translation available]

China 7 May 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/12] (Horsebean case) 78A [translation available]

China 30 April 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/10] (Molybdenum alloy) 78A [translation available]

* Germany 24 April 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 78B [translation available]

Netherlands 15 April 1997 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] Arnhem 78A

China 11 April 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/05] (Silicon metal case) 78A [translation available]

Russia 11 April 1997 Arbitration Award No. 220/1996 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 11 April 1997 Bezirksgericht [District Court] Unterrheintal

China 4 April 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/04] (Black melon seeds case) [translation available]

Russia 4 April 1997 Arbitration award 387/1995 78A [translation available]

China 2 April 1997 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1997/03] (Wakame case) 78B [translation available]

ICC 1 April 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8644 78B [English text]

Russia 28 March 1997 Arbitration award 38/1996 78B [translation available]

Germany 13 March 1997 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Berlin-Tiergarten [translation available]

China 6 March 1997 CIETAC Arbitration award 78B [translation available]

Germany 28 February 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamburg 78B [translation available]

Russia 25 February 1997 Arbitration award 430/1995 78B [translation available]

* Switzerland 5 February 1997 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich [translation available]

ICC February 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8716 78B [English text]

* Germany 31 January 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz 78B [translation available]

Italy 30 January 1997 Pretura [District Court] Torino 78B [translation available]

* ICC 23 January 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8611 [translation available]

Russia 22 January 1997 Arbitration award 155/1996 [translation available]

Belgium 21 January 1997 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 78B

Finland 17 January 1997 Tampere Court of First Instance 78B [translation available]

Germany 8 January 1997 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Köln [translation available]

Germany 8 January 1997 Landgericht [District Court] Siegen

ICC January 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8786 78B [English text]

China 1997 Shanghai Higher People's Court [translation available]

ICC 1997 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8611 78B [translation available]
 

China 31 December 1996 Fujian Higher People's Court (You Li v. Gold Star) 78A [translation available]

China 23 December 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/57] (Carbazole case) 78A [translation available]

China 17 December 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/55] (Hot-rolled steel plates case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 19 December 1996 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau

China 18 December 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/56] (Lentil case) [translation available]

Belgium 16 December 1996 Rechtbank van koophandel [District Court Kortrijk 78B

Germany 12 December 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Bielefeld

Hungary 10 December 1996 Budapest Arbitration award Vb 96074 78A ; 78B ; 78C [English text]

Germany 9 December 1996 Landgericht [District Court] München

* ICC December 1996 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8769 78B [English text]

China 28 November 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/54] (Moly-oxide case) 78A [translation available]

* Germany 12 November 1996 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Koblenz 78B [translation available]

China 11 November 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/51] (Rubber overshoes case) 78A [translation available]

China 7 November 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/50] (Stone products case) 78A [translation available]

Finland 5 November 1996 [District Court] Kuopio 78A [translation available]

China 23 October 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/48] (Channel steel case) 78A ; 78B[translation available]

China 10 October 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/45] (Petroleum coke case) 78A [translation available]

Belgium 9 October 1996 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 78B

Belgium 8 October 1996 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt

Russia 8 October 1996 Arbitration award 407/1995 [translation available]

ICC October 1996 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8740 [English text]

Russia 26 September 1996 Arbitration award 433/1994 78A1 ; 78B ; 78C [translation available]

Russia 18 September 1996 Arbitration award 448/1995 78B [translation available]

Russia 16 September 1996 Arbitration award 74/1995 78B [translation available]

China 4 September 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/41] (Natural rubber case) 78A [translation available]

China 30 August 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/40] (Brake pads case) 78A [translation available]

China 16 August 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/39] (Dioctyl phthalate case) 78A [translation available]

China 9 August 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/38] (China tableware case) 78A [translation available]

China 9 August 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/37] (Silk shirts case) 78A [translation available]

China 8 August 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/36] (Diaper machine case) 78A [translation available]

China 6 August 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/35] (Lacquer handicraft case) 78B [translation available]

* Germany 2 August 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Bielefeld 78B [translation available]

China 31 July 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/34] (Sport shoes case) 78A [translation available]

China 30 July 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/32] (Molybdenum iron case) 78A [translation available]

China 30 July 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/33] (Ferro-molybdenum alloy case) 78A1 [translation available]

China 16 July 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/31] (Hot-rolled steel plates case) [translation available]

China 12 July 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/28] (Chrome-plating machines production-line equipment) 78A [translation available]

Germany 11 July 1996 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 10 July 1996 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 78B [translation available]

* Germany 25 June 1996 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Bottrop 78B

Germany 17 June 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg 78A [translation available]

China 31 May 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/27] (Children's jackets case) 78A [translation available]

Switzerland 31 May 1996 Zürich Arbitration award [English text]

Hungary 21 May 1996 Fovárosi Bíróság [Metropolitan Court]

* Switzerland 20 May 1996 Tribunal [District Court] Glâne 78A

China 16 May 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/24] (Cashmere sweaters case) 78A [translation available]

Netherlands 15 May 1996 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Amsterdam

China 10 May 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/22] (Hot-rolled steel plates case) 78A [translation available]

China 2 May 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/21] ("FeMo" alloy case) 78A [translation available]

China 30 April 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/20] (Jacks and bearing brackets case) 78A [translation available]

Russia 25 April 1996 Arbitration award 72/1995 78B [translation available]

Bulgaria 24 April 1996 Bulgaria Chamber of Commerce Arbitration award 56/1995 [translation available]

Netherlands 24 April 1996 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] 's Hertogenbosch 78B

China 17 April 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/19] (Air purifier case) 78A [translation available]

China 29 March 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/15] (Caffeine case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 27 March 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Oldenburg (Clothes case) 78B [translation available]

* Germany 21 March 1996 Hamburg Arbitration award 78A ; 78B3 [translation available]

Germany 15 March 1996 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt [Benetton II]

China 14 March 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/14] (Dried sweet potatoes case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 12 March 1996 Arbitration award 166/1995 78B [translation available]

Russia 12 March 1996 Arbitration award 218/1995 78A ; 78B [translation available]

* Switzerland 11 March 1996 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Vaud [01 93 0661]

Switzerland 11 March 1996 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Vaud [01 93 1061] 76B[translation available]

China 8 March 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/12] (Old boxboard corrugated cartons case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Germany 5 March 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Düsseldorf 78B

Germany 28 February 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Oldenburg (Egg case) 78A [translation available]

China 27 February 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/11] (Wool case) 78A [translation available]

China 15 February 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/10] (Hot-rolled plates case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 15 February 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Kassel [11 O 4185/95] (Marble slabs cases) 78B [translation available]

Germany 15 February 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Kassel [11 O 4187/95] (Clothes case) 78B [translation available]

China 14 February 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/09] (Bicycles case) 78B [translation available]

* Switzerland 12 February 1996 Tribunale d'appello [Appellate Court] Lugano 78B [translation available]

Russia 10 February 1996 Arbitration Award No. 328/1994 78B [translation available]

China 5 February 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/07] (Antimony ingot case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 31 January 1996 Arbitration award 228/1995 78B [translation available]

* Germany 29 January 1996 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Augsburg (Shoe case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Germany 25 January 1996 Landgericht [District Court] München [translation available]

Germany 24 January 1996 Landgericht [District Court] Bochum

China 12 January 1996 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1996/03] (Scrap copper case) 78A [translation available]
 

Germany 19 December 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Krefeld

Russia 19 December 1995 Arbitration award 133/1994 78A [translation available]

China 15 December 1995 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 1995/12] (Used re-rolling rails case ) 78A [translation available]

Russia 13 December 1995 Arbitration award 364/1994 78A [translation available]

United States 6 December 1995 Federal Appellate Court [2nd Circuit] (Delchi Carrier v. Rotorex) 78A ; 78B

* Hungary 5 December 1995 Budapest Arbitration award Vb 94131 78B [translation available]

* Switzerland 5 December 1995 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] St. Gallen (Computer hardware devices case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 1 December 1995 Arbitration award 369/1994 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 30 November 1995 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug

* Hungary 17 November 1995 Budapest Arbitration award Vb 94124 78A ; 78B

Belgium 8 November 1995 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 78B

Belgium 18 October 1995 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 78A

Germany 12 October 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Trier [translation available]

* Germany 6 October 1995 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Kehl 78B [translation available]

Austria 5 October 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Linz

* Germany 21 September 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Kassel 78A [translation available]

* Switzerland 21 September 1995 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 78A

China 18 September 1995 Chansha Intermediate People's Court (Skandinaviska v. Hunan Co) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Netherlands 22 August 1995 Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] Arnhem 78B

* Netherlands 9 August 1995 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Almelo 78B

* Germany 27 July 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Rostock 78A ; 78B [translation available]

* Germany 20 July 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 78B [translation available]

Germany 5 July 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt [translation available]

Germany 28 June 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München

* Germany 22 June 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Kassel 78B [translation available]

Germany 29 May 1995 Landgericht [District Court] München (Computer hardware case) [translation available]

* Germany 24 May 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Celle [translation available]

China 16 May 1995 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1995/10] (Leather bags case) 78A [translation available]

Russia 15 May 1995 Arbitration award 321/1994 [translation available]

* Germany 12 May 1995 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Alsfeld 78B [translation available]

Belgium 2 May 1995 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt

Germany 2 May 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Kassel [Benetton I]

Germany 2 May 1995 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Bayreuth 78A [translation available]

Russia 28 April 1995 Arbitration award 400/1995 78B [translation available]

Netherlands 27 April 1995 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Zutphen

* France 26 April 1995 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble (Marques Roque v. Manin Riviére) 78A [translation available]

Russia 25 April 1995 Arbitration award 200/1994 78B [translation available]

Russia 24 April 1995 Arbitration award 80/1994

* France 6 April 1995 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Paris 78B [translation available]

* Germany 5 April 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Landshut [translation available]

France 29 March 1995 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 78A [translation available]

* Germany 20 March 1995 Landgericht [District Court] München 78B [translation available]

Russia 16 March 1995 Arbitration award 155/1994 [translation available]

China 10 March 1995 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1995/03] (Polyethylene film case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

China 10 March 1995 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1995/04] (Wool case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 8 March 1995 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Wangen (Shoes case) 78B [translation available]

Russia 3 March 1995 Arbitration award 304/1993 [commentary available]

Belgium 1 March 1995 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 78B

China 23 February 1995 CIETAC Arbitration award 78B [translation available]

