Electron Ltd. and Microdata: International Business Partnership Report

This report analyzes the international business strategies of Electron Ltd., focusing on a strategic partnership with Microdata to introduce the Circuit 3000 series of consumer electronics. The report explores suitable legal structures for the partnership, including mergers, joint ventures, and jointly owned companies, recommending a merger structure for its benefits. It also examines various methodologies for acquiring manufacturing facilities from Cybernetics AD, such as leasing, purchasing, merger & acquisition, and lending. Finally, the report identifies the legal framework regulating the choice of law and jurisdiction. The report highlights the importance of strategic partnerships and appropriate legal structures for successful international expansion, emphasizing the need for Electron Ltd. and Microdata to consider all aspects of international business operations.

Introduction to International
Business
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
TASK...............................................................................................................................................3
1. The different suitable legal structures for implementing the partnership................................3
2. Different methodologies of acquiring the manufacturing facilities from Cybernetics AD by
partnership and applicable legislation..........................................................................................6
3. Legal framework regulating the choice of law, jurisdiction, substantive rules etc..................8
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................11
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................12
3

INTRODUCTION
With the increasing pace of globalization, businesses now focus on introducing their
business activities in international market beyond the political boundaries which mainly aims at
increasing the rate of profit (Cravino and Levchenko, 2015). International business mainly
consists of activities that involve transactions of goods and services across the national and
international boundaries for the purpose of expanding production level across the boundaries.
Therefore, it is essential to manage different activities across the globe so that they can easily
achieve their global objectives.
Presently, the report focuses on Electron Ltd. which is an electronics manufacturer
operating their services in UK domestic market. The management of company is in the favour to
form a strategic partnership with the Microdata limited liability company that is being
established beneath the laws of Belgium. The company Electron Ltd is focusing on introducing
their new line of consumer’s electronic products that is Circuit 3000 series by using patents that
are owned by both the companies to establish sales and distribution network within the Europe
and United States.
Therefore, the report will also understand different legal structure that is appropriate for
both companies to sustain in the competitive environment by consolidating all manufacturing
and sales activities of both the companies across the world. The report focuses on different
methodologies by which Electron Ltd. can acquire manufacturing facilities include leasing, hire
purchase, merger and acquisition etc. Lastly, the report will also focus on determining the legal
framework related with setting the partnership for enabling the sales and distribution network
for the new consumer electronic products of Electron Ltd. that is Circuit 3000 series.
TASK
1. The different suitable legal structures for implementing the partnership
Electron Ltd. is an electronics manufacturer operating in domestic market in the UK
region (Balakrishnan and Moonesar, 2015). With the increasing prospect of globalization in the
marketplace, company's general assembly has been voted in approval of forming strategic
partnership with the Microdata Company so that they can be involved in the cross boundaries
transaction of goods, services and resources. Through enabling partnership among both the
3

companies they collaboratively focus on introducing new line of products that is “Circuit 3000
series” of consumer electronics by using patents that are mainly owned by both the companies so
that another enterprise or electronic manufacturer may not copy the products (Kostecki and
Naray, 2007).
While implementing the partnership between Electron and Microdata there are various
legal structure that may be used by both the companies so that they can successfully accomplish
both the phases mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding which is being signed by both
the companies (Deese and et.al., 2014). The company is interested in introducing new range of
consumer’s electronic products that is Circuit 3000 series as well as joint acquisition with the
manufacturing facility in Bulgaria which is owned by Cybernetics a Bulgarian corporation for
establishing network of sales and distribution in Europe and United states. While second phase
focuses on merging or consolidating the manufacturing as well as sales activities of both the
companies within the next five year to introduce their business activities in the international
market (Aswathappa, 2008). Therefore, for enabling implementation of partnership legal firm
has identified different suitable structure for both the phases of partnership that is-
a) Merger between Electron and Microdata
One of the effective strategy or structure that is being used Electron Ltd. is merger
between both the companies that is Electron and Microdata. Under this legal structure one
company wholly transfer their ownership as well as surrender their stock to another company in
order to achieve or increase their financial and functional capability of both the enterprises.
According to Ricks (2009) certain advantages of merger activity to both the companies are it
helps in enabling the new structure that supports in bringing new and innovative ideas and
thought which will support the organization in introducing new consumer electronic products
series in the market (Ricks, 2009). Furthermore, merger of the two companies also result in
collaborating different culture of the enterprise and it results in bringing positive change among
employees and overall company which helps in effectively establishing network within the other
region. On the contrary, Dlabay and Scott (2010) has stated that merger structure may also result
in getting down the morale of employees as through restructuring the employees those who are
rendering services in the manufacturing department may result in changing their behavioural
pattern that ultimately affect their morale and mental state (Dlabay and Scott, 2010). In addition
3

to this, demotivated employees may result in increasing the turnover rate. As per the view of
Brown (2003) Merger structure also results in enabling economies of scale that may act as the
competitive advantage for the firm (Brown, 2003). Furthermore, the companies also decrease
risk of using innovative techniques and tools for managing financial risk.
b) Joint venture between the companies
Another legal structure focused by the parties include forming joint venture between the
companies that Electron and Microdata. Joint venture is defined as business arrangement under
which companies agrees to pool their resources as well as different services to accomplish
specific task and project. This form of legal structure is temporary in nature and even based on
single business transaction. According to Wild, Wild and Han (2014) one of the major benefit for
enabling joint venture between the companies results in expanding companies in different
regions that bring forth greater profitability ratio (Wild, Wild and Han, 2014). However, the
successful joint venture among companies also leads in sharing the risks and profit as well as it
also results in accessing the greater resources that mainly include technological, human as
financial resources etc. On the contrary, Stephan and Roin (2010) has also stated that enabling
joint venture structure between companies result as a risky situation for the companies as
partners forming joint venture sometimes may disagree with the strategy or services for
managing manufacturing operations (Stephan and Roin, 2010). Thus, disagreements between the
parties may result in increasing the conflict and dispute at the work place which result in
financial loss.
c) New established jointly owned company
Another legal structure that is suitable for both the companies include establishing new
business by the jointly owned company that focuses on merging all the partnership activities that
manufacture consumer’s electronic products series that is Circuit 3000 series. The new
established company will be considered as a jointly owned company that is the property will be
held in the name of both the companies. According to Rodrik and Subramanian (2009) the
advantage of having jointly owned company is that transferability of share is permitted in the
establishment (Rodrik and Subramanian, 2009). However, it is also an effective option for
companies to easily accumulate or collect large some of financial resources from the shareholder.
On the contrary, Mason (2007) has stated that newly established jointly owned company also
3

possess certain disadvantage which result in delay in the process of decision making (Mason,
2007). All the decisions within the establishment is taken by board of director or may be taken in
the general meeting of the company thus, it lead to delay in process of decision making (KHO,
Stulz and Warnock, 2009).
From the above different legal structure it can be stated that Electron Ltd. And Microdata
focus on merger structure for collaborating with different resources so that they can introduce
their new consumer electronics product line that is Circuit 3000 series. Therefore, merger will
benefit companies to accomplish both the phases that are been signed by the companies on the
basis of their partnership (Hussain, Rizwan and Latif, 2013). Through merger, companies can
easily establish the network of sales and distribution in the European and United states.
However, merger structure of partnership is also effective in accomplishing phase two that is it
consolidates different resources that is technological, financial, human resource etc. as well as
manufacturing and sales activities of both the companies so that they can easily serve their
product in the next five years. Therefore, Electron Ltd. and Microdata must propose merger legal
structure of their partnership so that they may sustain in international environment
(Hovhannisyan and Keller, 2010).
2. Different methodologies of acquiring the manufacturing facilities from Cybernetics AD by
partnership and applicable legislation
Cybernetics A.D. is one of the renowned Bulgarian corporations that support the Electron
Ltd. for introducing their new line of consumer’s electronic products that is Circuit 3000 series.
Thus, for introducing the new product line Electron Ltd. must focus on different methodologies
for acquiring manufacturing facilities from the Cybernetics AD which are as follows: -1. Leasing or hire purchase: One of the effective methods that Electron Ltd. must use for
acquiring the manufacturing facilities from Cybernetics includes hire purchase or leasing
of assets (Guay, 2014). This methodology allows the Electron Ltd. to control the
manufacturing facilities as well as manufacturing assets during an agreement time period.
However, under leasing method parties come into a contract or legal document that
mainly focuses on structuring the terms and condition which focuses on agreeing to the
certain amount that is defined as rent from the other party. Therefore, the legal document
that is being signed by the Electron Ltd. must describe the total amount that company will
3

pay to Cybernetics as the security deposits, time period of the lease, monthly rent of the
manufacturing process etc. According to Folsom and et.al (2012) acquiring the
manufacturing facilities from Cybernetics AD is beneficial for the Electron Ltd. because
it allows the enterprise to control and distribute their assets without impacting on the
existing working capital of the company (Folsom and et.al., 2012). However, leasing the
manufacturing facilities also act as tax efficient method which benefit the Electron Ltd.
On the contrary, Demirkan and Demirkan (2014) leasing method is also risky for
Electron Ltd. as the overall amount of leasing the manufacturing facilities will be higher
than the amount of purchasing manufacturing equipment (Demirkan and Demirkan,
2014).2. Purchasing: Another effective methodology for acquiring the manufacturing facilities
from Cybernetics includes buying manufacturing facilities and equipment that would
support the Electron Ltd. in introducing the consumer’s electronic product series in the
market. According to Condry (2013) purchasing equipment and facilities from
Cybernetics will be advantageous for Electron as they do not have to pay rent or certain
amount of money for using their facilities (Condry, 2013). On the contrary, Cantwell,
Dunning and Lundan (2010) has also stated purchasing the manufacturing facilities or
assets from the Cybernetics is disadvantage as obsolete or change in the technology may
act as a burden on the Electron as purchasing cost associated with the assets and
equipment will act as loss for the firm (Cantwell, Dunning and Lundan, 2010).3. Acquiring or merging with manufacturing facilities of Cybernetics: Another method of
acquiring the manufacturing facilities from Cybernetics includes enabling merger and
acquisition. This form of acquiring the manufacturing facilities is effective for Electron
Ltd (Beaverstock and et.al., 2010). They are not required to sign or enter into an
agreement for using or acquiring facilities for manufacturing the consumer electronic
products. In the contemporary scenario, all the company focus on merger and acquisition
for acquiring the facilities and services from other company is it is cost effective method
and does not require any additional capital or investment.
4. Lending: Last methodology for getting the manufacturing facilities from Cybernetics by
the partnership focuses on lending method (Perez‐Batres and et. al, 2010). Under this
3

method, Cybernetics will allow Electron Ltd. to acquire the manufacturing facilities and
services under an agreement as they will return back the facilities and services to
Cybernetics with the specific amount known as interest. According to Xiao and Boyd
(2010) lending method for acquiring manufacturing facilities features disadvantage that is
they may acquire facilities and services for small time period (Xiao and Boyd, 2010). In
case of error or fault in the assets it may result in paying sum of money for the damages
that has been occurred to the assets and equipment.
However, there are certain legislations that are applicable for the Electron Ltd. as they are in
the partnership with the Cybernetics company which is one of the Bulgarian corporation that
provide manufacturing facilities for Electron so that they can introduce new line of consumer
electronic products in the market (Dabestani and et. al, 2015). The different applicable legislation
related with forming the partnership includes Limited liability partnership act 2000. The act
formulated by parliament of United Kingdom mainly focuses on making the provision related
with the limited liability partnership. The act also states that this act is applicable and
incorporated when two or more parties are associated in carrying out the legal business in the
market. Therefore, this act allows Electron Ltd. to allow some security against ample negligence
activity that result in enabling excessive risks. Another applicable legislation for acquiring the
manufacturing facilities by Cybernetics AD is that they must assure the ISO quality standard for
the equipment and assets which they provide to manufacture the consumer electronic products
range. For instance; Electron Ltd. must acquire the manufacturing facilities that possess ISO
9000 as it is termed as quality standard that assist the quality of equipment and products (Xiao
and Boyd, 2010).
3. Legal framework regulating the choice of law, jurisdiction, substantive rules etc.
In the above phases of setting the partnership for enabling the new sales and distribution
network for the Electron Ltd. These sales contract will be recognized by legal mechanism for
conducting trade in goods. In the international contract, at least one contracting party is required
to decide their rights as per the norms of foreign legislation. In the absence of choice of law,
determination of legal provision is done by considering facts such as: where contract was
formed, place of delivery and location of subject matter (International Sale of Goods (CISG) &
Related Transactions, 2016). For this aspect, companies are required to consider provisions
3

developed under United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, or UNCITRAL
(Vienna) (“UNCITRAL”). This organization is focused on unification of legal terms that can be
applied on international sale of goods & the adoption. Further CISG had developed by
international law acceptable by 70 nations (Kashiwagi, 2007). The sales department of both the
companies propose to offer new distribution within the European Union and United states. They
are required to operated in accordance with the provisions of UNICTRAL and CISG. By the
applicability of these provisions they can develop uniform standards which will be acceptable
under legislation of both the countries. By focusing on the term they will credit the products for
90 days and also delivers their product lines in Bulgaria (Bertin and Moya, 2013). Generally, it is
essential that each and every company supply goods on credit by suppliers and due to this reason
timely payment is necessary so that suppliers can supply right quality commodities in the near
future. However, the management of both the companies are inexperienced in the international
trade thus; they would determine that there is different legal framework associated with
agreement for offering payment terms of credit for 90 days. The different legal framework is
related with the distribution of new electronic products in the EU and US market. However, to
engage in the international business activities both the companies is required to focus on
national and international standards and regulations that would support them in establishing sales
and distribution network in the EU region (Bartle, 2002). However, in the contemporary
environment supply chain management as well as effective distribution network is essential for
the organization as it supports them in operating their selling and distribution channel smoothly
in the overall marketplace.
In addition to this, there are possible enforced payment routes from a distributor that is
they must pay credit of the items within 90 days so that Electron Ltd. Must focus on the gaining
the profit margin. However, EU has imposed new law relating with the late payment by the
distributor that is EU late payments directive (Aggarwal, Berrill and Kearney, 2011). This act
focuses on enhancing level of protection to the suppliers as they are the one who are in the
contact with ultimate buyers who purchase the consumer electronics product line.. Furthermore,
another legal framework associated with the payment routes within EU focuses on implementing
EU payment services directive according to this, it render legal relations for creating or
establishing modern and set of rules for enabling the single marketplace for payment. However,
3

with this payment route in the EU market it result in improving payment system in the market
and it thus also result in ensuring cost reduction (Cravino and Levchenko, 2015).
In case when distributors are not able to make payment to suppliers timely for the goods
purchased then suppliers have the right to impose fine or penalty. According to eu, late payment
directives minimum time period of 30 days and maximum time period of 60 days is granted to
distributors in which they can make payment for the goods purchased to the suppliers (the
opportunities and threats of the new EU late payment directives, 2013). Moreover, the
transactions taking place between distributors and suppliers are carried out on the basis of
agreement and in case if it is not possible for distributors to make timely payment then penalty is
imposed (Balakrishnan and Moonesar, 2015). Further, suppliers have full right to take legal
actions against the distributors if they are not able to make timely payment. Both laws of EU and
US states that it is required for distributors to make timely payment to the suppliers and this
directly enhances business relationship. Apart from this, suppliers must only enter into
agreement with any other company who is capable enough of repaying the amount to them on
time. Apart from this, suppliers are also allowed to discontinue the agreement with distributors in
case if they do not make timely payment (Kostecki and Naray, 2007). Therefore, as per the law it
is moral duty of distributors to pay to the suppliers on time and as per the conditions on the basis
of which they have entered into valid agreement. Apart from this, maximum time period of 60
days must not be exceeded by the distributors as it is against the law and can be unfavourable for
the companies who are not able to make timely payment to its suppliers (Lovells, 2013).
Generally, each and every company goods are supplied on credit by suppliers and due to this
reason timely payment is necessary so that suppliers can supply right quality commodities in
time in near future also (Deese and et.al., 2014).
However, Electron Ltd. Propose a legal instrument that would result in providing stable
framework for enabling partnership's contractual relations with the other distributors so that they
can easily sell and distribute their product line that is Circuit 3000 series in the both the market
that is European Union and United States. In European marketplace Electron Ltd. must focus on
The European Neighbourhood policy which is one of the effective legal framework that mainly
seeks to tie-up those region and countries in the territory of EU (Aswathappa, 2008). The act
mainly focuses on enabling or contributing towards developing or acquiring regional integration
3

that will positively enables the partnership with the distributor that often result in benefiting the
enterprise to sustain in the competitive environment. However, the vision of policy or legal
framework also ensures sharing of objectives and values of the EU member states that focuses on
increasing or raising the relationship that often significantly impact economic and political
integration of the EU states (The directive on payment services, 2016). Another legal instrument
that would support or provide a stable framework for partnership's contractual relations with
distributor include effective supply chain management it has been defined as procedure which
focuses on ensuring proper flow of goods and services so that it may easily reach to the ultimate
distributor (Ricks, 2009). The supply chain management procedure also consists of different
provision of the manufacturing; processing, selling and distributing process which ultimately
results in providing products to the ultimate customers (Demirkan and Demirkan, 2014).
However, to compete in the global market it is essential for Electron Ltd. to enable effective
contractual relations with the distributors in the form of enabling proper and adequate supply
chain management. Furthermore, SEPA is also recommended by the Electron Ltd. as new
European payments systems in the market mainly provide stable framework for enabling
contractual relations with the distributor (The single euro payments area (SEPA), 2009). This
payment system not only affect or impact cross border payments within the EU however, it will
directly impact and affect national procedures (Dlabay and Scott, 2010).
Methods of payment in international trade
Letter of credit
Letter of credit can be defined as arrangement whereby issuing bank acts on the request
and the instructions of a customer (the buyer/applicant) for making payment to the third party
(the seller/beneficiary) against stipulated document. It is secure method where there is guarantee
of payment (Prague, 2012).
Documentary collection
In this method, selling party entrusts the collection of the payment for a sale to its bank.
This remitting bank sends document to the collecting bank with the instruction of release of
document.
Cash in advance
3

It is risk method for payment for seller as in this advance payment is made by purchasing
party. In international trade most common option for this aspect is wire transfers, escrow services
and credit cards.
CONCLUSION
From the above report it can be concluded that to sustain in the international marketplace
organisation must focus on different suitable legal structure so that they can easily sustain or
survive in the competitive marketplace. The different legal structures include merger , forming
joint venture and newly establishing jointly owned company all these structure will positively
benefit the organization in enhancing their reach and market share in the different region. The
report further proposes an effective legal structure for Electron Ltd. so that they can easily
accomplish different phases of the partnership. In addition to this, the report also projected
different methodologies that support the electronic manufacturer in acquiring manufacturing
facilities from the Cybernetics by partnership. The different methodologies through which
Electron Ltd. acquire the manufacturing facilities include leasing, hire purchase, merger and
acquisition etc. however, the report has also concluded that for introducing the new range of
consumer electronic products in the international market. The sales department of both the
organization that is Electron Ltd and Cybernetics may propose and plan new distribution channel
that would support in distributing their product in the EU and US. It identifies and discusses the
different legal framework that supports in enabling contractual relations with the distributor.
3

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Aggarwal, R., Berrill, J. and Kearney, C., 2011. What is a multinational corporation? Classifying
the degree of firm-level multinationality. International Business Review. 20(5). pp.557-577.
Aswathappa, 2008. International Business. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Bartle, I., 2002. Transnational Interests in the European Union: Globalization and Changing
Organization in Telecommunications and Electricity. Journal of Common Market Studies.
37(3). pp.363-383.
Beaverstock, J. V. and et.al., 2010.International business travel in the global economy. Ashgate.
Bertin, M. J., and Moya, J. T. A., 2013. The effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on accounting
conservatism of reported earnings: Evidence from Chilean firms. Academia Revista
Latinoamericana de Administración. 26(1). pp.139 - 169.
Brown, P., 2003. Seeking success through strategic management development. Journal of
European Industrial Training. 27(6). pp.292 – 303.
Cantwell, J., Dunning, J. H. and Lundan, S. M., 2010. An evolutionary approach to
understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the
institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies. 41(4). pp.567-586.
Condry, I., 2013. Japanese hip-hop and the globalization of popular culture. Introductory
Readings In Anthropology. pp.241.
Dabestani, R., and et. al, 2015. Predicting the progress trends of science and technology in Iran
through a system dynamics approach. Journal of Modelling in Management. 11(1).
Demirkan, S. and Demirkan, I., 2014. Implications of strategic alliances for earnings quality and
capital market investors. Journals of business research. 67(9). pp. 1806-1816.
Dlabay, L., and Scott, J., 2010. International Business. Cengage Learning.
Folsom, R. H. and et.al., 2012. International business transactions: a problem-oriented
coursebook.
Guay, T. R., 2014. The Business Environment of Europe: Firms, Governments, and Institutions.
Cambridge University Press.
Hovhannisyan, N. and Keller, W., 2010. International business travel: an engine of
innovation?. Journal of Economic Growth. 20(1). pp.75-104.
Hussain, S., Rizwan, A. and Latif, M. A., 2013. ANSOFF Matrix, Environment, and Growth-An
Interactive Triangle. Management and Administrative Sciences Review. 2(2), pp.196-206.
3

