Reproduced with permission of 17 Journal of Law and Commerce (1998) 187-217
(. . .)
[S]uppose 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).
(. . .)
* Professor, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, A.B. 1973, Harvard College; A.M. 1975, Harvard University; J.D. 1981, Harvard University School of Law.