* Germany 15 February 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Oldenburg 78B

* Germany 8 February 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 78B [translation available]

Germany 8 February 1995 Landgericht [District Court] München 78B [translation available]

China 4 January 1995 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1995/02] (Shirts case) 78A [translation available]

ICC January 1995 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7754 [English text]

* ICC 1995 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8128 78B [translation available]

ICC 1995 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8204
 

China 28 December 1994 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1994/15] (Round steel case) 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 20 December 1994 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais 78A ; 78B [translation available]

* Switzerland 15 December 1994 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 78B

* Switzerland 9 December 1994 Bezirksgericht [District Court] Arbon 78B

Russia 17 November 1994 Arbitration award 493/1993

* Germany 9 November 1994 Landgericht [District Court] Oldenburg 78B [translation available]

Germany 25 October 1994 Landgericht [District Court] Darmstadt 78B

* Germany 21 October 1994 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Riedlingen 78B [translation available]

* Argentina 6 October 1994 Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Comercial [National Commercial Court of First Instance] 78A [translation available]

Belgium 5 October 1994 Tribunal commercial [District Court] Bruxelles 78B [translation available]

China 29 September 1994 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1994/12] (Umbrella case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 15 September 1994 Landgericht [District Court] Berlin [translation available]

Russia 9 September 1994 Arbitration award 375/1993 78B

United States 9 September 1994 Federal District Court [Northern Dist. NY] (Delchi Carrier v. Rotorex) 78A ; 78B

* Switzerland 1 September 1994 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 78B

* Germany 25 August 1994 Landgericht [District Court] Düsseldorf (Fashion goods case) 78A [translation available]

* Germany 14 July 1994 Landgericht [District Court] Kassel

Germany 12 July 1994 Landgericht [District Court] Augsburg

Germany 6 July 1994 Landgericht [District Court] Oldenburg

* Germany 5 July 1994 Landgericht [District Court] Giessen 78B

Switzerland 29 June 1994 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais

* Austria 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration award SCH-4318 78A ; 78B [translation available]

* Austria 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration award SCH-4366 78A ; 78B [translation available]

* Netherlands 15 June 1994 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Amsterdam 78A ; 78B

* Germany 14 June 1994 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Nordhorn 78B [translation available]

* Germany 20 April 1994 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 78B

Russia 15 April 1994 Arbitration award 1/1993 78A ; 78B

Belgium 16 March 1994 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 78B

* Germany 2 March 1994 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 78B [translation available]

Belgium 23 February 1994 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 78B

* Germany 10 February 1994 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [6 U 32/93] 78B [translation available]

* Germany 10 February 1994 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf [6 U 119/93] 78B [translation available]

Netherlands 4 February 1994 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] 's Hertogenbosch

* Germany 24 January 1994 Kammergericht [Appellate Court] Berlin 78B [translation available]

* Germany 18 January 1994 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 78B [translation available]

Hungary 17 January 1994 Budapest Arbitration award Vb 92068

* Germany 14 January 1994 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 78B [translation available]

* ICC 1994 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7331 78A [English text]

ICC 1994 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7531 78A ; 78B

ICC 1994 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7565 78B ; 78C [English text]

ICC 1994 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7660 78A ; 78B [English text]
 

* Netherlands 30 December 1993 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Arnhem 78B

* Switzerland 6 December 1993 Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Vaud 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Germany 1 December 1993 Landgericht [District Court] Hanover 78A ; 78B

Germany 1 December 1993 Landgericht [District Court] Memmingen 78A ; 78B

Germany 11 November 1993 Landgericht [District Court] Köln

Germany 5 November 1993 Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg

China 26 October 1993 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1993/12] (Frozen beef case) 78B [translation available]

* Germany 17 September 1993 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz 78B [translation available]

* Switzerland 9 September 1993 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich (Furniture case) 78B [translation available]

Switzerland 1 September 1993 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich

China 7 August 1993 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1993/11] (Semi-automatic weapons case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 28 July 1993 Landgericht [District Court] Aachen

China 5 July 1993 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1993/08] (Copperized steel tubes case) 78A [translation available]

Germany 24 May 1993 Landgericht [District Court] München

Switzerland 7 May 1993 Richteramt [District Court] Laufen 78B [translation available]

* Netherlands 6 May 1993 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Roermond 78B

Germany 28 April 1993 Landgericht [District Court] Krefeld 78B

China 20 April 1993 Xiamen Intermediate People's Court [District Court] (Lianzhong Enterprise Resources (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Xiamen International Trade & Trust Co.) 78B [translation available]

Germany 14 April 1993 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Cloppenburg 78B [translation available]

China 30 March 1993 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1993/07] (Talcum block case) 78B [translation available]

China 26 March 1993 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1993/06] (Cement case) 78A [translation available]

* ICC 26 March 1993 International Court of Arbitration, Case 6653 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Netherlands 25 February 1993 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Arnhem 78A

Netherlands 23 February 1993 Arrondissementsrechtbank [District Court] Arnhem 78A

Germany 8 February 1993 Landgericht [District Court] Verden 78B

China 9 January 1993 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1993/03] (Linseed cake case) 78B [translation available]

China Post-1992 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1993/14] (White cardboard scrap paper case) 78B [translation available]
 

China 31 December 1992 Xiamen Intermediate People's Court (Lian Zhong v. Xiamen Trade)

* Switzerland 21 December 1992 Zivilgericht [Civil Court] Basel 78B1 [translation available]

Germany 24 November 1992 Landgericht [District Court] Krefeld (Shoes case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 19 November 1992 Landgericht [District Court] Göttingen 78A

Belgium 13 November 1992 Tribunal commercial [District Court] Bruxelles 78B [translation available]

* Germany 14 October 1992 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Zweibrücken (Shoes case) 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Germany 6 October 1992 Landgericht [District Court] Berlin [translation available]

Germany 30 September 1992 Landgericht [District Court] Berlin [translation available]

* Germany 22 September 1992 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm (Frozen bacon case) 78B [translation available]

* Germany 3 July 1992 Landgericht [District Court] Heidelberg 78B [translation available]

Germany 22 May 1992 Landgericht [District Court] Mönchengladbach

* Switzerland 27 April 1992 Pretore della giurisdizione [District Court] Locarno 78A ; 78B [translation available]

Hungary 24 March 1992 Fovárosi Bíróság [Metropolitan Court] 78A ; 78B

Germany 23 March 1992 Landgericht [District Court] Saarbrücken

Germany 13 January 1992 Landgericht [District Court] Baden-Baden

* ICC 1992 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7153 78A ; 78B [translation available]

* ICC 1992 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7197 78B

* ICC 1992 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7585 78A [English text]
 

* Switzerland 16 December 1991 Pretore della giurisdizione [District Court] Locarno 78B [translation available]

China 30 October 1991 CIETAC Arbitration award 78A [translation available]

* Argentina 23 October 1991 Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Comercial [National Commercial Court of First Instance] 78B [translation available]

* Germany 16 September 1991 Landgericht [District Court] Frankfurt 78B [translation available]

Netherlands 13 September 1991 Hoge Raad [Supreme Court]

* Germany 13 June 1991 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt

Argentina 20 May 1991 Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Comercial [National Commercial Court of First Instance] 78A [translation available]

China 19 April 1991 CIETAC Arbitration award 78B [translation available]

Germany 18 January 1991 Landgericht [District Court] Bielefeld
 

Germany 21 December 1990 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Ludwigsburg (Clothes case) 78B [translation available]

* Germany 26 September 1990 Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg 78B

Germany 20 July 1990 Landgericht [District Court] Hildesheim

Germany 2 May 1990 Landgericht [District Court] Frankfurt

* Germany 24 April 1990 Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Oldenburg (Fashion textile case) 78B [translation available]

Germany 3 April 1990 Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 78B [translation available]
 

Italy 24 November 1989 Pretura circondariale [District Court] Parma 78A[translation available]

* Germany 31 August 1989 Landgericht [District Court] Stuttgart 78A ; 78B [translation available]


UNCITRAL CASE DIGEST

The UNCITRAL Digest of case law on the United
Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods
[*]

A/CN.9/SER.C/DIGEST/CISG/78 [8 June 2004]
Reproduced with the permission of UNCITRAL

[Text of Article 78
Digest of Article 78 case law
-    Prerequisites for entitlement to interest
-    Interest rate]
ARTICLE 78

     If a party fails to pay the price or any other sum that is in arrears, the other party is entitled to interest on it, without prejudice to any claim for damages recoverable under article 74.

DIGEST OF ARTICLE 78 CASE LAW

Prerequisites for entitlement to interest

1. This provision deals with the right to interest on "the price or any other sum that is in arrears", with the exception of the instance where the seller has to refund the purchase price after the contract has been avoided, in which case article 84 of the Convention applies as lex specialis.

2. Article 78 entitles to interest on "the price and any other sum that is in arrears"; according to case law, this includes damages.[1]

3. Entitlement to interest only [2] presupposes that the sum is due [3] and that the debtor failed to comply with its obligation to pay the price or any other sum by the time specified in the contract [4] or, absent such specification, by the Convention.[5] According to several courts, the entitlement to interest does not, unlike under some domestic legal regimes, depend on any formal notice to be given to the debtor.[6] As a consequence, interest starts to accrue as soon as the debtor is in arrears. As far as damages are concerned, a court stated that interest accrues from the time damages are due.[7]

4. It must be noted, however, that both an arbitral tribunal [8] and a state court [9] stated that interest does not accrue unless the creditor sent a formal notice requiring payment to the debtor in default.

5. The entitlement to interest also does not depend on the creditor being able to prove to have suffered any loss. Therefore, interest can be claimed pursuant to article 78 independently from the damage caused by the payment in arrears.[10]

6. As stated in article 78, the entitlement to interest on sums in arrears is without prejudice to any claim by the creditor for damages recoverable under article 74,[11] such as a claim for the expenses triggered by the need to have to resort to a bank loan [12] or a claim based upon the creditor not being able to invest the sum profitably.[13] This led one arbitral tribunal to state that the purpose of article 78 is to introduce the distinction between interest and damages.[14] It must be noted, that in order for a claim for damages -- in addition to a claim for interest on sums in arrears -- to be successful, all requirements set forth in article 74 must be met [15] and proved by the creditor,[16] i.e. the damaged party.

Interest rate

7. Several courts pointed out that this provision merely sets forth a general entitlement to interest;[17] it does not specify the interest rate to be applied,[18] which is why one court considered the solution contained in article 78 a "compromise".[19] According to one court [20] and an arbitral tribunal,[21] this is due to irreconcilable differences which emerged during the Vienna Diplomatic Conference.

8. The lack of a specific formula to calculate the rate of interest has led some courts to consider this matter as one governed by, albeit not expressly settled in, the Convention.[22] Other courts consider this matter one that is not governed at all by the Convention. This difference in qualifying this matter has led to diverging solutions as to the applicable interest rate, since under the Convention, the matters governed by, but not expressly settled in, the Convention have to be dealt with differently than those falling outside the Convention's scope. According to article 7(2) of the Convention, the former matters have to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which the Convention is based or, in the absence of those principles, in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law. However, if a matter is considered to fall outside the Convention's scope, it must be settled in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law, without any recourse to the "general principles" of the Convention.

9. Several decisions have sought a solution on the basis of general principles on which the Convention is based. Some courts and arbitral tribunals [23] invoked article 9 of the Convention in order to solve the issue of the applicable rates of interest and determined the amount of interest payable according to the relevant trade usages. According to two arbitral awards [24] "the applicable interest rate is to be determined autonomously on the basis of the general principles underlying the Convention", on the grounds that the recourse to domestic law would lead to results contrary to those promoted by the Convention. In these cases, the issue of the interest rate was solved by resorting to the general principle of full compensation, which led to the application of the law of the creditor, since it is the creditor who has to borrow money in order to be as liquid as it would be had the debtor paid the sum it owed in due time.[25] Other tribunals simply referred to a "commercially reasonable" rate,[26] such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR).[27]

10. Most courts consider the issue at hand as one not governed at all by the Convention and therefore tend to apply domestic law.[28] In respect of this approach most courts applied the domestic law of a specific country by virtue of the rules of private international law of the forum [29] and others applied the domestic law of the creditor without it being necessarily the law made applicable by the rules of private international law.[30] There also are a few cases in which the rate was determined by reference to the law of the country in whose legal tender the sum of money has to be paid was (lex monetae);[31] in a few other cases, the courts applied the rate of the country in which the price had to be paid,[32] the rate applied in the debtor's country [33] or even the rate of the lex fori.[34]

11. A few courts resorted to the interest rate specified by the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (art. 7.4.9).[35]

12. Despite the variety of solutions mentioned above, there is a clear tendency to apply the rate provided for by the law applicable to the contract,[36] that is, the law that would be applicable to the sales contract if it were not subject to the Convention.[37]

13. Where, however, the parties agreed upon a specific interest rate, that rate is to be applied.[38]


FOOTNOTES

* The present text was prepared using the full text of the decisions cited in the Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts (CLOUT) abstracts and other citations listed in the footnotes. The abstracts are intended to serve only as summaries of the underlying decisions and may not reflect all the points made in the digest. Readers are advised to consult the full texts of the listed court and arbitral decisions rather than relying solely on the CLOUT abstracts.

[Citations to cisgw3 case presentations have been substituted [in brackets] for the case citations provided in the UNCITRAL Digest. This substitution has been made to facilitate online access to CLOUT abstracts, original texts of court and arbitral decisions, and full text English translations of these texts (available in most but not all cases). For citations UNCITRAL had used, go to <http://www.uncitral.org/english/clout/digest_cisg_e.htm>.]

1. CLOUT case No. 328 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 21 October 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991021s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 214 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 5 February 1997; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970205s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

2. See CLOUT case No. 252 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 21 September 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980921s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht [District Court] Arbon 9 December 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941209s1.html>].

3. CLOUT case No. 217 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] 26 September 1997; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970926s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Nordhorn 14 June 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940614g1.html>].

4. CLOUT case No. 254 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau 19 December 1997; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971219s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

5. For cases where the courts had to resort to the rules of the Convention, namely, article 58, to determine when the payment was due, since the parties had not agreed upon a specific time of performance, see [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Stendal 12 October 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001012g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 18 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 1 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 13 June 1991, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910613g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

6. For this statement in case law, see [BELGIUM Tribunal [District Court] Namur 15 January 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020115b1.html>]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank [District Court] Kortrijk 3 October 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011003b1.html>]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank [District Court] Kortrijk 4 April 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010404b1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Stendal 12 October 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001012g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 217 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] 26 September 1997; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970926s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [Appellate Court] Waadt 11 March 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960311s1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 20 July 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950720g1.html>]; [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 7585 of 1992, available online at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/927585i1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 166 [GERMANY Hamburg Arbitration award case of 21 March / 21 June 1996; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960321g1.html> / <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960621g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 152 [FRANCE Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 26 April 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426f1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 303 [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 7331 of 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/947331i1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht [ Lower Court] Nordhorn 14 June 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940614g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 55 [SWITZERLAND Pretore della giurisdizione [District Court] Locarno 16 December 1991, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/911216s1.html>].

7. CLOUT case No. 328 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 21 October 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991021s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 214 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 5 February 1997; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970205s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

8. [BULGARIA Arbitration case No. 11/1996 Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 12 February 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980212bu.html>].

9. See [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Zwickau 19 March 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990319g1.html>].

10. See CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 18 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 5 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg 26 September 1990, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900926g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 7 [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Oldenburg 24 April 1990, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900424g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

11. This has often been emphasized in case law; see, e.g., [BELGIUM Rechtbank [District Court] Hasselt 17 June 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980617b1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] 28 October 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981028s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 8962 of September 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/978962i1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 195 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 21 September 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950921s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 18 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 130 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 14 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940114g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz 17 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930917g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 104 [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 7197 of 1993; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/937197i1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 7 [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Oldenburg 24 April 1990, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900424g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

12. See CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] 28 October 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981028s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Koblenz 12 November 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961112g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 195 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 21 September 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950921s1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Kassel 14 July 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940714g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 18 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

13. CLOUT case No. 7 [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Oldenburg 24 April 1990, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900424g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

14. CLOUT case No. 301 [ICC International Court of Arbitration, case No. 7585 of 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927585i1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

15. See CLOUT case No. 327 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 25 February 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990225s1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Oldenburg 9 November 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941109g1.html>] where the creditor's claim for damages caused by the failure to pay was dismissed on the grounds that the creditor did not prove that it had suffered any additional loss.

16. It has often been stated that the damages referred to in article 78 have to be proved by the damaged party; see CLOUT case No. 343 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Darmstadt 9 May 2000; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000509g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 275 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 24 April 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970424g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Koblenz 12 November 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/961112g1.html>]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Bottrop 25 June 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960625g2.html>]; CLOUT case No. 132 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 8 February 1995; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950208g3.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Kassel 14 July 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940714g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 18 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

17. See CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] 28 October 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981028s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 7585 of 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927585i1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 20 July 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950720g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 83 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 2 March 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940302g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 18 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz 17 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930917g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 1 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 13 June 1991, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910613g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

18. CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 29 December 1999; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>]; [BULGARIA Arbitration case No. 11/1996 Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 12 February 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980212bu.html>].

19. CLOUT case No. 55 [SWITZERLAND Pretore della giurisdizione [District Court] Locarno 16 December 1991, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/911216s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

20. CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 9 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930909s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

21. [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 8128 of 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958128i1.html>].

22. For a case listing various criteria used in case law to determine the rate of interest, see [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 7585 of 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927585i1.html>].

23. See [BELGIUM Rechtbank [District Court] Ieper 29 January 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010129b1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 103 [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 6653 of 26 March 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/936653i1.html>]; [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de los Apelaciones en lo Comercial [Appellate Court] 6 October 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/931014a1.html>]; [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de los Apelaciones en lo Comercial [Appellate Court] 23 October 1991, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases//911023a1.html>].

24. See CLOUT cases Nos. 93 [AUSTRIA Vienna Arbitration Award, case No. SCH-4366 of 15 June 1994; available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>] and 94 [AUSTRIA Vienna Arbitration Award, case No. SCH-4318 of 15 June 1994; available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a4.html>] (see full text of the decisions).

25. For a similar solution, that is, for an arbitral award basing its decision on the argument that the interest rate of the country in which the damage occurred, (the country in which the creditor has its place of business) has to apply, see also CLOUT case no. 303 [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 7331 of 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/947331i1.html>].

26. See [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 8769 of December 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/968769i1.html>].

27. See [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 8908 of September 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/988908i1.html>]; see also CLOUT case No. 103 [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 6653 of 26 March 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/936653i1.html>]; note that this arbitral award was later annulled on the grounds that international trade usages do not provide appropriate rules to determine the applicable interest rate; see [FRANCE Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Paris 6 April 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950406f1.html>].

28. Note that some courts did not decide which law was applicable; this was possible, since all the countries involved in the particular dispute provided for either the same rate of interest (see, for example, CLOUT case No. 84 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 20 April 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940420g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 56 [SWITZERLAND Pretore della giurisdizione [District Court] Locarno 27 April 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920427s1.html>] (see full text of the decision)) or an interest rate higher than the one claimed by the plaintiff see [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Dresden 27 December 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991227g1.html>].

29. See [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Stendal 12 October 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001012g1.html>]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Stuttgart 28 February 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000228g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 29 December 1999; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>]; [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 9187 of June 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/999187i1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 328 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 21 October 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991021s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 327 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 25 February 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990225s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 377 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Flensburg 24 March 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990324g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] 28 October 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981028s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 282 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz 31 January 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970131g1.html>]; [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 8611 of 23 January 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/978611i1.html>] (stating that the relevant interest rate is either that of the lex contractus or, in exceptional cases, that of the lex monetae); CLOUT case No. 376 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Bielefeld 2 August 1996; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960802g1.html>]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal [District Court] Glane 20 May 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960520s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 166 [GERMANY Hamburg Arbitration award case of 21 March / 21 June 1996; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960321g1.html> / <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960621g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 335 [SWITZERLAND Tribunale d'appello [Appellate Court] Lugano 12 February 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960212s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Augsburg 29 January 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960129g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 330 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] St. Gallen 5 December 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951205s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Kehl 6 October 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951006g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 195 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 21 September 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950921s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 228 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Rostock 27 July 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950727g1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 20 July 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950720g1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Kassel 22 June 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950622g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 136 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Celle 24 May 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950524g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 410 [GERMANY Landgericht [Lower Court] Alsfeld 12 May 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950512g1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Landshut 5 April 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950405g1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] München 20 March 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950320g1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Oldenburg 15 February 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950215g2.html>]; CLOUT case No. 132 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 8 February 1995; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950208g3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 300 [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 7565 of 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/947565i1.html>]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 15 December 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941215s1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Oldenburg 9 November 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941109g1.html>]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 1 September 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940901s1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Düsseldorf 25 August 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940825g1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Giessen 5 July 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940705g1.html>]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Amsterdam 15 June 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615n1.html>]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Nordhorn 14 June 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940614g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 83 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 2 March 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940302g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 82 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 10 February 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940210g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 81 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 10 February 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940210g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 80 [GERMANY Kammergericht [Appellate Court] Berlin 24 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940124g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 18 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 100 [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Arnhem 30 December 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/931230n1.html>]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Vaud 6 December 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/931206s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz 17 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930917g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 9 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930909s1.html>]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Roermond 6 May 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930506n1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Verden 8 February 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930208g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 95 [SWITZERLAND Zivilgericht [Civil Court] Basel-Stadt 21 December 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/921221s1.html>]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Zweibrücken 14 October 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/921014g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 227 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 22 September 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920922g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Heidelberg 3 July 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920703g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 55 [SWITZERLAND Pretore della giurisdizione [District Court] Locarno 16 December 1991, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/911216s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 1 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 13 June 1991, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910613g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 5 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg 26 September 1990, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900926g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 7 [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Oldenburg 24 April 1990, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900424g1.html>].

30. Several court decisions referred to the domestic law of the creditor as the law applicable, independently of whether the rules of private international law made that law applicable; see [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht [District Court] Arbon 9 December 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941209s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 6 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Frankfurt 16 September 1991, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910916g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 4 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Stuttgart 31 August 1989, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/890831g1.html>]; for a criticism of the latter decision by a court, see [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Kassel 22 June 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950622g1.html>];.

31. See [BELGIUM Rechtbank [District Court] Ieper 18 February 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020218b1..html>]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank [District Court] Veurne 25 April 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010425b1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 164 [HUNGARY Budapest Arbitration Award case No. Vb 94131 of 5 December 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951205h1.html>]; [HUNGARY Budapest Arbitration Award case No. Vb 94124 of 17 November 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951117h1.html>].

32. See CLOUT case No. 220 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [District Court] Nidwalden 3 December 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971203s1.html>]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Almelo 9 August 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950809n1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 26 [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 7153 of 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927153i1.html>].

33. See [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [Appellate Court] Waadt 11 March 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960311s2.html>].

34. CLOUT case No. 85 [UNITED STATES Delchi Carrier v. Rotorex Federal District Court [New York] 9 September 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940909u1.html>].

35. See [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 8769 of December 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/968769i1.html>]; [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 8128 of 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958128i1.html>]; CLOUT cases Nos. 93 [AUSTRIA Vienna Arbitration Award case No. SCH-4336 of 15 June 1994; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>] and 94 [AUSTRIA Vienna Arbitration Award, case No. SCH-4318 of 15 June 1994; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a4.html>].

36. Some courts referred to this solution as a unanimous one; see CLOUT case No. 132 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 8 February 1995; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950208g3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 9 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930909s1.html>]. In the light of the remarks in the text, it is apparent that, although this solution is the prevailing one, it has not been unanimously accepted.

37. For case law stating the same, see [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 20 July 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950720g1.html>]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Riedlingen 21 October 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941021g1.html>]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Nordhorn 14 June 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940614g1.html>].

38. See [BELGIUM Hof van beroep [Appellate Court] Antwerp 4 November 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981104b1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Kassel 22 June 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950622g1.html>].


ANNOTATED COMPARATIVES
-  UNIDROIT Principles
-  
PECL comparatives

Remarks on the Manner in which the UNIDROIT Principles
of International Commercial Contracts May Be Used to
Interpret or Supplement Article 78 of the CISG

Sieg Eiselen [*]
September 2004

a. The right to claim interest on amounts due and not paid by a contractual party under the CISG is governed by Articles 78 and 84(1).[1]  The issue of interest was one of the topics on which no real consensus could be reached in the drafting of the CISG.[2] One commentator has remarked that "Art. 78 is more conspicuous for the questions it fails to answer than the questions it answers."[3] The fact that such a right was included at all represents a compromise between the various interests groups which followed from incompatible views on interest.[4] It was achieved with great difficulty in the final phases of the Conference.[5]

b. Article 78 is formulated in general terms leaving the following issues open or unresolved: the rate of interest; whether interest is payable when the breach of the defaulting party is excused under Article 79; whether the amount due need to be liquidated before interest accrues; whether interest is payable on any amount of damages due and whether compound interest may be claimed.  The determination of the rate of interest was intentionally left open in the drafting process of the CISG as no agreement could be reached on the approach to be adopted.[6]

c. Due to the controversies and uncertainties which surrounds Article 78 the provisions of the UNIDROIT Principles must be considered as one appropriate way of solving these issues. This has been suggested by some commentators [7] and has even been used by arbitral tribunals to justify a certain approach to the awarding of interest and referred to by others.[8] Whether the use of the UNIDROIT Principles in these cases were justified will be considered below.

d. The principle of full compensation is the basic principle underlying the provisions of the CISG in respect of damages where the damages have been caused by a breach of contract that is not excused under article 79.  In the interpretation and filling of the gaps left in article 78 regard should therefore be had to the underlying principle of full compensation.[9] There is a considerable difference of opinion especially amongst commentators on whether the gap left in art 78 in respect of the rate of interest is a gap praeter legem, i.e., one being governed by, but not expressly settled in the CISG, or whether it is an issue falling outside the scope of application of the CISG, i.e. a gap intra legem.[10] The protagonists of the former view lay emphasis on the overall objective of the CISG, namely to create a uniform law,[11] whereas the supporters of the latter view refer to the legislative history of art 78 as the dominant principle in interpreting art 78.[12]

e. If it is accepted that a uniform the uniform approach should be adopted in the filling of the gap in article 78, the gap should be filled using the principles contained in article 7.[13] Eberstein and Bacher [14] quite correctly points out that even proponents of the uniform approach are not agreed on the method to be adopted.  Some authors and cases are of the opinion that the rate should be based on the loss suffered by the non-defaulting party and that the place of business of the creditor should therefore be decisive.[15] However, this approach would make art 78 superfluous as actual loss can be claimed under article 74 in any event.[16] Other writers conclude that article 78 is aimed at providing compensation for benefits unjustifiably received and therefore argues that the rate of interest should be based on the debtor's place of business.[17] A further approach suggests that a more objective approach should be used namely linking the rate of interest to the currency in which the debt is to be paid and not the place of business of either party.[18] However this approach may be problematic in respect of currencies like the Euro which is not linked to only one country [19] A fourth approach takes its lead from the Uniform Principles, namely that the place of payment should determine the applicable rate of interest.[20] Despite precedent for each of these approaches, it would seem that the general tendency in the decided cases is to regard the issue as one not regulated by the CISG and therefore that it consists of a gap that should be filled by local law.[21]

f. The conclusion that the rules of private international law should determine the proper law of the contract and that that law should determine the rate of interest applicable, seems inescapable in the light of the legislative history of Article 78.[22] The right to claim interest clearly falls within the scope of the CISG, the determination of the rate of interest, however, clearly falls outside its scope and is to be determined by domestic law.[23]   This seems to be the dominant view amongst commentators and courts, even if it is not the unanimous view as stated by some German courts.[24]

g. The UNIDROIT Principles have been used in two instances to fill the gap in article 78.[25] The sole arbitrator in an Austrian case for example referred to Art 7.4.9(2) of the UP to justify his decision to award a commercially reasonable interest.[26] However, these remain isolated cases and the decisions cannot be justified in the light of the principles concerned.  As a result of the clear intention of the drafters of the CISG to leave the rate of interest outside the scope of the CISG, the UNIDROIT Principles can play no role in filling this gap and is therefore only of interest for any future development or change of the CISG.[27]

h. Article 7.4.9(2) of the UNIDROIT Principles makes provision for the payment of interest at the average bank short-term lending rate to prime borrowers prevailing for the currency of payment at the place of payment.  Where no such rate exists at that place then the same rate in the state of the currency of payment will apply.  In the event that neither such rates are available the impasse is resolved by applying the rate fixed by the law of the state of the currency of payment.[28] The Comments to Art 7.4.9 indicate that this solution seems to be best suited to the needs of international trade and most appropriate to ensure an adequate compensation of the harm sustained. The rate in question is the rate at which the aggrieved party will normally borrow the money which it has not received from the non-performing party.  As such it represents a mixture of the first and fourth approaches discussed in paragraph e. above. It links the rate of interest both to the currency of payment and the place of payment.  However, it is not directly linked to the place of business of either party as payment will not necessarily always be made at the place of business of the seller.

i. Article 7.4.9(1) of the UNIDROIT Principles determines that interest is payable whenever a party fails to pay that sum when it is due even if the non-payment is excused.[29] This provision confirms the interpretation of commentators of Article 78 CISG read with Article 79(5), namely that interest is payable even if the breach of contract is excused in terms of Article 79.[30] Although the primary aim of Article 78 is to provide the non-defaulting party with an easily quantifiable claim in the case of non-payment of money due, it goes further in that it requires no proof of a loss, clearly distinguishing it from the provisions of art 74.[31] However it is not clearly stated in the CISG whether interest is payable in the event of a breach that is excusable in terms of Article 79. The clear wording of Article 79(5) ("exercising any right other than to claim damages") seems to suggest that this should be the case.[32]  The provisions of Article 7.4.9(1) of the UNIDROIT Principles confirms this interpretation as they clearly makes provision for payment of interest even in cases where the non-payment is excused.

j. The UNIDROIT Principles contain specific provisions dealing with the payment of interest on damages that are due.  Article 7.4.10 provides that unless the contract excludes such a right, a party is entitled to claim interest on damages that are due for the non-performance of non-monetary obligations as from the time of the non-performance.[33] This provision contains two clear underlying principles, namely that payment of damages are due from the time of non-performance (or by implication from the time the damages are actually suffered [34]) and that the damages need not be liquidated at the time of their accrual.[35] This provision and its underlying principles may be helpful in the interpretation of Article 78 where these issues are not clearly addressed. It confirms the interpretation placed on Article 78 by most commentators on the CISG namely that interest is due from the date that the liability for damages accrue and that the amount of the damages need not be liquidated.[36] This has also been confirmed in case law.[37]

k. Neither the CISG nor the UNIDROIT Principles contain any provision on whether a party may be entitled to compound interest on any amounts due unlike the Uniform Law on Sales (ULIS) drafts.[38]  There certainly is no right to compound interest in terms of the CISG.[39]   However, if a party is entitled to compound interest in terms of the domestic law which governs the rate of interest, a party should probably be entitled to claim compound interest in cases otherwise governed by the CISG.[40] Although there is a perception that compound interest can generally not be claimed in international transactions, Gotanda shows very convincingly that compound interest may be awarded in many jurisdictions and is even being awarded in some international tribunals.[41]


FOOTNOTES

* Professor in Private Law, University of South Africa; Advocate of the High Court of South Africa.

1. Enderlein F. & Maskow D., International Sales Law – United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1992 New York) 310-311, also available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/enderlein.html>; Magnus U., in Martinek M. (ed) J. von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetze: Wiener UN-Kaufrecht (1999 Berlin) Art 78 Rn 2-4; Witz W., Salger H.C. & Lorenz M., Internationales Einheitliches Kaufrecht (2000 Heidelberg) Art 78, Rn 1-4; Eberstein H. & Bacher K. in Schlechtriem P.H. & Bacher K. (eds), Kommentar zum einheitlichen UN Kaufrecht 3rd ed (2000 Munich) Art 78, Rn 1-4.

2. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 2; Ferrari F., "Specific Topics of the CISG in the Light of Judicial Application and Scholarly Writing" 1995 (15) J of Law & Comm 1-126 also available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/2ferrari.html>; Liu C., 'Recovery of Interest' 2003 Nordic Journal of Commercial Law of the University of Turku Issue 1, also available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/chengwei.html>.

3. Ziegel J. & Samson C., 'Report to The Uniform Law Conference of Canada on the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods' (1981) 149 also available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/articles/english2.html>.

4. Corterier A., 'A New Approach to Solving the Problem of the Interest Rate Under Art 78 CISG' 5 (2002) International Trade and Business Law Annual 33-42 also available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/corterier.html>; Ferrari at fn 39-48; Liu at fn 13-15.

5. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 2.

6. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 2; Corterier at 39. See Ferrari at fn 827-847 for a brief history of this article with reference also to its predecessor in the 1964 Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods (ULIS).

7. Corterier 41; Liu at fn 246-250.

8. ICC Arbitration Case No. 8769 of December 1996 available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/968769i1.html>; ICC Arbitration Case No. 8128 of 1995 available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958128i1.html>; Austria 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration proceeding SCH-4366 available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>.

9. Honnold para 417 at 456; Enderlein/Maskow Notes 1 & 4, at pp 297-298; Witz/Salger/Lorenz Art 74, Rn 12 & 19; Staudinger/Magnus, Art 74, Rn 12, 16 & 19; Bonell 112; Behr V., 'The Sales Convention in Europe: From Problems in Drafting to Problems in Practice' (1998 (17) J of Law & Comm 281 available online at http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/behr.html; Koneru P., "The International Interpretation of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: An Approach Based on General Principles' 1997 (6) Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 105-152 at fn 90 and 102-120, also available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/koneru.html>; Ferrari at fn 883; Thiele C., "Interest on Damages and Rate of Interest Under Article 78 of the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods' 2 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration (1998) 3-35, also available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/thiele.html>, at fn 84.

10. See Ferrari at fn 853-858; Liu at fn 133-136; Behr at 280;Thiele fn 49-58; Austria 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration proceeding SCH-4366 available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>; Switzerland 5 November 2002 Commercial Court des Kantons Aargau, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021105s1.html>; Italy 31 March 2004 District Court Padova, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>; United States 21 May 2004 Federal District Court (Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food Trading Co., et al), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040521u1.html>.

11. Koneru at fn 89 ff; Thiele at fn 112-119; Liu 134-136; Honnold 525-526; ICC Arbitration Case No. 6653 of 26 March 1993 available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/936653i1.html>; Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 21.

12. Herber/Czerwenka, Internationales Kaufrechts, (1991), 347; Germany 13 June 1991 Appellate Court Frankfurt 591, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910613g1.html>; Austria 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration proceeding SCH-4366, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>; Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 21.

13. Koneru fn 89 ff; Liu fn 147-153; Austria 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration proceeding SCH-4366, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>; Belgium 19 March 2003 District Court Veurne, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030319b1.html>; Germany 25 November 2002 District Court Saarbrücken, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021125g1.html>.

14. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 23; Honnold para 421; Behr 296; Switzerland 15 January 1998 Appellate Court Lugano, Cantone del Ticino, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980115s1.html>; ICC Arbitration Case No. 9448 of July 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/999448i1.html>; Italy 29 December 1999 District Court Pavia (Tessile v. Ixela), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>. See also the case law discussed by Ferrari at fn 875.

15. Behr at fn 286; Corterier at 35; Honnold 421; Staudinger / Magnus Art 78 Rn 1; Germany 13 April 2000 Lower Court Duisburg, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413g1.html> ; Belgium 17 October 2002 Appellate Court Gent, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021017b1.html>.

16. Staudinger/Magnus Art 78 Rn 34; Behr 266, 283; Germany 24 April 1990 Lower Court Oldenburg in Holstein, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900424g1.html>; Germany 18 January 1994 Appellate Court Frankfurt, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>.

17. Behr 295-296; Corterier at 35-36; Liu 8.3.2 at fn 184-202; 8.4 at fn 206-215; Belgium 17 February 2000 District Court Hasselt (J.F. in liquidation v. L.), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000217b1.html>. However, this approach has been specifically rejected in case law: see Germany 18 January 1994 Appellate Court Frankfurt, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>.

18. Belgium 25 April 2001 District Court Veurne (BV BA G-2 v. AS C.B.), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010425b1.html>; Germany 10 October 2001 Appellate Court Rostock, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011010g1.html>; Belgium 18 February 2002 District Court Ieper (L. v. SA C.), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020218b1.html>.

19. Liu 8.6 at fn 221; 8.73 at fn 237 ff; Behr 286; Hungary, Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry VB./94131, December 5, 1995 CLOUT Case 164; Corterier 37; Hungary 5 December 1995 Budapest Arbitration proceeding Vb 94131, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951205p.html>.

20. Corterier at fn 26; Koneru at fn 140 ff; Zoccolillo "Determination of the Interest Rate under the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: General Principles vs. National Law", 1 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration (1997) 3-43, also available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/zoccolillo.html>; Liu at fn 138; Netherlands 9 August 1995 District Court Almelo (Wolfgang Richter Montagebau v. Handelsonderneming Euro-Agra and Te Wierik), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950809n1.html>; ICC Arbitration Case No. 7153 of 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927153i1.html>.

21. Behr at fn 266 and 296; Ferrari fn 856-868; Magnus U., 'Aktuelle Fragen des UN Kaufrechts' 1993 ZEup 90; Germany 17 September 1993 Appellate Court Koblenz, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930917g1.html>; Germany 8 February 1995 Appellate Court Hamm, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950208g3.html>; Belgium 17 October 2002 Appellate Court Gent, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021017b1.html>; Italy 31 March 2004 District Court Padova, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>.

22. Italy 31 March 2004 District Court Padova, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>.

23. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 9 and 25; Staudinger/Magnus Art 78 Rn 11. See case law cited by Ferrari at fn 874; Thiele 99.

24. Germany 5 April 1995 District Court Landshut, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950405g1.html>; Germany 5 November 1997 Appellate Court Hamm, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971105g1.html>. The aberrant decisions since 2000 have been referred to in footnotes 13 to 19 above. Most of the decisions since 2000 however, followed the, in our view, correct approach. The following examples from diverse jurisdictions reflect the trend: Bulgaria 12 March 2001 Arbitration Case 33/98, available online at < http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010312bu.html>; France 28 November 2002 Appellate Court Grenoble (SA AZ I... v. Entreprise Em... de Su... In...), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021128f2.html>; Netherlands 28 November 2002 Appellate Court 's-Hertogenbosch (Hagenuk Telecom GmbH v. Analog Devices Nederland B.V.), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021128n1.html>; Russia 2 December 2002 Arbitration proceeding 18/2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021202r1.html>; Switzerland 12 December 2002 District Court Zug, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021212s1.html>; Belgium 25 February 2004 District Court Hasselt (K BVBA v. BV), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040225b1.html>; Italy 31 March 2004 District Court Padova, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>; Germany 20 July 2004 Appellate Court Karlsruhe, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040720g1.html>.

25. ICC Arbitration Case No. 8769 of December 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/968769i1.html>; ICC Arbitration Case No. 8128 of 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/958128i1.html>; Austria 15 June 1994 Vienna Arbitration proceeding SCH-4366, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>.

26. ICC Arbitration Case No. 8769 of December 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/968769l1.html>.

27. See abstracts 13, 14, 16,17,19, 22, 23 and 25 in Behr at 275 ff; Liu 8.2.1 at fn 156-169; Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 26. For a contrary view, see Bonell M.J., An International Restatement of Contract LawThe UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (1994 New York).

28. The provisions of the Principles of European Contract Law is similar, although not quite as detailed and providing no fall-back provision if no rate of interest exists for the currency of payment at the place of payment. Corterier 40 proposes a similar solution. See also Liu 7.2 at fn 137-139.

29. See also Comment 1 to this article.

30. Belgium 4 April 2001 District Court Kortrijk (H. v. D.), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010404b1.html>; Switzerland 12 December 2002 District Court Zug, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021212s1.html>; Belgium 8 October 2003 Appellate Court Gent, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/031008b1.html>.

31. Behr at fn 267 and 296; Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 9; Liu 3.2 at fn 31-39; Germany 17 September 1993 Appellate Court Koblenz, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930917g1.html>.

32. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 14; Liu 3.3 at fn 40-46; Enderlein/Maskow 311.

33. Liu at fn 76.

34. See Comment on the UNIDROIT Principles Art 7.4.10.

35. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 14; Liu at fn 76.

36. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 12-14 and 15. See also Karolus UN Kaufrecht (1991 Vienna); Staudinger/Magnus Art 78 Rn 8; Koneru at fn 129 ff; Thiele at fn 38; Liu at fn 66.

37. Germany 14 June 1994 Lower Court Nordhorn, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940614g1.html>; Germany 5 April 1995 District Court Landshut, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950405g1.html>; Switzerland 21 October 1999 District Court Zug, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991021s1.html>.

38. See Comment on the UNIDROIT Principles Art 7.4.10; Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 35.

39. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 35.