KHO, B. C., Stulz, R. M. and Warnock, F. E., 2009. Financial globalization, governance, and the
evolution of the home bias. Journal of Accounting Research. 47(2). pp.597-635.
Mason, R. B., 2007. The external environment's effect on management and strategy: A
complexity theory approach. Management Decision. 45(1). pp.10 – 28.
Perez‐Batres. L. A., and et. al, 2010. A Perspective on International Business Scholarship: Is It
Regional or Global?. Multinational Business Review.18(1). pp.73 - 88.
Ricks, D. A., 2009. Blunders in International Business. John Wiley & Sons.
Rodrik, D. and Subramanian, A., 2009. Why did financial globalization disappoint?. IMF staff
papers. 56(1). pp.112-138.The directive on payment services.
Stephan, P. B. and Roin, J. A., 2010. International Business and Economics: Law and Policy.
LexisNexis.
Wild, J., Wild, K. L. and Han, J. C., 2014. International business. Pearson Education Limited.
Xiao, H., and Boyd, D., 2010. Learning from cross‐cultural proThe directive on payment
services.blems in international projects: a Chinese case. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management. 17(6). pp.549 - 56.
Online
Balakrishnan, M. and Moonesar, A. I., 2015. International Business. [Pdf]. Available through:
<http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/books/info/download/
international_business.pdf>. [Accessed on 11th January 2016].
Deese, W. and et.al., 2014. Trade Barriers That U.S. Small and Mediumsized Enterprises
Perceive as Affecting Exports to the European Union. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4455.pdf>. [Accessed on 11th January
2016].
Kostecki, M. and Naray, O., 2007. Commercial diplomacy and international business. [Pdf].
Available through:
<http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20070400_cdsp_diplomacy_kostecki_naray
.pdf>. [Accessed on 11th January 2016].
Lovells, E., 2013. New rules on payment terms. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=be732a3f-f9c4-4a6d-86df-
79f78fdd2721>. [Accessed on 13th January 2016].
The directive on payment services. 2016. [Online]. Available through:
<http://ec.europa.eu/finance/payments/framework/index_en.htm>. [Accessed on 13th
January 2016].
3

The opportunities and threats of the new EU late payment directive. 2013. [Online]. Available
through: <http://www.pwc.co.uk/services/strategy/insights/the-opportunities-and-threats-
of-the-new-eu-late-payment-directive.html>. [Accessed on 13th January 2016].
The single euro payments area (SEPA). 2009. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/sepa_brochure_2009en.pdf?
dd4d5270674d22fffae546fc066fea3f>. [Accessed on 13th January 2016].
Transmission. [Pdf]. Available through: <https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=45&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwizwIuV
6aHKAhWOVI4KHX9pA-84KBAWCC8wBA&url=https%3A%2F
%2Fwww.aeaweb.org%2Faea%2F2016conference%2Fprogram%2Fretrieve.php
%3Fpdfid%3D124&usg=AFQjCNE8X-
pKj2bCo_7KgCJ6Sr_YI47jgg&bvm=bv.111396085,d.c2E>. [Accessed on 11th January
2016].
International Sale of Goods (CISG) & Related Transactions. 2016. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/sale_goods.html>. [Accessed on 14th
January 2016].
Kashiwagi, N., 2007. Accession by Japan to the Vienna Sales Convention (CISG). [Pdf].
Available through:
<https://sydney.edu.au/law/anjel/documents/ZJapanR/ZJapanR25/ZJapanR25_16_Kashiwa
gi.pdf>. [Accessed on 14th January 2016].
Prague, 2012. Interpretation of the CISG. [Pdf]. Available through:
<http://www.cak.cz/assets/cisg_emery.pdf>. [Accessed on 14th January 2016].
3