Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography || Go to Case Search Form

Reproduced with permission of 17 Journal of Law and Commerce (1998) 187-217

excerpt from

The Several Texts of the CISG in a Decentralized System: Observations on Translations, Reservations and other Challenges to the Uniformity Principle in Article 7(1)

Harry M. Flechtner [*]

(. . .)

Article 92 of the CISG permits a Contracting State to declare that it is not bound either by Part II of the Convention (Articles 14-24, governing contract formation) or by Part III of the CISG (Articles 25-88, governing the substantive rights and obligations arising from a sales contract).[22] The four Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway & Sweden) have made declarations under Article 92 reserving out of the contract formations provisions (Part II) of the CISG. The text of the Convention in force in these countries, therefore, omits eleven provisions found in the version of the CISG in force in States that did not make the Article 92 reservation. When parties located in Denmark, Finland, Norway or Sweden are involved in a sale within the scope of the Convention, the contract formation rules applicable to the transaction will depend on the law applicable under the rules of private international law.[23]

(. . .)

Go to entire text of Flechtner commentary


* Professor, University of Pittsburg School of Law, A.B. 1973, Harvard College; A.M. 1975, Harvard University; J.D. 1981, Harvard University School of Law.

(. . .)

22. See CISG, supra note 1, art. 92(1).

23. For example, suppose one party to a sale is located in Country A, a CISG Contracting State that has made the Article 92 reservation, and the other party is located in Country B, a Contracting State that has not made the reservation. If the forum's conflicts/choice-of-law rules lead to the application of the law of State A, the domestic sales contract formation rules of State A will apply. See Judgment of May 21, 1996, Budapest fováros Birósága [Metropolitan Court of Budapest], UNILEX (Hung.); Judgment of July 27, 1995, OLG Rostock UNILEX (F.R.G.); Joseph Lookofsky, Understanding the CISG in Scandinavia § 2-3 at 14 (Illustration 2b) (1996). But see Judgment of March 8, 1995, OLG München, UNILEX (F.R.G.) (apparently applying general principles of contract formation derived from the CISG where Part II of the CISG was inapplicable because of the Article 92 reservation of the seller's country (Finland)). If the forum's conflicts/choice-of-law rules lead to the application of the law of State B, in contrast, the contract formation rules of the CISG will apply (unless State B has made a reservation pursuant to Article 95, a provision discussed in the text accompanying notes 30-32 infra). See Honnold Treatise, supra note 12, § 467(4); Lookofsky, supra, § 2-4 (Illustration 2e).

(. . .)

Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated August 16, 1999

Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography