In-Depth CISG Case Study: Examining Buyer & Seller Responsibilities

This case study presents a legal analysis of disputes arising from international sales contracts governed by the CISG (United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods). It involves scenarios with buyers and sellers disagreeing over the conformity of goods delivered, specifically live sheep and shoes. The analysis covers key articles of the CISG, including those related to the buyer's duty to examine goods, notification of non-conformity, fundamental breach of contract, and remedies available to both parties. The document also explores arguments from both the buyer's and seller's perspectives, including the seller's potential defense based on timely delivery and examination by the buyer, and the buyer's claims related to the quality of goods not meeting contractual requirements. The study references various CISG articles such as 25, 35, 38, 39, 49, 53, 59, 74, 78, and 81 to support legal positions. The document also includes other case briefs related to CISG.

Corp /Buss Law
1

Table of Contents
Question 1...................................................................................................................................................3
Question 2...................................................................................................................................................4
Question 3...................................................................................................................................................4
2

Question 1
The seller and the buyer were in the contract of selling and buying live sheep for the slaughter.
Sheep have been delivered on time by the seller and it was examined by the buyer as well. But
after four days buyer claimed the lack of conformity and sent a notice to the seller stating that the
condition of sheep was not acceptable and refuse to pay. The buyer had informed the seller on
time regarding the lack of conformity of the sheep. It is a fundamental breach as the buyer
succeeded in showing defectiveness in the quality of the sheep and it is a breach of contract. On
the other hand, the seller commenced legal action asking for full payment of the purchase as
agreed by both the parties in the contract. The delivery has been made on time and was examined
and accepted by the buyer. Article 38A states that the buyer has the duty to examine the goods
before accepting it and as per the article 39 the buyer requires to notify the seller about lack of
conformity. These two articles can be used in defense by the seller.
The buyer may claim under the article of 25 fundamental breaches, 49 A1 and 49A2 failed in
performing its obligations under the contract, 74 breach of contract sum equal to the loss, 35 the
goods quality, quantity and descriptions must match with the requirement of the buyer and 81 (1)
avoidance of the contract. The seller can defend himself under the article of 25, 38 the buyer
required to examine the good within the time frame that is finalized by both the parties and
constituted within the contract, 39A11 seller needs to be notified about the lack of conformity,
78 B delay in receiving price, 53 buyer has to pay the price and take delivery and 59 the buyer
has to pay the price on the fixed date as mentioned in the contract.
3

If I were the judge of this case I would have given my judgment in the favor of the buyer because
he had made a call to the seller just after examining the sheep and stated his concern regarding
the quality of the sheep. The seller cannot rely on the article 38 and 39 as the sheep was been
examined by the buyer and notified the seller about the lack of conformity within the time frame
which had been decided by both the parties.
Question 2
I would have argued on the basis of article 38 as the delivery was on time and it was examined
by the buyer the day after the night delivery. The notice was given after four days of the delivery.
Article 40 cannot be a part of the case as the seller was not aware of the condition of the sheep or
else he must have informed the buyer about it. The seller should have received his payment after
the delivery as there is a delay and article 78 B does not allow it. My client (seller) has given the
delivery on time and as per the contract there is a fixed date to make the payment but he hasn't
received yet which is illegal as per the article 59. A clause is also mentioned in the contract that
if any delay will happen to the payment the buyer would be liable to pay the interest as well. So,
my client (seller) owes interest as well along with the payment.
Question 3
Being a layer of the buyer I would have defended on the basis of article 25 as there is a breach of
contract. As per the article 35 the goods quality, quantity and descriptions should match the
requirement of the buyer but the quality of the sheep was not up to the mark and article 49 A1
and A2 states that if the seller failed in performing any of its obligations which are agreed by
both the parties will be considered as a fundamental breach of contract. According to article 81
4

there is also a case of avoidance of the contract as both the parties have finalized a time frame to
examine the quality of the sheep or any other relevant issues that may arise down the line; my
client (buyer) has given the notice on time regarding the lack of conformity of the sheep. The
claim which has been made by my client (buyer) is valid as the condition of the sheep is not
acceptable and he should not be bound to pay for the same.
5