(. . .)
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of article 39 and paragraph (1) of article 43, the buyer may reduce the price in accordance with article 50 or claim damages, except for loss of profit, if he has a reasonable excuse for his failure to give the required notice.
As previously noted, this article is new and was added at Vienna as a partial accommodation to the critics of art. 39(1) and 43(1). The provincial Acts do not contain a similar provision (and do not need one since they impose no general notice requirement on the buyer), and it is difficult to predict how the courts will exercise their relieving power in practice. The buyer's understandable ignorance of the notice requirements coupled with lack of substantial prejudice to the seller may be suggested as examples. Another reason may be the buyer's legitimate failure to appreciate that a problem involving the goods was due to a non-conformity rather than some extraneous factor for which the seller could not be held responsible.
(. . .)
Go to entire text of Ziegel Commentary
Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography