UNCITRAL Digest of Article 4 case law

DIGEST OF ARTICLE 4 CASE LAW

1. The first sentence of Article 4 lists the matters in respect of which the Convention’s provisions prevail over those of domestic law, i.e. the formation of contract and the rights and obligations of the parties,[1] while the second sentence contains a non-exhaustive list of issues with which it is not concerned, namely the validity of the contract or of any of its provisions or of any usage as well as the effect which the contract may have on the property in the goods sold. The issues referred to in the second part of article 4 were not dealt with in the Convention as this would have delayed the conclusion of the Convention.[2]

2. Matters not governed by the Convention have to be settled either in conformity of the applicable set of uniform rules [3] or the applicable domestic law.[4]

Issues dealt with by the Convention

3. As far as the formation of contract is concerned, the Convention merely governs the issue of the objective requirements for the conclusion of the contract.[5] The issue of whether a contract is validly formed, on the contrary, is subject to the applicable national rules, except for those issues in respect of which the Convention provides exhaustive rules.[6] Thus, issues such as capacity to contract [7] and the consequences of mistake, duress and fraud are left the applicable domestic law.[8] Where, however, one party errs in respect of the qualities of the goods to be delivered or the solvency of the other party, the rules of the applicable law give way to those of the Convention, since the Convention exhaustively deals with those issues.

4. Although article 4 does not list the issue of burden of proof as one with which the Convention is concerned, some courts [9] (albeit not all [10]) have concluded that the Convention also governs the issue of burden of proof.[11] This view is based upon the fact that the Convention includes at least one instance, article 79, expressly dealing with the burden of proof.[12] As the issue is therefore governed by the Convention, albeit not expressly settled in it, article 7(2) requires the question to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which the Convention is based.[13] As far as the allocation of the burden of proof is concerned, the following general principles have been identified: the party which wants to derive beneficial legal consequences from a legal provision has to prove the existence of the factual prerequisites of the provision;[14] any party claiming an exception has to prove the factual prerequisites of that exception.[15]

5. These principles have led courts to state that the buyer who asserts the non-conformity of the goods has to prove the non-conformity as well as the existence of a proper notice of non-conformity.[16] Similarly, two courts decided that the buyer had to pay the price and was not entitled to damages or to avoidance of the contract for non-conformity of the goods, since it had not proved the non-conformity of the goods according to Art. 35.[17] In one case, a court decided that the buyer had lost its right to rely upon the non-conformity, since it had not been able to prove to have given timely notice thereof to the seller.[18]

6. In two cases, the aforementioned general principles induced courts to state that under Art. 42, which provides that the seller has to deliver goods which are free from any right or claim of a third party based on industrial property or other intellectual property, of which the seller knew or could not have been unaware, the buyer had the burden of proving that the seller knew or could not have been unaware of the third party industrial or intellectual property rights.[19]

7. These general principles were also the basis for several decisions dealing with the issue of damages. In this respect, one court stated that "according to the Convention the damaged buyer has the burden of proving the objective prerequisites of his claim for damages. Thus, he has to prove the damage, the causal link between the breach of contract and the damage as well as the foreseeability of the loss".[20] In other cases, it was stated more generally that the party claiming damages has to prove the damage suffered.[21]

Validity of the contract and of usages

8. Although the Convention generally leaves issues concerning the validity of the contract to the applicable national law,[22] in one respect the Convention provides rules which may contradict those on validity of the applicable national law.[23] Article 11 provides that a contract for the international sale of goods need not be concluded in or evidenced by writing and is not subject to any other requirement of form, while in some legal systems the form requirement for a contract for the sale of goods is considered to be an issue of validity of the contract.

