| See also: | UNCITRAL Digest cases plus added cases Above plus annotations and added material |
The UNCITRAL Digest of case law on the United
Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods [*]
A/CN.9/SER.C/DIGEST/CISG/15 [8 June 2004]
Reproduced with the permission of UNCITRAL
| ARTICLE 15
(1) An offer becomes effective when it reaches the offeree. (2) An offer, even if it is irrevocable, may be withdrawn if the withdrawal reaches the offeree before or at the same time as the offer. |
DIGEST OF ARTICLE 15 CASE LAW
1. Paragraph (1) of article 15 provides that an offer becomes effective when it reaches the offeree. Article 24 defines when a revocation “reaches” the offeree. Although paragraph (1) has been cited,[1] no reported decision has interpreted it.
2. Paragraph (2) provides that an offeror may withdraw its offer if the withdrawal reaches the offeree before or at the same time as the offer. After the offer reaches the offeree, the offeror may no longer withdraw the offer but may be entitled to revoke the offer in accordance with article 16. There are no reported cases applying paragraph (2).
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. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München 3 December 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991203g1.html>] (citing arts. 14, 15(1), 18 & 23); CLOUT case No. 308 [AUSTRALIA Roder v. Rosedown [Federal Court] 28 April 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/950428a2.html>] (citing arts. 8, 11, 15(1), 18(1) & 29(1) when holding that parties had concluded contract with a retention of title clause). The following decisions cite article 15 but because they do not involve withdrawal of the offer -- see para. 2 -- the citations effectively refer to paragraph (1) of article 15: CLOUT case No. 318 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Celle 2 September 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980902g1.html>] (citing arts. 14, 15 & 18 when finding that parties had concluded a contract); [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Oldenburg 28 February 1996, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960228g1.html>] (citing arts. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19); CLOUT case No. 291 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Frankfurt 23 May 1995, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/.html>] (citing arts. 14, 15, 18(3), 19(1) & (3)) (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Krefeld 24 November 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/921124g1.html>] (citing arts. 15 & 18).
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated July 21, 2005