国际经济法(双语)课程Chapter 10 Sales课件

CHAPTER10SALESCHAPTER10SALESTopicsforthischapter:UNConventiononContractsfortheInternationalSaleofGoods(CISG)TransactionsCoveredinCISGContractualIssuesExcludedfromCoverageofCISGInterpretingCISGInterpretingSalesContractsFormationoftheContractGeneralStandardsforPerformanceSeller’sObligationsThePassingofRiskRemediesExcusesforNonperformanceTopicsforthischapter:ContractOnepartymakesanofferthatanotheraccepts. 1.Offer(要约） 2.Acceptance（接受） 3.Consideration(intheUSA)（对价）Considerationconsistsofabargainedforexchange(USA)orlegaldetrimentandabargain.Alegaldetrimentisapromisetodosomethingorrefrainfromdoingsomething.Abargainissomethingthepromisorwants.ContractOnepartymakesanoffUNConventiononContractsfortheInternationalSaleofGoodsTheCISG,adoptedin1980,incorporatesrulesfromallthemajorlegalsystems.Itprovidesacceptedsubstantiverulesonwhichcontractingparties,courts,andarbitratorsmayrely.Ithasbeenratified

by79countries,buthasnotbeenratifiedbyIndiaandUK.UNConventiononContractsforTransactionsCoveredinCISGCISGappliestocontractsforinternationalsaleofgoods.Thebuyerandsellermusthavetheirplaceofbusinessindifferentstates.Either:Bothofthestatesmustbecontractingpartiestotheconvention,orTherulesofprivateinternationallawmustleadtotheapplicationofthelawofacontractingstate.AratifyingstatemaydeclarethatitwillapplyCISGonlywhenthebuyerandsellerarebothfromcontractingstates.TransactionsCoveredinCISGCAretheydefinedasinternationalunderCISG?ThebusinessbetweenaKoreancitizenandaJapanesecitizen?Thebusinessisnegotiatedentirelyinaforeigncountry?Goodswillbedeliveredtoaforeigncountry?Placeofbusinessofbuyer’sandseller’sareindifferentstates?AretheydefinedasinternatioHypo:supposethereisacontractbetweentwoFrenchcompanies.ThecontractisnegotiatedentirelywithinFrance.However,oneofthecompanieshasplaceofbusinessoutsideFrance.ThecontractwasformedwiththatbranchandtobeperformedoutsideFrance.Issue:DoesCISGgovernthistransaction?Yes,itis“placeofbusiness”thatdetermines“international”ornot.Nationalityofindividuals,locationofnegotiationandplaceofdeliveryisnotadeterminatefactorfor“international”.Hypo:supposethereisacontrOptingInandOutPartiestoacontractmayexcludeormodifyCISG’sapplicationbyachoice-of-lawclause.Achoice-of-lawclauseisacontractualprovisionthatidentifiesthelawtobeappliedintheeventofadisputeoverthetermsortheperformanceofthecontract.OptingInandOutPartiestoaHypo:SupposethereisacontractofsaleofgoodsbetweenaGermancompany(placeofbusinessinGermany)andaChinesecompany(placeofbusinessinChina)Issue:DoesCISGgovernthecontractwithorwithout“opt-out”clause?Yes,CISGwillautomaticallyapplytothecontractbetweencontractingstateswithout“opt-out”clause.Ifthereisan“opt-out”clause,CISGwillnotapplybecauseitisanoptionallaw.Hypo:SupposethereisacontrCase10-1:AsanteTechnologies,Inc.v.PMC-Sierra,Inc.Issue:DoestheU.S.federalcourthavejurisdictionanddoesCISGapplytothiscontract?ThecourtdeterminedthepartieswerefromdifferentstatesandCISGappliestocontractsbetweensuchparties.ThepartiesdidnotoptoutoftheCISGanditwasthecontrollinglaw.Case10-1:AsanteTechnologieSalesDefinedAsale

istheexchangeofgoodsforanamountofmoneyoritsequivalent.TheCISGdoesnotdefinesales,butvarioussectionspresentthesamedefinitionasmanydomesticlaws,suchastheU.S.UCC,whichdefinesasaleasthe“passingoftitlefromthesellertothebuyerforaprice.”ThegoodsprocessedthroughthePortofVancouver,B.C.arelikelybeingshippedundercontractscontrolledbytheCISG.SalesDefinedAsaleistheexcGoodsDefinedAgood

