Go to Database Directory || See also UNCITRAL Digest Cases + Added Cases
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

2008 UNCITRAL Digest of case law on the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods

Digest of Article 38 case law [reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL] [*]

[Text of article
Overview
Article 38(1) in general
   -    Method of examination
   -    Time period for examination
   -    Latent lack of conformity
Article 38(2)
Article 38(3)]

Article 38

(1) The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances.
(2) If the contract involves carriage of the goods, examination may be deferred until after the goods have arrived at their destination.
(3) If the goods are redirected in transit or redispatched by the buyer without a reasonable opportunity for examination by him and at the time of the conclusion of the contract the seller knew or ought to have known of the possibility of such redirection or redispatch, examination may be deferred until after the goods have arrived at the new destination.

OVERVIEW

1. Article 38 directs a buyer to whom goods have been delivered to examine them or cause them to be examined. Much of the text of article 38 focuses on the time when this examination should take place. Thus article 38(1) specifies the general rule that the examination must occur "within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances." Article 38(2) provides a special rule for cases involving carriage of goods, permitting the examination to be deferred until the goods arrive at their destination. With respect to the relationship between articles 38(1) and 38(2), one court has explained that normally the place of examination is the place where the seller's delivery obligation is performed under article 31 of the Convention, but if the contract involves carriage of the goods the examination may be deferred until the goods reach their destination.[1] Article 38(3) contains another special rule, applicable if the buyer redirects goods while they are in transit or redispatches goods before having a reasonable opportunity to examine them: in such cases, examination may be deferred until after the goods arrive at their new destination, provided the seller was on notice of the possibility of such redirection or redispatch when the contract was concluded.

2. As the Secretariat Commentary relating to article 38 [2] and numerous cases [3] aver, the time when a buyer is required to conduct an examination of the goods under article 38 is intimately connected to the time when the buyer "ought to have discovered" a lack of conformity under article 39 -- an occurrence that starts the clock running on the buyer's obligation to give notice of the non-conformity under the latter provision. The examination obligation imposed by article 38, therefore, can have very serious consequences: if a buyer fails to detect a lack of conformity because it did not conduct a proper and timely examination, and as a result fails to give the notice required by article 39, the buyer will lose remedies -- quite possibly all remedies -- for the lack of conformity.[4]

3. The obligation to examine under article 38 (and to give notice of lack of conformity under article 39) applies not just to non-conformities under CISG article 35, but also to non-conformities under contractual provisions that derogate from article 35.[5] The examination mandated by article 38, furthermore, should ascertain not only that the quality, quantity, capabilities and features of the goods conform to the seller's obligations, but also that the goods are accompanied by documentation required by the contract.[6]

4. According to several opinions, the purpose of the article 38 examination obligation, in conjunction with the notice requirement imposed by article 39, is to make it clear, in an expeditious fashion, whether the seller has properly performed the contract.[7] In this regard, article 38 is similar to rules commonly found in domestic sales law; indeed, article 38 has been applied as a matter of "international trade usage" even though the States of neither the buyer nor the seller had, at the time of the transaction, ratified the Convention [8] Article 38, however, is a provision of international uniform law distinct from similar domestic rules,[9] and is to be interpreted (pursuant to article 7(1)) from an international perspective and with a view to promoting uniformity in its application.[10] It has been asserted that the requirements of article 38 are to be strictly applied.[11]

Article 38(1) in general

5. Article 38(1) mandates that the buyer "examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances." The meaning of the phrase specifying the time within which the examination must be conducted -- "as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances" -- has been addressed in many decisions.[12] The text of article 38(1) does not expressly specify the type or method of examination required, and this issue has also generated substantial comment in the cases.[13]

6. Under article 6 of the Convention, the parties can derogate from or vary the effect of any provision of the CISG. This principle has been applied to article 38, and an agreement concerning the time and/or manner of the examination of goods has been found to supersede the usual rules of article 38.[14] On the other hand, it has been found that contractual provisions addressing the terms and duration of warranties, the buyer's obligation to give notice of defects occurring after delivery, and the buyer's rights if the seller did not cure defects, did not displace the provisions of article 38.[15] Derogation from article 38 can also occur by trade usage,[16] although the express terms of the agreement may negate the applicability of a usage.[17]

7. After the goods have been delivered, the seller may waive its right to object to the propriety of the buyer's examination of the goods,[18] or it may be estopped from asserting such right.[19] On the other side, it has been asserted that a buyer may lose its rights to object to a lack of conformity if the buyer takes actions indicating acceptance of the goods without complaining of defects that it had discovered or should have discovered in its examination.[20]

8. Evidentiary questions can play a crucial role in determining whether a buyer has met its obligations under article 38(1). Several decisions have asserted that the buyer bears the burden of proving that it conducted a proper examination.[21] In determining whether an adequate examination was conducted, furthermore, it has been asserted that a tribunal should consider both "objective" and "subjective" factors, including the buyer's personal and business situation.[22] Some decisions appear in fact to take into account the buyer's subjective circumstances in judging the adequacy of an examination, at least where such considerations suggest a high standard for the examination.[23] Other decisions, however, have refused to consider the buyer's particular situation when it was invoked to argue for a low standard for the examination.[24]

Method of examination

9. By stating that the buyer must either examine the goods or "cause them to be examined," article 38(1) implies that the buyer need not personally carry out the examination. In a number of cases, examinations were (or should have been) conducted by a person or entity other than the buyer, including the buyer's customer,[25] subcontractor,[26] or an expert appointed by the buyer.[27] It has also been held, however, that the buyer bears ultimate responsibility under article 38 for examinations carried out by others.[28]

10. Except for implying that the examination need not be carried out by the buyer personally, article 38(1) is silent about the method the buyer should employ in examining the goods. In general, it has been asserted, the manner of inspection will depend on the parties' agreement, trade usages and practices;[29] in the absence of such indicators, a "reasonable" examination, "thorough and professional", is required, although "costly and expensive examinations are unreasonable."[30] It has also been asserted that the extent and intensity of the examination are determined by the type of goods, packaging and the capabilities of the typical buyer.[31] The issues relating to the method or manner of examination that have been addressed in decisions include: the impact of the buyer's expertise on the level of examination required;[32] whether spot testing or "sampling" is required [33] or adequate [34] the effect of the packaging or shipping condition of the goods on the type of examination the buyer should conduct;[35] whether an outside expert can or must be utilized;[36] and whether the presence or absence of defects in earlier deliveries or transactions should affect the manner of examination.[37]

Time period for examination

11. Article 38(1) states that the buyer must examine the goods "within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances." It has been asserted that the purpose of the article 38(1) deadline for examination is to allow the buyer an opportunity to discover defects before the buyer resells,[38] and to permit prompt clarification of whether the buyer accepts the goods as conforming;[39] the period for examination, however, has been interpreted in a fashion that serves other purposes -- for example, to mandate examination before the condition of the goods so changes that the opportunity to determine if the seller is responsible for a lack of conformity is lost.[40]

12. Except where the contract involves carriage of the goods (a situation governed by article 38(2), discussed below) or where the goods are redirected in transit or redispatched (circumstances addressed in article 38(3), discussed below), the time for the buyer's examination as a rule begins to run upon delivery of the goods [41] -- which in general corresponds to the time risk of loss passes to the buyer.[42] Requiring the buyer to conduct an examination after delivery, therefore, is consistent with article 36(1) of the Convention, which establishes the seller's liability for any lack of conformity existing when the risk passes. Where the lack of conformity is a hidden or latent one not reasonably discoverable in the initial examination, however, decisions have indicated that the period for conducting an examination to ascertain the defect does not begin to run until the defects reveal (or should reveal) themselves. Thus where a buyer alleged a lack of conformity in a grinding device that suffered a complete failure approximately two weeks after being put into service (approximately three weeks after delivery), one court indicated that the period for examining the goods with respect to this defect began to run at the time of the failure.[43]

13. The mandate in article 38(1) to examine the goods "within as short a period as is practicable" has indeed been applied in a strict fashion in several cases.[44] It has also been asserted that the phrase is to be strictly interpreted.[45] In light of the requirement in article 38(1) that the time period for examination must be "practicable in the circumstances," however, decisions have also recognized that the standard is a flexible one, and that the period for examination will vary with the facts of each case.[46] According to one court, the short period for the examination depends on the size of the buyer's company, the type of the goods to be examined, their complexity or perishability or their character as seasonal goods, the amount in question, the efforts necessary for an examination, etc. Furthermore, the objective and subjective circumstances of the concrete case must be considered -- in particular the buyer's personal and business situation, the features of the goods, the quantity of goods delivered, and the chosen legal remedy.[47]

14. As the aforementioned statement indicates, the perishable nature of goods is a factor that tribunals have considered in determining the period for examination.[48] Other factors that the decisions recognize as relevant include the professionalism and/or expertise of the buyer,[49] the timing and nature of the buyer's expected use or resale of the goods,[50] the buyer's knowledge of the seller's need for speedy notice of lack of conformity,[51] whether the goods had passed a pre-delivery inspection,[52] whether there were non-business days during the period for examination,[53] the complexity of the goods,[54] the difficulty of conducting an examination,[55] whether there were defects in prior deliveries,[56] the fact that the buyer had requested expedited delivery of the goods,[57] and the obviousness (or non-obviousness) of the lack of conformity.[58]

15. Although the flexibility and variability of the period within which the buyer must examine the goods is widely recognized, several decisions have attempted to establish presumptive time periods for the buyer's examination. Thus some opinions have asserted that the general base-line period for examination (which might be lengthened or shortened by particular circumstances) is one week after delivery.[59] Other decisions have set presumptive examination periods ranging from three or four days [60] to a month.[61] Based on the facts of the particular case, examinations have been found timely when they were conducted within approximately two weeks of the first delivery under the contract,[62] within a few days after delivery at the port of destination,[63] and on the day of delivery.[64] An examination by an expert was also deemed timely when it was conducted and completed at an unspecified time following delivery, but where arrangements to have the expert examine the goods were initiated before the goods arrived at their destination.[65] Examinations in the following periods have been found to be untimely in the particular circumstances: four months after the delivery of the second of two engines (20 months after the delivery of the first engine);[66] over two months after delivery, which was almost two months after the buyer had a particular opportunity to examine the goods;[67] seven weeks after delivery;[68] more than 10 days following delivery;[69] beyond one week to 10 days after delivery;[70] beyond one week following delivery;[71] more than a few days after delivery;[72] after three or four days following delivery;[73] beyond three days after delivery;[74] after the day of arrival at the port of destination;[75] any time later than immediately following delivery.[76]

Latent lack of conformity

16. The issue of the buyer's obligation to examine the goods for a hidden or latent lack of conformity not discernible during an initial inspection [77] is an important one: article 39(1) of the Convention requires the buyer to give notice of a lack of conformity within a reasonable time after [the buyer] discovered or ought to have discovered it (emphasis added). Tribunals have adopted different approaches to examination for latent defects, apparently varying with the view taken of the nature of the examination required by article 38. Some decisions appear to conceive of the article 38 examination as an ongoing or repeated process involving a continuous search for all non-conformities, including latent ones. Such decisions seem to treat the question of when the buyer ought to have found any defect, including a latent one not discoverable in an initial examination, as an issue governed by article 38, on the apparent assumption that article 38 requires the buyer to continue examining the goods until all defects are revealed. Thus some decisions indicate that the period for an article 38 examination for latent defects does not begin to run until such defects should reveal themselves [78] whereas the period for examination of obvious defects begins to run immediately upon delivery.[79] These opinions apparently contemplate multiple or continuous examinations under article 38. Other decisions appear to conceive of the examination required by article 38 as a single discrete event to occur shortly after delivery. For tribunals adopting this approach, the question of when latent defects should be discovered if they are not reasonably discernible in the initial article 38 examination is an issue beyond the scope of article 38.[80]

17. Illustrating this approach, one decision has emphasized that the article 38 examination occurs upon delivery of the goods, and failure to discern a lack of conformity that was not discoverable at the time does not violate article 38.[81]

Article 38(2)

18. As was noted previously, under article 38(1) the period for the buyer to examine the goods as a rule begins to run upon delivery of the goods.[82] Where such delivery is to occur, in turn, is governed by the sales contract or, in the absence of a contractual provision addressing this question, by the default rules stated in article 31.[83] In many transactions in which the goods will be delivered to the buyer by means of a third-party carrier, the place of delivery will be where the seller hands over the goods to the carrier for transportation.[84] In such cases, it will often not be convenient or even possible for the buyer to examine the goods at the point of delivery, and thus in fairness the period for examination should not begin running at that point. For this reason, in transactions involving "carriage of goods" (i.e., transportation by third-party carrier), article 38(2) permits the buyer to defer the examination until after the goods have arrived at their destination. This rule has been applied in several cases. In one transaction involving goods to be transported from Tallinn, Estonia to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, the court found that the buyer could postpone examination until the goods arrived at Abu Dhabi even though the contract provided for delivery FOB Tallinn.[85] On the other hand, article 38(2) is subject to the contrary agreement of the parties.[86] Thus where a contract between a seller and a buyer provided that the goods were to be delivered free on refrigerated truck Turkish loading berth (Torbali) and from there to be shipped to the buyer's country by carrier, the court found that the parties agreement had excluded article 38(2) and the buyer was required to conduct the article 38 examination in Turkey rather than at the place of arrival, because the contract contemplated that a representative of the buyer would inspect the goods at the Turkish loading dock and the buyer was responsible for making arrangements for transporting the goods to its country.[87]

Article 38(3)

19. Article 38(3) permits a buyer in certain circumstances to defer examination of the goods until after the time that the period for examination would otherwise have commenced.[88] Specifically, where the goods are "redirected in transit" or "redispatched by the buyer without a reasonable opportunity for examination by him,"[89] article 38(3) permits examination to be deferred "until after the goods have arrived at the new destination," provided the seller "knew or ought to have known of the possibility of such redirection or redispatch" when the contract was concluded. Under this provision, an examination of a delivery of rare hard woods that the buyer (with the seller's knowledge) redispatched to the buyer's customer could be deferred until the goods arrived at the customers facilities.[90] Several decisions, however, have strictly construed the requirements for article 38(3) to apply. Thus it has been stated that the provision only applies if the goods are delivered directly from the seller to the end customer or if the buyer acts simply as an intermediary between the seller and the end customer, and the provision was held inapplicable where the buyer received and stored the goods in its own warehouse without knowing in advance whether and when they would be resold.[91] It has also been stated that article 38(3) allows a deferred examination only if all (rather than just a part) of a delivery of goods is redispatched, or redirected in transit, and then only if the buyer does not have a reasonable opportunity to examine the delivery.[92]


NOTES

* This presentation of the UNCITRAL Digest is a slightly modified version of the original UNCITRAL text at <http://www.UNCITRAL.org/pdf/english/clout/CISG_second_edition.pdf>. The following modifications were made by the Institute of International Commercial Law of the Pace University School of Law:

   -    To enhance access to contents by computer search engines, we present in html rather than pdf;
 
   -    To facilitate direct focus on aspects of the Digests of most immediate interest, we inserted linked tables of contents at the outset of most presentations;
 
   -    To support UNCITRAL's recommendation to read more on the cases reported in the Digests, we provide mouse-click access to (i) CLOUT abstracts published by UNCITRAL (and to UNILEX case abstracts and other case abstracts); and also (ii) to full-text English translations of cases with links to original texts of cases, where available, in [bracketed citations] that we have added to UNCITRAL's footnotes; and
 
   -    To enable researchers to themselves keep the case citations provided in the Digests constantly current, we have created a series of tandem documents, UNCITRAL Digest Cases + Added Cases. The new cases and other cases that are cited in these updates are coded in accordance with UNCITRAL's Thesaurus.

In addition, this presentation introduces each section of the UNCITRAL Digest with a Google search button. This is to help you access doctrine (relevant material from the over 1,200 commentaries, monographs and books on the CISG and related subjects that we present on this database) as well as the texts of the cases that UNCITRAL cites in its Digests and that we present in our updates to UNCITRAL's Digests.

1. [GERMANY Landgericht Landshut 5 April 1995 (Sport clothing case)].

2. Secretariat Commentary to draft counterpart to final Article 38, p. 34, para. 2.

3. E.g., [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 8 March 1995 (New Zealand mussels case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Sheets of vulcanized rubber used in manufacture of shoe soles case)]; [ICC International Court of Arbitration, Award 8247 of June 1996 (Chemical compound case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 8 January 1993 (Tinned cucumbers case)].

4. See, e.g., [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 21 March 2003 (Fabrics case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 31 August 1989 (Shoes case)]; [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 20 February 1998 (Floor tiles case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Köln 30 November 1999 (Facade stones case)]; [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno Campagna 27 April 1992 (Furniture case)] (see full text of the decision). For further information concerning the effect of failure to give timely notice, see the Digests for arts. 39, 40 and 44.

5. [SWEDEN Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, 5 June 1998 (4,000 ton rail press case)].

6. [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof Arnhem 17 June 1997 (Gas compressors case)].

7. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 August 1997 (Aluminium hydroxide case)] (see full text of the decision). The buyer's obligation to examine goods under Article 38 has also been linked to the principle of good faith in the performance of international sales contracts. [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997 (Fish case)].

8. [ICC International Court of Arbitration, Award 5713 of 1989].

9. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 25 June 1997 (Surface protective film case)] (see full text of the decision).

10. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 August 1997 (Aluminium hydroxide case)] (see full text of the decision).

11. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)] (see full text of the decision).

12. See the discussion in paras. 11-14 infra. The time frame specified in article 38(1) is subject to articles 38(2) and 38(3), which state special rules applicable to particular situations. See paras. 1617 infra. See also the discussion of latent defects in para. 15 infra.

13. See the discussion in paras. 910 infra.

14. [AUSTRIA Arbitration-Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft Wien, 15 June 1994 (SCH-4318) (Rolled metal sheets case)] (agreement as to time and manner of examination); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997 (Fish case)].

15. [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 4 December 1996 (Printing system and software case)].

16. [FINLAND Helsinki Court of Appeal 29 January 1998 (Steel plates case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997 (Fish case)], [GERMANY Landgericht Trier 12 October 1995 (Wine case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 3 June 1998 (Flowers case)].

17. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 13 January 1993 (Doors case)].

18. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 14 January 2002 (Cooling system case)] (approving analysis of lower appeals court that held the seller waived its right to object that buyer had not immediately examined the goods when it accepted late notice of lack of conformity and offered a remedy) (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 25 November 1998 (Surface protective film case)] (seller impliedly waived it rights because it had negotiated for a period of 15 months over the amount of damages for non-conforming goods without reserving the right to rely on articles 38 and 39, it had paid for an expert at buyer's request, and it had offered damages amounting to seven times the price of the goods); [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 25 June 1997 (Stainless steel wire case)], (seller waived rights by agreeing to give a credit for goods that the buyer showed were non-conforming). But see [AUSTRIA Arbitration-Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft Wien, 15 June 1994 (SCH-4318) (Rolled metal sheets case)] (seller had not waived its rights under articles 38 and 39 merely by failing to object immediately to the timeliness of buyer's notice; the seller's intention to waive must be clearly established); [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons, Zürich 30 November 1998 (Lambskin coat case)] (the fact that seller, at the buyer's requet, examined goods that the buyer claimed were non-conforming did not mean that seller waived its right to claim late notice of the non-conformity).

19. [AUSTRIA Arbitration-Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft Wien, 15 June 1994 (SCH-4318) (Rolled metal sheets case)] (seller was estopped from asserting its rights under arts. 38 and 39 because (1) it engaged in conduct that the buyer could justifiably interpret as indicating the seller accepted the validity of buyer's complaint of lack of conformity, and (2) buyer relied upon the indication that seller would not raise a defence based on arts. 38 or 39).

20. [GERMANY Landgericht, Darmstadt 9 May 2000 (Video recorders case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 26 March 1996 (Ice-cream parlor furnishings case)]. But see [SWITZERLAND Cantone del Ticino Tribunale d'appello 15 January 1998 (Cocoa beans case)] (acceptance of pre-shipment certificate showing proper quality of cocoa beans, for purposes of drawing on letter of credit, did not deprive the buyer of right to examine goods after delivery and to contest their quality) (see full text of the decision).

21. [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 30 November 1998 (Lambskin coat case)]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 9 September 1993 (Furniture case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Sheets of vulcanized rubber used in manufacture of shoe soles case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]. See also [GERMANY Landgericht Duisburg 17 April 1996 (Textiles case)] (holding in favour of seller because buyer had not produced evidence of timely examination of goods and timely notice of defect).

22. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)].

23. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 11 March 1998 (Cashmere sweaters case)] (because buyer was an experienced merchant, it should have conducted an expert examination and detected defects) (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 31 August 1989 (Shoes case)] (in light of its expertise and the fact that it had found defects in the first delivery, buyer should have conducted a more thorough examination).

24. [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 20 February 1998 (Floor tiles case)], (despite buyer's summer vacation, it should not have delayed examining the goods when its customer complained in July); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 11 September 1998 (Chemical substance case)] (fact that buyer's manufacturing facilities were still under construction and that buyer was disorganized should not be considered in determining whether the buyer conducted a proper examination).

25. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 8 February 1995 (Plastic granules case)] (buyer's customer should have examined goods and discovered defect sooner than it did); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 22 February 1994 (Rare hard wood case)] (examination by buyer's customer, to whom the goods had been transhipped, was timely and proper) (see full text of the decision).

26. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 18 November 1999 (Fiberglass fabrics for filters case)] (third party to whom buyer transferred the goods (fibreglass fabrics) for processing was supposed to conduct the article 38 examination; because buyer unjustifiably delayed transferring the goods to the third party, the examination was late).

27. [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 3 November 1999 (Machine for producing hygenic tissues case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]. See also [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 14 January 2002 (Cooling system case)] (approving approach of lower appeals court which stated that use of experts to examine technically complicated goods may be required) (see full text of the decision).

28. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 8 February 1995 (Plastic granules case)].

29. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]. For discussion of contractual provisions and usages relating to examination, see para. 6 supra.

30. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]. See also [GERMANY Landgericht Paderborn 25 June 1996 (Granulated plastic case)]; (holding that the buyer did not need to conduct special chemical analyses of plastic compound). See also [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 14 January 2002 (Cooling system case)] (see full text of decision approving approach of lower appeals court).

31. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 25 June 1997 (Surface protective film case)] (Surface protective film case)], reversed on other grounds by [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 25 November 1998 (Surface protective film case)].

32. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 11 March 1998 (Cashmere sweaters case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 31 August 1989 (Shoes case)] (see full text of the decision) (in view of his expertise, merchant buyer should have conducted a more thorough and professional examination).

33. [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 21 March 2003 (Fabrics case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 25 June 1997 (Surface protective film case)] (requiring test use of goods for defects that would only become apparent upon use and asserting that random testing is always required), reversed on other grounds by [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 25 November 1998 (Surface protective film case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 11 March 1998 (Cashmere sweaters case)] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Roermond 19 December 1991 (Cheese case)] (buyer required to thaw and examine a portion of shipment of frozen cheese) (see full text of the decision); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 13 January 1993]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 11 September 1998 (Chemical substance case)] (buyer should have conducted a test by processing a sample of delivered plastic using its machinery) (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 30 November 1998 (Lambskin coat case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 31 August 1989 (Shoes case)] (spot checking of delivery of shoes not sufficient where defects had been discovered in an earlier delivery).

34. [GERMANY Landgericht Trier 12 October 1995 (Wine case)] (taking samples of wine for examination the day after delivery was adequate; buyer did not have to examine for dilution with water because that is not generally done in the wine trade); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Jena 26 May 1998 (Live fish case)] (examination of random samples of live fish after delivery would have been sufficient); [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997 (Blood infusion devices case)] (spot checking of wrapped medical devices would be adequate) (see full text of the decision). But see [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997 (Fish case)] (examination of delivery of fish by sample would not be sufficient where the buyer had ready opportunity to examine entire shipment when it was processed and buyer had discovered lack of conformity in another shipment by the seller).

35. [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Roermond 19 December 1991 (Cheese case)] (fact that delivery consisted of frozen cheese did not excuse buyer from obligation to examine: buyer should have thawed and examined a portion of shipment); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 13 January 1993 (Doors case)] (fact that doors had been delivered wrapped in plastic sheets on pallets and buyer contemplated sending them on to its customers did not prevent buyer from examining goods: buyer should have unwrapped a sample of the doors); [BELGIUM Rechtbank van koophandel Kortrijk 6 October 1997 (Crude yarn case)] (not reasonable to expect buyer of yarn to unroll the yarn in order to examine it before processing); [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997 (Blood infusion devices case)] (buyer should have removed a sample of medical devices from shipping boxes and examined them through transparent wrapping) (see full text of the decision).

36. [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 3 November 1999 (Machine for producing hygenic tissues case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Ellwangen 21 August 1995 (Paprika case)].

37. [GERMANY Landgericht Ellwangen 21 August 1995 (Paprika case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 31 August 1989 (Shoes case)] (spot checking of delivery of shoes not sufficient where defects had been discovered in an earlier delivery).

38. [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons, Zürich 30 November 1998 (Lambskin coat case)].

39. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 25 June 1997 (Surface protective film case)] (see full text of the decision).

40. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 August 1997 (Aluminium hydroxide case)] (immediate examination of chemicals required where the chemicals were going to be mixed with other substances soon after delivery); [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997 (Fish case)] (examination was due quickly where shipment of fish was to be processed by the buyer, because the processing would make it impossible to ascertain whether the fish were defective when sold); [NETHERLANDS Rechtsbank 's-Hertogenbosch 15 December 1997 (Furs / mink skins case)] (examination of furs not conducted until they had already undergone processing was not timely).

41. E.g., [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 21 March 2003 (Fabrics case)]; [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 14 January 2002 (Cooling system case)] (approving approach of lower appeals court which stated that examination period begins as soon as the goods are made available to the buyer at the place of delivery) (see full text of the opinion); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 8 January 1993 (Tinned cucumbers case)] (where the contract provided for delivery of cucumbers free on refrigerated truck Turkish loading berth, the German buyer should have examined the goods when they were loaded in Turkey, instead of waiting until they had been forwarded to Germany); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)] (asserting that the period for examining the goods under art. 38 and giving notice under art. 39 begins upon delivery to the buyer); [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Sheets of vulcanized rubber used in manufacture of shoe soles case)] (buyer's time for examining goods begins to run upon delivery or shortly thereafter, except where the defect can only be discovered when the goods are processed); [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno Campagna 27 April 1992 (Furniture case)] (buyer must examine goods upon delivery); [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997 (Fish case)] (examination due at the time of delivery or shortly after). The German Supreme Court has suggested that an article 38 examination of machinery should be conducted both at the time of delivery and at the time of installation; see [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 3 November 1999 (Machine for producing hygenic tissues case)] (see full text of the decision). In a decision involving the sale and installation of sliding gates, one court held that the defects in the gates should have been discovered when installation of the gates was substantially complete, even though some minor work remained unperformed by the seller; see [SWITZERLAND Kanton St. Gallen, Gerichtskommission Oberrheintal 30 June 1995 (Sliding doors case)]. The court did not actually cite article 38 instead, it discussed the article 39(1) obligation to give notice of a lack of conformity within a reasonable time after the non-conformity was discovered or should have been discovered but the decision clearly implies that the time for the buyer's examination of the goods commenced even before seller had completed all its duties. Where elevator cables were delivered on incorrectly-sized reels, a court has held that the buyer should have examined the goods for defects at the time he rewound the cables on proper-sized reels (which occurred eight days after delivery); thus the subsequent discovery of obvious defects in the cables by the buyer's customer was, with respect to the buyer obligations under article 38(1), untimely. [FRANCE Cour d'appel Paris 6 November 2001 (Cables case)].

42. See CISG art. 69.

43. [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 3 November 1999 (Machine for producing hygenic tissues case)] (see full text of the decision). See also [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 14 January 2002 (Cooling system case)] (approving approach of lower appeals court whichheld that defects could not be discovered until the goods were put into provisional operation) (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Sheets of vulcanized rubber used in manufacture of shoe soles case)] ("the time when the buyer is required to examine the goods under Art. 38(1) ... as a rule is upon delivery or shortly thereafter and only exceptionally may be later, for instance when the defect is discoverable only by processing the goods."); [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 20 February 1998 (Floor tiles case)] (implying that the period for examining for latent defects in floor tiles began to run when buyer's customer complained, some seven months after seller delivered the tiles to buyer); [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 23 June 1994 (Engines for hydraulic presses and welding machines case)] (suggesting that period to examine engines for latent defects did not begin until buyer had installed and put goods into operation); [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Kortrijk 27 June 1997 (Yarn / textiles case)] (time for examination of goods and notice of lack of conformity was extended for goods that had to be processed before defects could be discovered). But see [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 21 March 2003 (Fabrics case)] (stating that, even if defects in fabrics would not be revealed until they were dyed, buyer should have conducted preliminary spot testing by dyeing samples of the fabric).

44. [ICC International Court of Arbitration, Award 8247 of June 1996 (Chemical compound case)] (buyer should have examined a large shipment of a chemical compound on the day it arrived in the port of destination); [GERMANY Landgericht Landshut 5 April 1995 (Sport clothing case)] (asserting that buyer's obligation to examine the goods must be complied with immediately, even if the goods are not perishable); [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno Campagna 27 April 1992 (Furniture case)] (because both buyer and seller were merchants, buyer should have examined the goods immediately upon delivery) (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof Arnhem 17 June 1997 (Gas compressors case)] (buyer, who was a dealer in medical equipment, should have checked immediately after delivery whether documents necessary to satisfy regulations were present); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 3 June 1998 (Flowers case)] (buyer must examine flowers on the day of delivery); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)] (examination of shirts was required immediately following delivery).

45. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons, Zürich 30 November 1998 (Lambskin coat case)].

46. See, e.g., [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 14 January 2002 (Cooling system case)] (see full text of the decision).

47. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)]. The opinion continues by asserting that the reasonable periods pursuant to arts. 38 and 39 CISG are not long periods. For other statements on the flexible standard for the time for examination and/or the factors that should be considered in determining whether examination was timely, see [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997 (Blood infusion devices case)] (indicating that a tribunal should consider the nature of the goods, the quantity, the kind of wrapping and all other relevant circumstances) (see full text of the decision); [ITALY Tribunale Civile di Cuneo 31 January 1996 (Sports clothes case)] (asserting that scholars discussing Article 38 have indicated that the time frame is "elastic, leaving space to the interpreter and in the end to the judge, in terms of reasonableness, so that the elasticity will be evaluated in accordance with the practicalities of each case"); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)] (in determining the time for examining the goods the circumstances of the individual case and the reasonable possibilities of the contracting parties are crucial) (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 25 June 1997 (Surface protective film case)] (asserting that, although the "median" time for an examination of durable goods is three to four days, "[t]his figure can be corrected upward or downward as the particular case requires") (see full text of the decision).

48. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 3 June 1998 (Flowers case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Roermond 19 December 1991 (Cheese case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997 (Fish case)] .

49. [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno Campagna 27 April 1992 (Furniture case)] (see full text of the decision); [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof Arnhem 17 June 1997 (Gas compressors case)].

50. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 August 1997 (Aluminium hydroxide case)] (immediate examination of chemicals required where the chemicals were going to be mixed with other substances soon after delivery); [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997 (Fish case)] (examination was due quickly where shipment of fish was to be processed by the buyer; processing would make it impossible to ascertain whether the fish were defective when sold); [NETHERLANDS Rechtsbank 's-Hertogenbosch 15 December 1997 (Furs / mink skins case)] (examination of furs not conducted until they had already undergone processing was not timely).

51. [GERMANY Landgericht Köln 11 November 1993 (Market research study case)] reversed on other grounds by [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 26 August 1994 (Market study case)] (see full text of the decision).