40. Schlechtriem/Eberstein/Bacher Art 78 Rn 35.

41. Gotanda J.Y., 'Compound Interest in International Disputes' 2004 (2) Oxford U Comparative L Forum available online <http://ouclf.iuscomp.org/articles/gotanda/shtml>.


PECL COMPARATIVES

CISG Articles 78 and 84(1) and their PECL counterparts

Francesco G. Mazzotta [1]
October 2004

  1. CISG Article 78
       a) Background
       b) Operation of Article 78
       c) Nature of interest under Article 78
  2. Whether PECL Article 9:508(1) may be of assistance in the interpretation of CISG Article 78
       a) PECL Article 9:508(1)
       b) PECL Article 9:508 and its relevance in determining the operation of CISG Article 78
  3. CISG Article 84
  4. Conclusions

The main goal of this commentary is to establish whether the Principles of European Contract Law (hereinafter "PECL" or "Principles") may be of assistance in construing the meaning of Article 78 of the United Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter "Convention" or "CISG"). This author believes that the method for calculating interest rate as determined by the PECL may not be used under the CISG.

1. CISG Article 78

a) Background

It is well known that Article 78 is "more conspicuous for the questions it fails to answer than the questions it answers."[2] Due to the impossibility to reach an agreement among the delegations at the Vienna Convention,[3] the present version of Article 78 does not fix any rate of interest. It should be noted, however, that although considered as a "headless corpse", Article 78 introduces a far-reaching principle of a general entitlement to interest,[4] which is still rather important because it makes clear that a fixed interest (however not set by the Convention) must be applied to sums paid with delay (normativity feature),[5] and that the entitlement to interest is not limited by grounds for release as provided for by CISG Article 79 (absoluteness feature).[6]

b) Operation of CISG Article 78

Failure to pay the price or any other sum that is in arrears is the condition to be satisfied under Article 78.[7] Failure refers to a failure to comply with the obligation to pay the price by a specific time, whether the time is set by contract or set by the CISG (Article 58).[8] Interest is due regardless of proof of any losses[9] and it is independent of any claim for damages.[10] While there should not be too many problems in determining the time when the buyer is bound to pay the price (as explained, it will be either governed by the agreement between the parties or, as a default rule, by the CISG, Article 58),[11] there are no default rules with respect to the time of performance with respect to "other sums". In the latter case, in the absence of any other indication, it must be assumed that it is to be paid immediately when the claim for other sums arises.[12] No other additional requirements must be satisfied under domestic law (e.g., the issue of a formal prior warning).[13] As mentioned, Article 78 does not fix any specific interest rate. As suggested by many authors and courts, the issue is not within the CISG and, therefore, interest should be determined by the domestic law of the forum state or, more frequently, by the law that would otherwise govern the contract, absent the CISG, which usually is the law of the country resulting from the application of the rules of private international law of the forum state.[14] If the contract is between European Community nationals, absent a choice of law, the law of the country in which the seller has his principal place of business will be applied, according to Article 4(2) of the EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations.[15] There are many cases where the law of the country of the creditor was applied without making any reference to rules of private international law.[16] The law of the country of the debtor has also been applied by the courts [17] or suggested by commentators.[18] There are also cases in which the law of the country of the legal tender to be used was applied [19] as well as cases in which the law of the country where the price must be paid was applied.[20] Finally, some courts have also applied the rate of interest as determined by the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (art. 7.4.9).[21] In cases where the applicable law prohibits the payment of interest, domestic public policy (very likely) makes CISG Article 78 unenforceable notwithstanding the language of CISG Article 4.[22] I believe, however, that interest should be awarded also in those countries where domestic applicable law forbids payment of it.[23] Indeed, the express language of the Convention provides for a general entitlement to interest and not enforcing it would be against the express text and purpose of Article 78.[24]

Other relevant topics to be considered include: compound interest and the meaning of "sums" under Article 78. As to the compound interest issue, CISG Article 78 does not expressly deal with it. There is a controversy also on this issue; it seems, however, that compound interest cannot be claimed.[25] As to the meaning of the word 'sums' under Article 78, it seems that the applicable law should define the term "sums".[26]

c) Nature of interest under CISG Article 78

Some authors argue that interest under CISG Article 78 is aimed at fully compensating the aggrieved party for the benefit of the bargain. Accordingly, this view applies Article 74 of the Convention to determine the interest rate. This view, however, results from a misunderstanding of the nature of the interest as defined by Article 78, the express wording of Article 78 and its legislative history. Article 78 draws a clear, distinct line between damages as defined under Article 74 and interest as defined under Article 78.[27] Under Article 78, interest is not meant to fully compensate the creditor for the benefit of the bargain.[28] Therefore, provisions that normally are to be used to calculate damages (full compensation) cannot be used to calculate the interest rate under Article 78.[29] Article 78 expressly excludes that interest is at any rate linked to damages since interest is due even when damages are excluded (a party is entitled to interest "without prejudice to any claim for damages recoverable under article 74").[30] It should also be considered that the interest rate provision belongs to Section III (Interest) as completely separated from the section dealing with damages (Section II. Damages).[31] Finally, the legislative history of Article 78 tells us that the choice of keeping the two concepts (interest as opposed to damages) distinct and separate was an informed decision.

Failure to consider the difference between the two concepts stems from a failure to understand the core function of interest as defined by Article 78. The interest under Article 78 is based on the general principle that the party who benefited from property belonging to another must remunerate the latter. This remuneration is based on the assumption that money naturally produces interest. It should also be noted that interest as described under Article 78 is different from interest under Article 84(1). Interest under Article 84(1) is to compensate the creditor for the fruits (interest) of not having benefited from money owed by the debtor due to the avoidance of the contract. In other words, interest under Article 78 is due because money naturally produces interest, and therefore is owed automatically. Interest under Article 84(1) is based on the same principle (money produces fruits), but is owed only when, as a result of the avoidance of the contract, the price must be refunded.

Moreover, it must be underlined that, although the scope and requirements of Articles 78 and 74 are different, as expressly stated by the courts,[32] a party may be able to recover under both provisions. Pursuant to Article 78, entitlement to interest is without prejudice to any claim for damages recoverable under Article 74. Entitlement to interest is an automatic consequence of a failure to pay a sum at the due date. Entitlement to damages under Article 74, on the other hand, requires a party to meet and prove all of the requirements set forth by Article 74.[33]

2. Whether PECL Article 9:508(1) may be of assistance in the interpretation of CISG Article 78

a) PECL Article 9:508(1)

PECL Article 9:508(1) simply states that "[i]f a payment of a sum is delayed, the aggrieved party is entitled to interest on that sum."[34] Interest is owed from the date payment is due. [35] Moreover, interest is owed regardless of whether or not payment may be excused under Article 8:108.[36] The aggrieved party is entitled to it regardless of whether it has taken reasonable steps to mitigate its loss. The rate of interest is fixed by making reference to the average commercial bank short-term lending rate applicable to prime borrowers prevailing for the contractual currency of payment[37] at the place of payment.[38] It should be noted that a right to interest arises only on primary contractual obligations to pay; the provision does not cover interest on secondary monetary obligations, such as damages or interest. Finally, interest is not a species of ordinary damages. Thus, the general rules on damages do not apply.

b) PECL Article 9:508 and its relevance in determining the operation of CISG Article 78

PECL Article 9:508 has limited relevance as a tool for construing the meaning of CISG Article 78, at least with regard to the method of calculating the interest rate. However, PECL 9:508 is very useful to understand the nature of the interest and its relationship to damage provisions.

The main difference between the two articles relates to the method of computing interest. While CISG Article 78 expressly does not deal with this issue, PECL Article 9:508, on the other hand, sets forth a precise method for computing interest. While a method like the one set by PECL may be useful and may encourage uniformity, it still cannot be used under the CISG. The CISG does not establish a method because state delegations could not reach any agreement on the issue. This means that there was not a uniform and commonly accepted rate of interest, even in terms of general principles, that could be applied in all transactions falling within the scope of the Convention. This is still true today as there is no agreement among commentators either, even though the majority of the courts clearly prefer the private international law solution. Allowing courts to use the PECL method, as well as any other method,[39] will be against the spirit of the Convention and the will of the majority of the member States.[40] It must be acknowledged that proposals to include express reference to the domestic rules of private international law (within Article 78) and to delete any provision making reference to interest were both rejected by the CISG drafters.[41] Some commentators have drawn the conclusion that the "drafters saw the question at issue not outside the scope of the Convention but rather wanted it to be governed by Article 7(2)."[42] This author believes that, had the drafters wanted to have the issue (the actual rate, not the entitlement to interest) dealt with in the Convention, there was no better place to do it (Ubi lex voluit. Dixit. Ubi noluit. Tacuit.). Thus, lacking any CISG general principle as well as any indication by the very same CISG, one can only conclude that the matter must be deferred to the domestic rule of private international law. Actually, resorting to private international law is not only admissible, but expressly required by Article 7(2).[43] Moreover, those courts and authors who believe that the matter is outside the CISG also prefer the private international law solution. In fact, as worldwide case law indicates, courts do not apply outright their own interest rates but, very likely, will rely on their own rules of private international law to determine the rate. Therefore, whether the matter is within the CISG or not, once a court concludes that the general principles of the Convention do not give an answer on the interest issue (which is what normally happens),[44] the matter would be in any event governed by the domestic rule of private international law. Thus, rules of private international law, although not expressly indicated as the applicable method under Article 78, nonetheless will be applied ex Article 7(2), if a court concludes that the interest issue is within the scope of the CISG.[45] Moreover, courts have shown that they would very likely reach the very same conclusion (i.e., private international law solution) even when they believe that the interest issue is not within the CISG.[46]

In the light of the relevant case law, it seems correct to conclude that the interest rate is not determined by the Convention and that courts normally determine it according to their own rules of private international law.[47] Given that (i) the drafters deliberately omitted any indication on how the interest rate should be determined, (ii) there are not general principles that can be of guidance in determining the applicable rate, and (iii) whether the matter is governed or not by the CISG, courts have applied Article 78 almost uniformly as though it requires reliance on the domestic rules of private international law,[48] it is clear that any other method is not appropriate.