isamoveable,tangibleobject.ForthepurposesoftheCISG,goodsdonotincludethingsboughtforpersonaluseoratanauctionorforeclosuresale,normaytheybeocean-goingvesselsoraircrafts.ThesecandlesmayormaynotbeagoodunderCISGdependinguponwhethertheyaresoldtoindividualconsumersorsoldinbulktoaretailerforresale.GoodsDefinedAgoodisamoveaHypo:SupposeAstonMartinLagondaLimitedsignedacontractwithaChinesetuhaotosellhimancustomizedAstonMartinone77automobile.Thecontractstatesfollowing:theautomobileisforpersonalorfamilyuseonly.Issue:Whendisputearises,isCISGapplicable?No,theBritishlawonprotectingconsumer’srightsandinterestsisapplicableHypo:SupposeAstonMartinLagHypo:IBMUSlimitedreceivedapurchasingorderfor100computerserversfromaPRCresident.Thepurchasingorderisforpowerful,cuttingedge,andexpensiveserverofthesortcommonlyboughtforuseinbusinessfirms.Issue:Whendisputearises,isthecontractcoveredbyCISGorlawsonprotectingconsumers?ThecontractiscoveredbyCISG.Hypo:IBMUSlimitedreceivedMixedSalesSellerofgoodsoftenfurnishesserviceswhendeliveringaproduct.CISGlooksuponmixed

salesandservicecontractsassalesofgoods,unlessthepreponderantpartoftheobligation”oftheseller“consistsinthesupplyoflabororotherservices.”

MixedSalesSellerofgoodsoftHypo:Supposetheallocationofthecontractpriceisfollowing:$19,000worthofequipment,and$18,000worthoftechnicalsupportservice?$20,000worthoftechnicalsupportservice,and$19,000worthofequipment?Preponderantpartmeansmorethanhalfpart.ThefirstallocationisforgoodssalecoveredbyCISG,andthesecondallocationisforservicesalenotcoveredbyCISG.

Hypo:SupposetheallocationoContractualIssuesExcludedFromtheCoverageofCISGCISGonlydealswith:Theformationofthecontract,andTheremediesavailabletothebuyerandseller.CISGexcludesquestionsabout:thelegalityofthecontractthecompetencyofthepartiestherightsofthirdpartiesliabilityfordeathorpersonalinjuryContractualIssuesExcludedFrPreemptionIfCISGappliestoaparticularcontractualissue,domesticlawispreempted.RemediesprovidedinCISGaretheonlyremediesavailable.Preemptionhelpstofulfillthegoaloftheconventiontoestablishuniformrulesforinternationalsalescontracts.TheonlypermissibleremedyforadefectivesawistheoneprovidedbyCISGwhenthereisaninternationalsale.PreemptionIfCISGappliestoaInterpretingCISGTointerpretCISG,acourtistoconsider:theinternationalcharacteroftheconvention,theneedtopromoteuniformityintheconvention’sapplication,andtheobservanceofgoodfaith.TheCISGimpliesthatacourtmayonlyusetheplainmeaningofthelanguageoftheconvention.Courtsmayalsolook(thetravauxpreparatories)legislativehistorytodetermineintent.InterpretingCISGTointerpretInterpretingCISG:

GeneralPrinciplesCISGcallsforcourtstolooktothegeneralprinciplesonwhichtheconventionisbasedwheninterpretingitsprovisions.Twoofthesuggestedprinciplesare:Apartytoacontracthasthedutytocommunicate

informationneededbytheotherparty,andPartieshavetheobligationtomitigate

damagesresultingfromabreach.（减损义务）

InterpretingCISG:

GeneralPrInterpretingSalesContractsAcontractissaidtobeformedonlywhenthepartieshaveameetingoftheminds.（意思表示一致）Thissubjectiveintentapproachsaysthatcontractsshouldbeinterpretedaccordingtotheactualintentandunderstandingofthepartiesatthetimetheymadetheiragreement.CISGsayscourtsaretousesubjectiveintentonlyiftheotherpartykneworcouldnothavebeenunawareofthespeaker’sintent.Ifintentisunclear,courtsuseobjectiveintent.InterpretingSalesContractsANegotiationsWhenacourtistodetermineintent,CISGdirectsthatdueconsiderationbegiventoallrelevantcircumstances,including:thenegotiationsleadinguptothecontract,thepracticesthatthepartieshaveestablishedbetweenthemselves,andtheparties’conductaftertheyagreetothecontract.CISGdoesnotapplythetechnicalrulesthatdomesticcourtsusetointerpretcontracts,suchastheparoleevidencerule.NegotiationsWhenacourtistPracticesandUsagesPartiesareboundbyanypractices（习惯做法）whichtheyhaveestablishedbetweenthemselves.Acourtisallowedtoconsideranyusages