52. Compare [FINLAND Helsinki Court of First Instance 11 June 1995 (Skin care products case)] (existence of pre-delivery tests showing acceptable vitamin content for skin care products excused buyer from testing for vitamin content immediately after delivery) with [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Jena 26 May 1998 (Live fish case)] (buyer was not entitled to rely on pre-importation veterinarians inspection certificate certifying health of live fish: buyer should have examined samples of fish after delivery).

53. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 22 February 1994 (Rare hard wood case)] (buyer's examination was timely, taking into account the fact that two days of the period were weekend days) (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Riedlingen 21 October 1994 (Ham case)] (3 days for examining delivery of ham was sufficient even though Christmas holidays interfered with examination). But see [NETHERLANDS Hoge Raad 20 February 1998 (Floor tiles case)] (despite buyer's summer vacation, it should not have delayed in examining the goods when its customer complained in July).

54. [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 23 June 1994 (Engines for hydraulic presses and welding machines case)] (where the goods consisted of two engines to be used for manufacturing hydraulic presses and welding machines, buyer had more than the usual time for an examination in order to determine conformity with technical specifications; because buyer delayed examining the goods until some four months after delivery of the second engine (16 months after delivery of first engine), however, the examination was untimely).

55. [FRANCE Cour de cassation 26 May 1999 (Laminated sheet metal case)] (time for examination took into account the difficulty of handling the metal sheets involved in the sale); [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Kortrijk 27 June 1997 (Yarn / textiles case)] (period for examination was longer for goods that had to be processed before defects could be discovered (in this case, yarn to be woven)); [BELGIUM Rechtbank van koophandel Kortrijk 6 October 1997 (Crude yarn case)] (buyer of crude yarn did not have to examine goods until they were processed; it would be unreasonable to expect buyer to unroll the yard in order to examine it before processing); [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 23 June 1994 (Engines for hydraulic presses and welding machines case)] (buyer had longer than normal period to examine engines to be used in its manufacturing process because buyer had to install and put goods into operation in order to discover defects). Compare [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)] (the time for examination depends on the circumstances of the particular case, in this case, involving a sale of shirts, "it was easily possible to examine the shirts at least by way of sampling immediately after their delivery") (see full text of the decision). But see [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Roermond 19 December 1991 (Cheese case)] (fact that sale involved frozen cheese did not excuse buyer from prompt examination, buyer could thaw and examine a sample of delivery) (see full text of the decision).

56. [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Zwolle 5 March 1997 (Fish case)] (buyer should have examined fish before processing and selling them to its customers given that buyer had already discovered lack of conformity in a previous shipment by the seller); [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Kortrijk 27 June 1997 (Yarn / textiles case)] (defects in prior shipments a factor to consider in determining timeliness of examination).

57. [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 21 March 2003 (Fabrics case)].

58. [GERMANY Amtsgericht Riedlingen 21 October 1994 (Ham case)] (defects in under-seasoned ham were easily discernible, and thus buyer should have examined goods and discovered defects quickly); [GERMANY Landgericht Köln 11 November 1993 (Market research study case)] reversed on other grounds in [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 26 August 1994 (Market study case)] (mistake in business report was easily discoverable, and thus examination was required to be quick) (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 18 November 1999 (Fiberglass fabrics for filters case)] (where defects are easy to discover, the time for examination should not exceed one week); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 August 1997 (Aluminium hydroxide case)] (where chemicals were to be mixed with other substances and defects were easily discernible, immediate examination of the goods was required). See also [ITALY Tribunale Civile di Cuneo 31 January 1996 (Sports clothes case)] (time period for notice (and, perhaps, examination) is reduced if defects are easily recognizable); [FRANCE Cour d'appel Paris 6 November 2001 (Cables case)] (see full text of decision).

59. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 14 January 2002 (Cooling system case)] (approving approach of lower appeals court which had asserted: "As a rough assessment for orientation purposes, an inspection period of one week (five work days) can apply") (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 11 September 1998 (Chemical substance case)] ("Generally speaking, examination of the goods by the buyer should occur within a week after delivery"); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 August 1997 (Aluminium hydroxide case)] (where chemicals were to be mixed with other substances and defects were easily discernible, immediate examination of the goods was required); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 18 November 1999 (Fiberglass fabrics for filters case)] ("where defects are easy to discover ... the examination period should not exceed a period of one week"); [GERMANY Landgericht Münchengladbach 22 May 1992 (Clothing case)] (generally allowing one week for examination of goods). Compare [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)] (unless special circumstances suggest otherwise, buyer has a total of approximately 14 days to examine and give notice of defects).

60. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 25 June 1997 (Surface protective film case)]. Compare [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 23 June 1994 (Engines for hydraulic presses and welding machines case)] (a few working days).

61. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 August 1997 (Aluminium hydroxide case)].

62. [FRANCE Cour de cassation 26 May 1999 (Laminated sheet metal case)] (see full text of the decision).

63. [CHINA CIETAC Arbitration 23 February 1995 (Jasmine aldehyde case)].

64. [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 3 April 1990 (Shoes case)] (see full text of the decision).

65. [ICC International Court of Arbitration, Award 5713 of 1989] (see full text of the decision).

66. [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 23 June 1994 (Engines for hydraulic presses and welding machines case)].

67. [FRANCE Cour d'appel Paris 6 November 2001 (Cables case)] (buyer should have examined elevator cables delivered on incorrectly-sized reels at the time he rewound the cables on proper-sized reels (which occurred eight days after delivery); discovery by the buyer's customer of obvious defects in the cables some two months thereafter was, with respect to the buyer obligations under article 38(1), untimely.

68. [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 21 March 2003 (Fabrics case)].