9. The issue of whether a contract was validly concluded by a third person acting on behalf of one of the parties is an issue left to the applicable national law, since agency is not governed by the Convention.[24] The same is true for the validity of standard contract terms.[25]

10. The validity of usages -- which is not dealt with by the Convention,[26] but is left to the applicable domestic law [27] -- must be distinguished from the issue of how usages are to be defined, under which circumstances they are binding for the parties and what their relationship is with the rules set forth in the Convention; these issues are dealt with in article 9.[28]

Effect on the property of the goods sold

11. The Convention makes clear that it does not govern the passing of property of the goods sold.[29] During the drafting process, it was not regarded possible to unify the rule on this point.[30] Thus, the effects on the property of the goods sold are left to the applicable national law to be determined by the rules of private international law of the forum.

12. The Convention does not deal with the validity of a retention of title clause either.[31]

Other issues not dealt with by the Convention

13. The Convention itself expressly lists a few examples of the issues it is not concerned with.[32] There are many other issues not dealt with by the Convention. The following issues have been identified by Courts as not being dealt with by the Convention: the validity of a choice of forum clause,[33] the validity of a penalty clause,[34] the validity of a settlement agreement,[35] the assignment of receivables,[36] the assignment of contract,[37] set-off [38] - (at least where the receivables do not all arise from contracts governed by the Convention) - [39], the statute of limitations,[40] the issue of whether a court has jurisdiction [41] and, generally, any other issue of procedural law,[42] the assumption of debts,[43] the acknowledgement of debts,[44] the effects of the contract on third parties [45] as well as the issue of whether one is jointly liable.[46] According to some courts, the Convention does not deal with tort claims.[47]

14. One court has found that estoppel is not dealt with by the Convention,[48] however other courts have concluded that estoppel should be regarded as a general principle of the Convention.[49] Furthermore, one court ruled that the question of who had priority rights in the goods as between the seller and the third party creditor was, under CISG article 4, beyond the scope of the Convention and was governed instead by applicable national law, under which the third party creditor prevailed.[50]

15. According to some courts, the issue of the currency of payments is not dealt with by the Convention and, in the absence of a choice by the parties, [51] is left to the applicable domestic law.[52] According to one court, the issue of the currency of payment is, absent an agreement of the parties, to be determined by resorting to the currency of the place of payment to be determined on the basis of article 57.[53]

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. 241 [FRANCE Cour de Cassation [Supreme Court] 5 January 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990105f1.html>].

2. See Report of the Working Group on the International Sale of Goods on the work of its ninth session (Geneva, 19-30 September 1977)(A/CN.9/142), reproduced in the UNCITRAL Yearbook, 1978, at p. 65, paras. 48-51, 66, 69.

3. See CLOUT case No. 202 [FRANCE Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] 13 September 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950913f1.html>], stating that the assignment of receivables is not governed by the Convention and applying the 1988 UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring as the assignment fell under its sphere of application (see full text of the decision).

4. See CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 9 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930909s1.html>].

5. See CLOUT case No. 95 [SWITZERLAND Zivilgericht [Civil Court] Basel 21 December 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/921221s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

6. See CLOUT case No. 47 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 14 May 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930514g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

7. See [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 22 October 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011022a3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 5 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Hamburg 26 September 1990, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900926g1.html>].

8. See [SWITZERLAND Zürich Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Award [ZHK 273/1995] 31 May 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960531s1.html>].

9. See CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 29 December 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 331 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 10 February 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990210s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 196 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 26 April 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 9 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930909s1.html>].

10. See CLOUT case No. 261 [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht [District Court] Sanne 20 February 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970220s1.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>].

11. For a decision which refers to the issue of burden of proof without resolving the matter, see CLOUT case No. 253 [SWITZERLAND Tribunale d'appello [Appellate Court] Lugano 15 January 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980115s1.html>].

12. For this line of argument, see [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] 9 January 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020109g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 29 December 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>].

13. See CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 9 September 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930909s1.html>].

14. For reference to this principle, see CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigegano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Frankfurt 6 July 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940706g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 107 [AUSTRIA Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Innsbruck 1 July 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940701a3.html>]; [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Rimini 26 November 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>].

15. [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Rimini 26 November 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021126i3.html>].