thatthepartiesagreedto.Ausage

（惯例）isthecustomarymethodofperformingoractingthatisfollowedbyaparticulargroupofpeople,suchaspeoplewithinaparticulartrade.CISGletsacourtconsider“ausageofwhichthepartieskneworoughttohaveknownwhichininternationaltradeiswidelyknownto,andregularlyobservedbypartiestocontractsofthetypeinvolvedintheparticulartradeconcerned.”PracticesandUsagesPartiesarCase10-2:TreibacherIndustrie,A.G.v.AlleghenyTechnologies,Inc.DefendantTDYenteredintoconsignmentcontractswithTreibacher,thenrefusedshipmentwhenitfoundacheapersupplier.Courthadtointerpret,undertheCISG,thewordconsignment.Issueturnedonwhetherthatwordshouldbeinterpretedaccordingtoitsmeaningbasedonthe“courseofdealings”or“customaryusageintrade.”Courtappliedcourseofdealingsandawarded$5,327,042.Case10-2:TreibacherIndustriFormTheCISGstatesthatacontractforsaleneednotbeconcludedinorevidencedbywritingandisnotsubjecttoanyotherrequirementsastoform.Itmaybeprovedbyanymeans,includingwitnesses.However,CISGauthorizesacontractingstatewhoselegislationrequirescontractsofsaletobeconcludedinorevidencedbywritingtomakeadeclarationatthetimeofratificationtheCISGprovisiondoesnotapplywhereanypartyhashisorherplaceofbusinessinthatstate.FormTheCISGstatesthataconFormationoftheContract:

TheOfferAcontract

isformedwhenanoffertobuyorsellagoodisaccepted.Anoffer

isaproposalbyonepersontoanotherindicatinganintentiontoenterintoacontractunderspecificterms.Tobeavalidoffer:theofferormustcommunicateanintentiontobebound.Aproposal

issufficientlydefiniteifitindicatesthegoodsandexpresslyorimplicitlyfixesormakesprovisionfordeterminingthequantityandprice.FormationoftheContract:

TheEffectivenessofanOfferEffectiveDate:Anofferbecomeseffectiveonlyafteritreachestheofferee,aspecificpersonaddressedintheoffer.Withdraw&RevokeofOfferOfferscanbewithdrawnbeforetheyreachtheofferee.Offerscanberevoked

anytimebeforetheoffereedispatchesanacceptance.EffectivenessofanOfferEffecEffectivenessofanOfferIrrevocableofferifofferindicates,whetherbystatingafixedtimeforacceptanceorotherwise,thatitisirrevocable;orifitwasreasonablefortheoffereetorelyontheofferasbeingirrevocableandtheoffereehasactedinrelianceontheoffer.EffectivenessofanOfferIrrevAcceptanceConceptofAcceptance:Anacceptance

isastatementofconductbytheoffereeindicatingassentthatiscommunicatedtotheofferor.EffectofAcceptance:Acontractcomesintoexistenceatthetimetheofferisaccepted.FormofAcceptanceSilencedoesnotconstituteacceptance,exceptagreedotherwise.NoticeSpecificactionAcceptanceConceptofAcceptancAcceptanceEffectivetimeofanacceptanceAcceptanceiseffectivewhenreceived

byofferor.Acceptancemustbereceivedwithinthetimeperiodspecifiedintheoffer.Ifnotimeperiodisgiven,acceptancemustbereceivedwithinareasonabletime.Thetimewhenspecifiedactisperformed.Iftheofferorasksforperformanceofanactratherthantheindicationofacceptance,theacceptanceiseffectivewhentheactisperformed.AcceptanceEffectivetimeofanCase10-3:

UnitedTechnologiesInternational,Inc.v.MagyarLegiKozlekedesiVallalatPrattandWhitney(P&W)offeredtosellMálevHungarianAirlines(MHA)eithertwoorthreePW4000seriesenginesforinstallationinaBoeingaircraftortwoorthreePW4100seriesenginesforinstallationinanAirbusaircraft.Theofferstateddifferentpricesforthedifferentseriesengines.ItalsosaidthatitwassubjecttoHungarianandUSgovernmentapproval.Oneweeklater,MHAsentaletteracceptingtheofferforthePW4000seriesengines.WhenMHArenegedongoingforwardwiththepurchase,P&Wsuedtoobtainadeclaratoryjudgmentthatacontractexisted.Case10-3:

UnitedTechnologieISSUES:(1)Wasthereanoffer?(2)Wasthereanacceptance?(3)Wastherequirementofgovernmentalapprovalmeanttobeaconditionprecedentorconditionsubsequent?Holdings:Yes,Theofferdescribedthegoods,andthefactthebuyerhadtherighttochoosebetweenthelistedenginesdoesnotaffectthedescriptionoftheengines.Theofferstatedaquantity,eventhoughthebuyercouldchoosebetweentwoorthreeengines.Theofferstatedapriceandtheofferstatedatimefordelivery.Thus,therewasavalidoffer.ISSUES:(1)Wasthereanoffer(2)Yes,MHA’sletterunambiguouslystateditsacceptance.Acontractwasthereforeconcludedatthetimeofacceptance.(3)ConditionSubsequent,thetermrequiringgovernmentapprovalwasnotaconditionprecedenttoavalidcontract,butwasonlyaconditionsubsequent,which,ifitoccurred,mightsuspendthepartiesobligations.(2)Yes,MHA’sletterunambiguoAcceptanceWithdrawalofanacceptanceAnoffereemaywithdraw

his/heracceptanceanytimebeforeorsimultaneouswithitsreceipt.Rejectionrejection

becomeseffectivewhenitreachestheofferor.Iftheoffereesendsbothanacceptanceandarejection,theonethatreachedtheofferorfirstwouldbegiveneffect.AcceptanceWithdrawalofanaccAcceptanceAcceptanceWithMaterialModificationsIftheacceptancemodifiessomeofthetermsoftheoffer,thereisacounteroffer

insteadofanacceptanceiftheseinconsistenciesare“material.”Material:

UndertheCISG,additionaltermsordifferenttermsrelating,amongotherthings,totheprice,payment,qualityofthegoods,place,andtimeofdelivery,extentofoneparty’sliabilitytotheother,orthesettlementofdisputesareconsideredtoalterthetermsoftheoffermaterially.AcceptanceAcceptanceWithMateAcceptanceAcceptanceWithNon-MaterialModificationsAreplytoanofferwhichpurportstobeanacceptancebutcontainsadditionalordifferenttermswhichdonotmateriallyalterthetermsoftheofferconstitutesanacceptance,unlesstheofferor,withoutunduedelay,objectsorallytothediscrepancyordispatchesanoticetothateffect.Ifhedoesnotsoobject,thetermsofthecontractarethetermsoftheofferwiththemodificationscontainedintheacceptance.AcceptanceAcceptanceWithNon-Case10-4:Filanto,

SPAv.Chilewich

InternationalCorp.

Chilewich(aUSexport-importfirm)hadacontracttodeliverfootweartoRussia.ThiscontractcontainedanarbitrationprovisionthatcalledforalldisputestobearbitratedinMoscow.ChilewichthenengagedFilanto(anItaliancorporation)tosupplyitwithfootwearthatChilewichhadcontractedtodelivertoRussia.Chilewich’scorrespondencetoFilantosaidthatthearbitrationprovisionintheRussiancontractwastobepartoftheircontractaswell.FilantosupposedlysentChilewichacounterofferrejectingthearbitrationprovision.Case10-4:Filanto,

SPAv.ChChilewichmeanwhileproceededtoobtainaletterofcreditbenefitingFilantoandproceededasiftherewasacontract.Filanto,however,signedacontractonAugust7thatcontainedthisprovision,althoughitsaidinitscoverletterthatitwasnotboundbytheprovision.WhenadisputearoseandFilantosuedinaUScourt,ChilewichinvokedthearbitrationprovisionandaskedthecourttodismissFilanto’ssuit.ISSUE:(1)WastheAugust7replyacounteroffer?(2)Ifitwas,wasthereacontractanywaybasedonunobjected-toperformance?ChilewichmeanwhileproceededLaw:Areplythatpurportstobeanacceptancebutcontainsmaterial(suchastherejectionofanarbitrationprovision)additions,limitations,ormodificationsarearejectionoftheofferandacounteroffer.Iftheoffereeknowsthattheofferorhasbegunperformanceandfailstonotifytheofferorwithinareasonabletimethatitobjectstothetermsofthecontract,itwillbedeemedtohaveassentedtothoseterms.Holdings::(1)TheobjectionstothearbitrationprovisionintheAugust7coverletterwereamaterialmodificationamountingtoarejectionoftheoffer.(2)BecauseChilewichwentaheadwiththecontract(gettingtheletterofcredit)andFilantodidnottimelyobject,FilantoacceptedthetermsoftheChilewich’sproposedcontract.Law:AreplythatpurportstoSeller’sObligationsAseller’sObligation:deliverthegoods,handoveranydocumentsrelatingtothem,ensurethatthegoodsconformtothecontract.IssuesinDeliveryofGoodsTimeandPlaceofdeliveryandhandoverofdocumentsConformityofgoodsGuaranteesofownership&freefromanythirdpartyclaimExaminationofgoodsCuringthedefectbySellerSeller’sObligationsAseller’sPlaceforDeliveryand