Allowing courts to apply any ad hoc and ex post method is a clear violation of the Convention. Thus, the PECL formula as well as any other formula, although they state clear methods for calculating the interest rate in a way that may be acceptable in many countries, is not of any support in the construction of the current text of Article 78 of the CISG. The PECL formula may, however, be a very good starting point in a de jure condendum analysis when a new Article 78 will be drafted, if an interest rate method will ever be embodied in the text of an international convention. On the other hand, PECL Article 9:509, as construed, gives a definition of the nature of interest similar to the definition herein contended. The commentary to PECL Article 9:509 clearly states that interest is not a type of damages and that it cannot be determined by resorting to the rules for calculating damages.[49] Therefore, under both CISG and PECL, interest is meant to remunerate one party for having conferred a benefit to another; it does not have a compensative goal (in other words, it is not a species of ordinary damages), and general rules on damages do not apply. In fact, the aggrieved party is entitled to it regardless of whether it has taken reasonable steps to mitigate its loss.

Similar to CISG Article 78, PECL Article 9:508 (2), provides that "[t]he aggrieved party may in addition recover damages for any further loss so far as these are recoverable under this Section." Therefore, both CISG Article 78 and PECL Article 9:508 allow the damaged party to recover additional damages as long as the requirements for the recovery of damages (CISG Article 74) are met.

3. CISG Article 84[50]

The last provision of Section V (Effects of Avoidance) of Article 84 introduces complementary obligations with respect to the obligations of each party to return what they received under a contract once the contract has been avoided. Paragraph (1) of Article 84 introduces the principle that a party who is required to refund the price or the part received as a result of the avoidance of the contract must pay interest on the sum received from the date of its payment.[51] Article 84 applies independently of the applicable rules on damages.[52] However, recovery of interest can be barred if it is claimed cumulatively with damages.[53] It should be noted that Article 84(1) applies only to restitution and cannot be used in any other case.[54] The obligation to pay interest is automatic[55] because it is assumed that the seller has benefited from being in possession of the price during this period. Which party gave rise to the avoidance of the contract is irrelevant.[56] Interest is due from the date the seller received payment[57] and runs until the request for restitution for the price lapses.[58] No mention is made as to how to calculate interest. The Secretariat Commentary states that "[s]ince the obligation to pay interest partakes of the seller's obligation to make restitution and not of the buyer's right to claim damages, the right of interest payable would be based on that current at the seller's place of business."[59] However, similarly to what happens with regard to CISG Article 78, there are different views on the issue. Although several methods have been applied,[60] courts and arbitral tribunals clearly agree that "[t]he rate of the interest is not governed by the Convention, and must therefore be determined by internal law resulting from the application of the pertinent rules of conflict of laws."[61] The same comments made under Article 78 may be repeated herein,[62] which means that interest is due as of the date of payment of the sum and must be determined by the domestic law applicable pursuant to the rules of private international law. Any other method, including the PECL method, may not be used as the drafters expressly excluded the embodiment of any method in the Convention except for the one determined in "conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law" (CISG Art. 7(2)).[63]

4. Conclusions

The PECL cannot be used in construing CISG Article 78 to determine the proper rate of interest. The PECL counterpart provisions, however, are quite useful in clarifying the nature of interest ant its relationship to the damage provisions. Under both CISG and PECL, interest cannot be calculated based on damage provisions. Pursuant to both PECL Article 9:508(2) and CISG Article 78, the recovery of interest does not preclude a recovery for damages. The recovery of damages is subject to the requirements set forth by the damage provisions, respectively, Section 5 of Chapter 9 of the PECL and Article 74 of the CISG.


FOOTNOTES

1. Dottore in Giurisprudenza, University of Naples Federico II" (Italy), 1993; LL.M. in International & Comparative Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law (U.S.A.), 2000; Associate of the Institute of International Commercial Law of the Pace University School of Law.

2. See Jacob S. Ziegel, Report to the Uniform Law Conference of Canada on the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 149 (1981).

3. For an historical account on the issue of the rate of interest raised during the drafting period of the Vienna Sales Convention, see Pace University School of Law, Institute of International Commercial Law, Guide to CISG Article 78, visit <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/e-text-78.html>. For literature specifically relevant to the provisions of CISG Article 78 visit <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/mono78.html>.

4. See Fritz Enderlein & Dietrich Maskow, INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW, UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS - CONVENTION ON THE LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS 310, 311 (1992). See, e.g., Italy 31 March 2004 District Court [Tribunale] Padova, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>.

5. See Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4.

6. Id.

7. See, e.g., Switzerland 12 December 2002 District Court [Kantonsgericht] Zug, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021212s1.html>.

8. See Germany 18 January 1994 Provincial Court of Appeal [Oberlandesgericht] Frankfurt am Main, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html; Germany 13 June 1991 Provincial Court of Appeal [Oberlandesgericht] Frankfurt am Main, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/910613g1.html>.

9. See Germany 26 September 1990 District Court [Landgericht] Hamburg, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900926g1.html>; Germany 24 April 1990 Petty District Court [Amtsgericht] Oldenburg in Holstein, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900424g1.html>.

10. See, e.g., Germany 14 January 1994 Provincial Court of Appeal [Oberlandesgericht] Düsseldorf, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940114g1.html>; Germany 17 September 1993 Provincial Court of Appeal [Oberlandesgericht] Koblenz, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930917g1.html>; ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1992, award No. 7197, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927197i1.html>. See also, e.g., Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 311; Rolf Herber and Beate Czerwenka, INTERNATIONALES KUAFRECHT 348 (1991); Hans Stoll, Internationalprivatrechtliche Fragen bei der landesrechtlichen Ergänzung des einheitlichen Kaufrechts, in Festschrift für Murad Ferid 495, 509-10 (Andreas Heldrich ed., 1988). But see F.J.A. van der Velden, Het Weense Koopverdrag 1980 en zijn Rechtsmiddelen 405 (1988) who argues that interest is part of damages. According to this view, payment of interest could be exempted on the grounds of impediments.

11. See, Hans H. Eberstein & Klaus Bacher, Annotations 1-36 on Article 78, in COMMENTARY ON THE UN CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS 591 (Peter Schlechtriem, ed., 1998); Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 313. See, e.g., Germany 12 October 2000 District Court [Landgericht] Stendal, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001012g1.html>.

12. See Eberstein & Bacher, supra note 11, at 593. See also Herber & Czerwenka, supra note 10.

13. See, e.g., Switzerland 12 December 2002 District Court [Kantonsgericht] Zug, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021212s1.html>. But see Finland 12 April 2002 Court of Appeal [Hovioikeus] Turku, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020412f5.html>; Germany 19 March 1999 District Court [Landgericht] Zwickau, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990319g1.html>.

14. See, e.g., Barry Nicholas, COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW 570 (Massimo C. Bianca & Michael Joachim Bonell eds., 1987); Peter Schlechtriem, UNIFORM SALES LAW - THE UN CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS [hereinafter Uniform Sales Law] 100 (1986); Leif Sevón, INTERNATIONAL SALES OF GOODS: DUBROVNIK LECTURES 230 (Petar Sarcevic & Paul Volken eds., 1986); Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 312; Herber & Czerwenka, supra note 10, at 349; Martin Karollus, Judicial Interpretation and Application of the CISG in Germany 1988-1994, Cornell Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 51-94, (1995); Leif Sevón, Obligations of the Buyer under the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods, 106 Jurisdisk Tidskrift 341 (1990). As to case law, see, e.g., Germany 28 February 2000 Provincial Court of Appeal [Oberalandesgericht] Stuttgart, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000228g1.html>.

15. 5 See EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations of June 19, 1980, 1980 O.J. (L 266). See Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law, supra note 14, at 99; Volker Behr, The Sales Convention in Europe: From Problems in Drafting to Problems in Practice, 17 Journal of Law and Commerce 296, 263-299 (1998). Note, however, that the Hague Convention of June 15, 1955, on the law applicable to the international sales of goods, may come into play when the forum is located within a contracting state of the Hague Convention. See Carolina Saf, A Study of the Interplay between the Conventions Governing International Contracts of Sale, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/saf.html>; Franco Ferrari, Uniform Application and Interest Rates Under the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention, 24 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 467 (1995).

16. See, e.g., Germany 13 April 2000 Petty District Court [Amtsgericht] Duisburg, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413g1.html>; Switzerland 9 December 1994 District Court [Bezirksgericht] Arbon, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941209s1.html>.

17. See Switzerland 11 March 1996 Canton Appellate Court [Tribunal Cantonal] Vaud, 163/96/BA and 164/96/BA, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960311s1.html>.

18. See Stoll, supra note 10.

19. See, e.g., Switzerland 5 November 2002 Commercial Court [Handelsgericht] Aargau, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021105s1.html>.

20. See, e.g., Switzerland 5 February 1997 Commercial Court [Handelsgericht] Zürich, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970205s1.html>; Netherlands 9 August 1995 District Court [Arrondissementsrechtbank] Almelo, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950809n1.html>.

21. See, e.g., ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1988, award No. 9333, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/989333i1.html>; France 6 April 1995 Appeal Court [Cour d'appel] Paris, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950406f1.html>. See also Austria 15 June 1994 Arbitral Tribunal [Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammmer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft] Vienna, SCH-4366, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>; Austria 15 June 1994 Arbitral Tribunal [Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammmer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft] Vienna, SCH-4318, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a4.html>, which expressly mentions the UNIDROIT Principles.

22. See Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law, supra note 14 at 100. See also Joseph M. Lookofsky, The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, in International Encyclopedia of Laws 1, 128 (Blanpain gen. ed., 1993). Contra, see e.g., Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 312.

23. Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 312; Franco Ferrari, Specific Topics of the CISG in the light of Judicial and Scholarly Writing, 15 J.L. & Com. 1, 125 (1995); Jelena Vilus, INTERNATIONAL SALES OF GOODS: DUBROVNIK LECTURES 252 (Petar Sarcevic & Paul Volken eds., 1986);. As to case law mentioning the issue see Austria 15 June 1994 Arbitral Tribunal [Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammmer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft] Vienna, SCH-4366, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>; Austria 15 June 1994 Arbitral Tribunal [Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammmer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft] Vienna, SCH-4318, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a4.html>.

24. For example, there is no language on the interest issue that recognizes and/or tries to compromise the differences among different legal systems similar to the provisions set forth by CISG Article 28, according to which, where under domestic law in a similar case specific performance would not be granted, a court is allowed not to grant specific performance.