16. See CLOUT case No. 251 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 30 November 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981130s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 196 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 26 April 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

17. See [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Düsseldorf 25 August 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940825g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 107 [AUSTRIA Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Innsbruck 1 July 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940701a3.html>].

18. See [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] 21 January 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970121b1.html>].

19. See [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Zwolle 1 March 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950301n1.html>] ; [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] Arnhem 21 May 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960521n1.html>].

20. CLOUT case No. 196 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 26 April 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); for another case dealing with the issues of damages and burden of proof, see CLOUT case No. 214 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 5 February 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970205s1.html>], stating that a buyer is generally entitled to interest on the loss of profit, but that in the case at hand the buyer lost his right to interest as he did not prove the time in which the profit would have been made (see full text of the decision).

21. See CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Pavia 29 December 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991229i3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 210 [SPAIN Audienca Provincial [Appellate Court] Barcelona 20 June 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970620s4.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] 25 August 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940825g1.html>].

22. See [UNITED STATES Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs, Inc., Federal District Court [Southern Dist. New York] 10 May 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html>]; [UNITED STATES Asante Technologies, Inc. v. PMC-Sierra, Inc., Federal District Court [Northern Dist. California] 27 July 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010727u1.html>]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7 September 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000907a3.html>]; [BELGIUM Hof van Bereop [Appellate Court] Antwerpen 18 June 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960618b1.html>].

23. See United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 10 March - 11 April 1980, Official Records, Documents of the Conference and Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Main Committee, 1981, 17.

24. See CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 333 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau 11 June 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990611s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Berlin 24 March 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980324g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 251 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] 30 November 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981130s1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 189 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 20 March 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970320a3.html>] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Tribunale d'appello [Appellate Court] Lugano 12 February 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960212s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 334 [SWITZERLAND Obergericht [Appellate Court] Thurgau 19 December 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951219s1.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).

25. See [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7 September 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000907a3.html>]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Zutphen 29 May 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970529n1.html>] ; [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Nordhorn 14 June 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940614g1.html>].

26. See [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 21 March 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000321a3.html>].

27. Id.

28. See CLOUT case No. 240 [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 15 October 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981015a3.html>].

29. See also [UNITED STATES Usinor Industeel v. Leeco Steel Products, Inc., Federal District Court [Northern Dist. Illinois] 28 March 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020328u1.html>].

30. See United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 10 March - 11 April 1980, Official Records, Documents of the Conference and Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Main Committee, 1981,17.

31. See CLOUT case No. 308 [AUSTRALIA Roder v. Rosedown, Federal District Court [Adelaide] 28 April 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950428a2.html>]; CLOUT case No. 226 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz 16 January 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920116g1.html>].

32. In addition to the issues listed in art. 4, art. 5 provides that "the Convention does not apply to the liability of the seller for death or personal injury caused by the goods to any person." See Digest art. 5.

33. See [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de los Apelaciones en lo Comercial [Appellate Court] 14 October 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/931014a1.html>].

34. See [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt 17 June 1998. available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980617b1.html>]; [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep [Appellate Court] Antwerpen 18 June 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960618b1.html>]; [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof [Appellate Court] Arnhem 22 August 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950822n1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 105 [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 7197 of 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927197i1.html>].

35. See CLOUT case No. 47 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 14 May 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930514g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

36. See [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7 September 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000907a3.html>]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtsof [Supreme Court] 25 June 1998. available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980625a3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 269 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] 12 February 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980212g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 334 [SWITZERLAND Obergericht [Appellate Court] Thurgau 19 December 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951219s1.html>]; [BELGIUM Tribunal de commerce [District Court] Nivelles 19 September 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950919b1.html>] ; CLOUT case No. 132 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 8 February 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950208g3.html>]; [SWITZERLAND Beziksgericht [District Court] Arbon 9 December 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941209s1.html>].