69. [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997 (Blood infusion devices case)] (see full text of the decision).

70. [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 30 November 1998 (Lambskin coat case)].

71. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 11 September 1998 (Chemical substance case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Münchengladbach 22 May 1992 (Clothing case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 18 November 1999 (Fiberglass fabrics for filters case)].

72. [GERMANY Landgericht Köln 11 November 1993 (Market research study case)].

73. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 25 June 1997 (Surface protective film case)].

74. [GERMANY Amtsgericht Riedlingen 21 October 1994 (Ham case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Landshut 5 April 1995 (Sport clothing case)] (examination for proper quantity of sports clothing).

75. [ICC International Court of Arbitration, Award 8247 of June 1996 (Chemical compound case)].

76. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994 (Shirts case)].

77. For the distinction between latent and obvious (patent) defects, see [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 31 August 1989 (Shoes case)]; [ITALY Tribunale di Vigevano 12 July 2000 (Sheets of vulcanized rubber used in manufacture of shoe soles case)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 21 August 1997 (Aluminium hydroxide case)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, Germany, 25 June 1997 (Surface protective film case)].

78. See footnote 43 supra and accompanying text discussing [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 3 November 1999 (Machine for producing hygenic tissues case)] (period for examination to discover latent defects in grinding device did not begin until device broke down approximately three weeks after delivery).

79. See footnote 41 supra and accompanying text; footnote 56 supra and accompanying text.

80. Under this approach, the question of the timely discovery of such latent defects is an issue governed not by article 38 but by the requirement in article 39(1) that the buyer notify the seller of a lack of conformity "within a reasonable time after [the buyer] discovered or ought to have discovered it." In other words, even though this approach posits that a latent defect might not be reasonably discoverable during the examination required by article 38, the buyer still is charged with taking reasonable action to discover such defects under article 39. For further discussion related to this issue, see the discussion infra of article 39.

81. [GERMANY Landgericht Paderborn 25 June 1996 (Granulated plastic case)] (see full text of the decision). For other decisions that may take a similar approach to the relationship between the article 38 examination and discovery of latent defects, see [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Jena 26 May 1998 (Live fish case)] (failure to examine goods as provided in art. 38 would be irrelevant if the buyer could show that an expert examination would not have detected the defect); [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof 27 August 1999 (Trekking shoes case)] (suggesting that, if buyer had conducted a thorough and professional post-delivery examination of the goods that did not reveal a latent lack of conformity, buyer would have satisfied its obligations under art. 38); [GERMANY Landgericht Ellwangen 21 August 1995 (Paprika case)] (suggesting that buyer satisfied its art. 38 obligations by examining the goods without a chemical analysis that, when conducted later, revealed a latent defect).

82. See footnote 41 supra and accompanying text.

83. See [GERMANY Landgericht Landshut 5 April 1995 (Sport clothing case)] (stating that the art. 38 examination must usually be conducted at the place for the performance of the obligation to deliver under art. 31).

84. This will be true, for example, if the parties agree to any of the various trade terms under which the buyer bears the risk of loss while the goods are in transit e.g., Free Carrier (FCA) named point under the Incoterms. The same result would occur in transactions involving carriage of the goods if the parties have not agreed upon the place of delivery: in such cases, article 31(a) provides that delivery occurs when the seller hands the goods over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer.

85. [FINLAND Helsinki Court of Appeal 29 January 1998 (Steel plates case)]. For other cases applying article 38(2), see [GERMANY Bundesgerichtshof 8 March 1995 (New Zealand mussels case)] (see full text of the decision); [ICC International Court of Arbitration, Award 8247 of June 1996 (Chemical compound case)]; [ITALY Tribunale Civile di Cuneo 31 January 1996 (Sports clothes case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Landshut 5 April 1995 (Sport clothing case)]; [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Arbitration, China, 23 February 1995 (Jasmine aldehyde case)] (under a CIF contract, where delivery to the buyer occurs when the goods pass the ships rail at the port for loading, the buyer's time for examination did not start until the goods arrived at the port of destination).

86. Not only does article 6 of the CISG provide that the parties may derogate from or vary the effect of any of [the Conventions] provisions, but article 38(2) itself is phrased in permissive (examination may be deferred) as opposed to mandatory fashion.

87. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 8 January 1993 (Tinned cucumbers case)] (see full text of the decision).

88. Unless article 38(3) applies, the time for the buyer to examine the goods usually commences when the goods are delivered or, in the case of goods transported by a third-party carrier, when the goods arrive at their destination. See para. 18 supra.

89. According to a statement of a delegate from the Netherlands at the 1980 Vienna Diplomatic Conference at which the final text of the CISG was adopted, the distinction between "redirected in transit" and "redispatched" is as follows: "Redispatched" implied that the goods had reached their first destination and had subsequently been sent on. "Redirected in transit" implied that they had never reached their first destination. Summary Records of the United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 16th meeting of Committee 1, A/CONF.97/C.1/SR.16, reproduced in Official Records of the United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 10 March-11 April 1980, at. p. 320, para. 18; Note to Secretariat Commentary on Article 38 (Article 36 of the draft Convention) available on the internet at http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/secomm/secomm-38.html.

90. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 22 February 1994 (Rare hard wood case)].

91. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 13 January 1993 (Doors case)].

92. [SWITZERLAND Obergericht des Kantons Luzern 8 January 1997 (Blood infusion devices case)] (see full text of the decision).


©Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated June 30, 2009
Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography
Comments/Contributions