25. See Eberstein & Bacher, supra note 11, at 599; Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 315. But see John O. Honnold, UNIFORM LAW FOR INTERNATIONAL SALES UNDER THE 1980 INTERNATIONAL SALE LAW 469 (1999). See also ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1997, award No. 8864, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/978644i1.html>: "Compound interest is not awarded. Art. 78 CISG does not provide a sufficient basis for such a claim, at least not under the circumstances of the present case. Compound interest is not customary in international trade and thus a claim for compound interest could only be derived from Art. 78 CISG if this Article clearly provided for it. This is not the case." Similarly, see ICC International Court of Arbitration 1988, award No. 8908, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/988908i1.html>. On the compound interest issue, see also John Yukio Gotanda, Compound Interest in International Disputes, Oxford University Comparative Law Forum 2 available at <http://ouclf.iuscomp.org/articles/gotanda.shtml>.

26. See Nicholas, supra note 14, at 571.

27. See ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1992, award No. 7585, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927585i1.html> where the Court states: "Article 78 .. . provides that the creditor is entitled to interest 'without prejudice to any claim for damages.' The purpose of this provision is to make a distinction between interest and damages and to give compensation for the financial loss due to the mere fact that delay in payment has a financial cost"; see also Italy 29 December 1999 District Court [Tribunale] Pavia, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>.

28. Id. But see ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1997, award No. 8864, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/978644i1.html>.

29. Behr, supra note 15, at 296.

30. Id.

31. See Nicholas, supra note 14 at 570; Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law, supra note 14, at 100.

32. See, e.g., Germany 14 January 1994 Provincial Court of Appeal [Oberlandesgericht] Düsseldorf, Germany, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940114g1.html>; ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1997, award No. 8962, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/978962i1.html>; Belgium 17 June 1998 District Court [Rechtbank van Koophandel] Hasselt, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980617b1.html>; Switzerland 28 October 1998 Supreme Court [Schweizerisches Bundesgericht], available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981028s1.html>.

33. See, e.g., Germany 9 May 2000 District Court [Landgericht] Darmstadt, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000509g1.html>.

34. See PECL Article 9:508 available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/textef.html#a9508>.

35. 5 See PECL Article 7:102 available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/textef.html#a7102>.

36. See PECL Article 8:108 available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/textef.html#a8108>.

37. See PECL Article 7:108 available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/textef.html#a7108> for the definition of "Currency of Payment" under the PECL.

38. See PECL Article 7:101 available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/textef.html#a7101> for the definition of "Place of Performance" under the PECL.

39. See ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1993, award No. 6653, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/936653i1.html>.

40. See Official Records of the United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, March 10 - April 11, 1980 (United Nations publications, Sales No. E.81.IV.3), pp. 137-138. See Eberstein & Bacher, supra note 11, at 596, stating "[i]f the Conference was unable to solve that task [determining an uniform interest rate], any solutions proposed by legal writers and courts will need to be treated with particular caution [emphasis added]." See Eberstein & Bacher, supra note 11 at 596; Behr, supra note 15, at 290.

41. The delegations rejected the proposal seeking to exclude any rule on interest because they believed that it would leave the question totally governed by the applicable domestic law, including the question whether damages include interest, which was one of the major differences among the delegations. The drafters, therefore, not being able to reach any agreement, were perfectly aware that the matter would be regulated under the applicable domestic law, with one limitation to its application: interest is not a type of damages and may be awarded in addition to any damages due under Article 78.

42. See Christian Thiele, Interest on Damages and Rate of Interest Under Article 78 of the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 2 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 3-35 (1998). "The goal of the delegations that believed that a special interest provision was necessary was precisely to prevent interest from being considered as damages and thereby to maintain the obligation to pay interest in the case of exemptions under Article 79."Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law, supra note 14, at 99. By no means, therefore, one should draw the further conclusion that the drafters wanted to have the Convention also governing the matter of the method of calculating the interest rate. Again, through the limited wording of Article 78, the delegations, being aware that no agreement, even on the general principles, was reachable, merely wanted to make clear that the aggrieved party does have a right to interest, which is owed regardless of any damage claim. See Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings, 11th Plenary Meeting, April 10, 1980, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/firstcommittee/Meeting37.html>.

43. Michael Joachim Bonell, COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW 74 (Massimo C. Bianca & Michael Joachim Bonell eds., 1987).

44. See, e.g., Italy 31 March 2004 District Court [Tribunale] Padova, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html>.

45. 5 Franco Ferrari, Tasso degli interessi ed applicazione uniforme della Convenzione di Vienna sui contratti di vendita internazionale, Rivista di Diritto Civile II 277 (1995). See also Germany 12 May 1995 Petty District Court [Amtsgericht] Alsfeld, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950512g1.html>.

46. See Italy 31 March 2004 District Court [Tribunale] Padova, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040331i3.html> citing other several cases holding same.

47. Id.

48. Switzerland September 9 1993 Commercial Court [Handelsgericht] Zürich, HG 930138, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930909s1.html>.

49. See Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law, Guide to CISG Article 78 & 84(1), Comment and Notes on PECL 9:508 available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/peclcomp78.html>

50. See Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law, Guide to CISG Article 84, for a record of the legislative history of CISG Article 84, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/e-text-84.html#leg>.

51. See Hans G. Leser, Annotations 1-28 on Article 84, in COMMENTARY ON THE UN CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS 654, 659 (Peter Schlechtriem ed., 1998); Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 314, according to whom "[t]he same rule should apply to the refunding of reduced price under Article 50." See ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1999, award No. 9978, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/999978i1.html>; Germany 29 December 1998 Arbitral Tribunal [Schiedsgericht Hamburger Freundschaftliche Arbitrage] Hamburg, December 29, 1998, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981229g1.html>.

52. See Leser, supra note 51, at 657 stating "[t]he inclusion of interest within the scope of restitution ... emphasizes the independent nature of restitution when compared with damages [footnote omitted]. Interest due under Article 84(1) should not be regarded as damages but as equalization of benefits, as the legislative history makes clear. [footnote omitted]." Further Leser adds "[i]t follows from the independent nature of the right to interest under Article 84(1) that the seller cannot claim exemption under Article 79 in respect of that interest [footnote omitted] as may also be inferred from Article 79(5) and the fact that entitlement to interest under article 78 is stated to be without prejudice to claims for damages. [footnote omitted]." Id. at 658.

53. Id. at 655 - 656. See also Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 348, note1; Schlechtriem, Uniform Sales Law, supra note 14, at 100.

54. See Leser, supra note 51, at 656.

55. 5 ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1993, award No. 6653, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/936653i1.html>: Interest is due regardless of any formal request.

56. See Commentary on the Draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, prepared by the Secretariat, U.N. Document A/CONF.97/5, Article 69 (draft counterpart of CISG Article 84), available at Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law, Guide to CISG Article 84 <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/secomm/secomm-84.html> [hereinafter Secretariat Commentary]. See also Leser, supra note 51; Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4 at 349.

57. See Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 349. See also ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1993, award No. 6653, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/936653i1.html> But see Italy 24 November 1989 Court of First Instance [Pretura] Parma, sez. di Fidenza, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/891124i3.html>. In this case the court, contrary to what is provided by article 84(1), held that interest was payable from the date of avoidance of the contract.

58. See Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 349.

59. See also Leser, supra note 51, at 659 note 45a; Enderlein & Maskow, supra note 4, at 349. See Switzerland 5 February 1997 Commercial Court [Handelsgericht des Kantons] Zürich, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970205s1.html>. However, this approach is considered to be "debatable", see Denis Tallon, COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW 612 (Massimo C. Bianca & Michael Joachim Bonell eds., 1987), stating "[t]he determination of the applicable rate is, in effect, much more complex"; Honnold, supra note 25.

60. Among them, see, e.g., ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1993, award No.  6653, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/936653i1.html>: "[I]t appears logical to retain a percentage currently applied between merchants and that conforms with the currency in which the settlement was made and in which the payment must be made. This solution, which is in the eyes of the Arbitral Tribunal the most logical one from the economic point of view, leads to retaining the percentage that operators of international commerce apply to settlements made in Eurodollar, i.e., the one-year percentage of LIBOR (London Inter-Bank Offered Rate), published every day in the Wall Street Journal". But see France 6 April 1995 Appeal Court [Cour d'appel] Paris, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950406f1.html>: The French appellate court reversed that part of that arbitral award "requiring the seller to pay interest at the LIBOR rate, on the grounds that the Convention is silent on the way in which the rate of interest is be determined, and that the decision to apply the LIBOR rate had been taken by the arbitrators without the parties being given the possibility to make their defense on that point, whereas the international trade usage invoked by the buyer does not provide rules to determine the applicable rate"; Germany 22 August 2002 District Court [Landgericht] Freiburg, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020822g1.html>: "The claim for interest on the purchase price is justified under Art. 84(1) CISG; the claim for interest on damages is justified under Art. 78 CISG. As the CISG does not provide for an interest rate, it is appropriate to rely on § 288 I 2 BGB because this is the rule more favorable to the seller in comparison to corresponding regulations in Italian law, which grant higher interest rates"; ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1992, award No. 7585, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927585i1.html>: Pursuant to the law of the currency to be used.

61. See Switzerland 15 January 1998 Appeal Court [Tribunale d'Appello] Lugano, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980115s1.html>. See, e.g., Spain 12 February 2002 Appeal Court [Audiencia Provincial] Barcelona, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020212s4.html>; ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1999, award No. 9978, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/999978i1.html>; Germany 24 May 1995 Provincial Court of Appeal [Oberlandesgericht] Celle, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950524g1.html>. Germany 18 January 1994 Provincial Court of Appeal [Oberlandesgericht] Frankfurt am Main, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>

62. See Germany 5 April 1995 District Court [Landgericht] Landshut, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950405g1.html>: "The rate of interest is not regulated by Art. 84 CISG. Also, in Art. 78 CISG no mention is made of the rate of interest. According to the prevailing opinion, the rate of interest within the scope of Art. 78 CISG is governed by the applicable national law, which is determined by the rules of private international law. This notion is also applicable to Art. 84 CISG."

63. See Germany 18 January 1994 Provincial Court of Appeal [Oberlandesgericht] Frankfurt am Main, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940118g1.html>: "In this case ... the court has to decide according to the prevailing legal opinion. Since the amount of interest intentionally is not prescribed in the Convention, the answer can only be taken from the rules of international private law. Absent any point of reference, no principle can be derived from the Convention such as saying that the domicile of the debtor would be decisive"; France 6 April 1995 Appeal Court [Cour d'appel] Paris, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950406f1.html>; ICC International Court of Arbitration, 1994, award No. 7660, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/947660i1.html>.


Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated September 15, 2009
Go to Database Directory || Go to Information on other available case data
Comments/Contributions