37. See CLOUT case No. 124 [GERMANY Bundesgerichshof [Federal Supreme Court] 15 February 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950215g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

38. See [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 22 October 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011022a3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Duisburg 13 April 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 232 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 11 March 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980311g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 259 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht [District Court] Freiburg 23 January 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980123g1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Hagen 15 October 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971015g1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] München 6 May 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970506g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 273 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München, case No. 2070/97, 9 July 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970709g1.html>] (see full text of the decision; CLOUT case No. 275 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf 11 July 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960711g1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Duisburg 17 April 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960417g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 289 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Stuttgart 21 August 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950821g1.html>]; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] München 20 March 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950320g1.html>]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Middelburg 25 January 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950125n1.html>]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Mayen 6 September 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940906g1.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. 125 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 9 June 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950609g1.html>]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Roermond 6 May 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930506n1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 99 [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank [District Court] Arnhem 25 February 1993, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930225n1.html>].

39. For the application of the Convention to set-off in respect of receivables arising out of contracts governed by the Convention, see [GERMANY Amtsgericht [Lower Court] Duisburg 13 April 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000413g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 273 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 9 July 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970709g1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

40. See [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Ieper 29 January 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010129b1.html>]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 7 September 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000907a3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 378 [ITALY Tribunale [District Court] Vigevano 12 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000712i3.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 297 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 21 January 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980121g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 25 June 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980625a3.html>]; CLOUT case No. 345 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Heilbronn 15 September 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970915g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 249 [SWITZERLAND Cour de Justice [Appellate Court] Genève 10 October 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/971010g1.html>] ; [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Düsseldorf 11 October 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/951011g1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 125 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 9 June 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950609g1.html>]; [ICC Court of Arbitration, case No. 7660 of 23 August 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/947660i1.html>].

41. See CLOUT case No. 196 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 26 April 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950426s1.html>].

42. [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht [Supreme Court] 11 July 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000711s1.html>].

43. See [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 24 April 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970424a3.html>].

44. See CLOUT case No. 338 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Hamm 23 June 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980623g1.html>].

45. See [UNITED STATES Usinor Industeel v. Leeco Steel Products, Inc., Federal District Court [Northern Dist. Illinois] 28 March 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020328u1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 269 [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court] 12 February 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980212g1.html>].

46. See [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] München 25 January 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960125g1.html>].

47. [UNITED STATES Geneval Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., Federal District Court [Southern Dist. New York] 10 May 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020510u1.html>] ; CLOUT case No. 420 [UNITED STATES Viva Vino v. Farnese Vini, Federal District Court [Eastern Dist. Pennsylvania] 29 August 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000829u1.html>].

48. [NETHERLANDS Rechtsbank [District Court] Amsterdam 5 October 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/941005n1.html>].

49. See CLOUT case No. 230 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Karlsruhe 25 June 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970625g1.html>] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 94 [AUSTRIA Vienna Arbitration Award No. SCH-4318, 15 June 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a4.html>] ; CLOUT case No. 93 [AUSTRIA Vienna Arbitration Award No SCH-4366, 15 June 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940615a3.html>] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Grechtshof [Appellate Court] s'Hertogenbosch 26 February 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/920226n1.html>].

50. [UNITED STATES Usinor Industeel v. Leeco Steel Products, Inc., Federal District Court [Northern Dist. Illinois] 28 March 2002, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020328u1.html>].

51. For a case expressly referring to the fact that the parties are free to choose the currency, since the Convention does not deal with the issue, see CLOUT case No. 84 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 20 April 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940420g1.html>]

52. See [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 22 October 2001, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/011022a3.html>] ; CLOUT case No. 255 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal [Appellate Court] Valais 30 June 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980630s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 251 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Zürich 30 November 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981130s1.html>] (see full text of the decision).

53. CLOUT case No. 80 [GERMANY Kammergericht [Appellate Court] Berlin 24 January 1994, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940124g1.html>]; see, however, [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] 24 March 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980324g1.html>], expressly stating that only a minority view holds that the Convention deals with the issue by resorting implicitly, i.e. by referring to the currency of the place of payment of the price.