TurningOverDocuments1.PlaceofDeliveryTheplacefordeliveryistheplaceagreedtointhecontract.Otherwise,itis（Article31):thefirstcarrier’splaceofbusiness,ortheplacewherethepartiesknewthegoodswerelocatedorweretobemanufactured.

PlaceforDeliveryand

TurningTimeforDeliveryand

TurningOverDocumentsTimeofdeliverrySelleristodeliver

goodsonthedatefixedinthecontract.Ifnofixeddate,withinareasonabletimeaftertheconclusionofthecontract.TurningoverthedocumentsAttimeandplaceofdelivery,sellermustturnoveranydocumentsrelatingtothegoodsthatthecontractrequires.Ifdocumentsaredeliveredearly,sellerhastherighttocureanydefect

inthedocumentsprovidedthatitdosenotcausebuyerunreasonableinconvenienceorexpenses.TimeforDeliveryand

TurningConformityofGood（货物相符）

Sellermustdelivergoodswhichareofthequantity,quality,anddescriptionrequiredbythecontractandarepackagedinthemannerrequired.Goodsdonotconformunlessthey:arefitforthepurposeofwhichgoodsofthesamedescriptionwouldordinarilybeused;arefitforanyparticularpurpose

expresslyorimpliedly

madeknowntotheseller(withexception);possessthequalities

ofgoodswhichthesellerhasheldoutforthebuyerasasampleormodel;arepackaged

inthesamemannerusualforsuchgoods,(ifnosuchmanner)adequatetopreserveandprotectthegoods.ExceptionAtthetimeofconclusion,buyerkneworshouldknewthelackofconformityConformityofGood（货物相符）SelleThird-PartyClaims,Waiver,TimeforExaminingGoods,andCuringDefectsGoodsarenonconforming

iftheyaresubjecttothird-partyclaimssuchasownershipandrightsinintellectualproperty.(Art.41,42)Thepartiesmaywaive

theconformityrequirement.ExaminingthegoodsBuyerhasanobligationtoexaminethegoodsfordefectswithinasshortaperiodasispracticableafterdelivery(Art.39)Buyerisobligatedtoinform

thesellerofanydiscovereddefectwithinareasonabletime(Maximum2years).CuringthedefectsIfasellerdeliversearly,heorshemaycure

anydefectuptotheagreedupondatefordelivery.(Art.37)Third-PartyClaims,Waiver,TiBuyer’s

ObligationsAbuyerisrequiredto:(1)paythepriceand(2)takedeliveryofthegoodsTime:Unlessadifferenttime

isspecified,thebuyermustpaywhenthegoodsorthedocumentscontrollingtheirdispositionaredelivered.PlaceIfplace

ofdeliveryisspecified,paymentisalsomadethere.Ifnoplaceofdeliveryisspecified,thenbuyermustpayattheseller’splaceofbusiness.Buyer’s

ObligationsAbuyerisCase10-5

TheNaturalGasCaseBuyeragreedtobuynaturalgasforitselfandathirdparty.SelleragreedtoshipgasfromtheUS.Buyeragreedtoobtainaletterofcredit,buttoldsellerthatitsbankneededtoknowtheplaceofloadinginordertoissuetheletter.Selleragreedtoprovidetheplaceofloading,butneverdidso.Later,thesellertoldbuyerthatitsUSsupplierwouldnotagreetoexportthegastobuyerinBelgium.Thethirdpartyboughtgasfromanothersourceforanadditional$141,131.Case10-5

TheNaturalGasCaseBuyerthensuedsellertorecoverthe$141,131forthethirdpartyplus$15,000inlossprofitsforitself.Sellerasserted:thatitwasnotliablebecausethebuyerhadneverobtainedtheletterofcredit;ifitwasliable,thatthebuyerhadavoidedthecontractandthedamagesshouldbecalculatedaccordingly,thatthebuyerwasnotentitledtolossprofitsandthatthebuyer/thirdpartyfailedtomitigatethedamages.ISSUES:(1)Hadthebuyerbreachedbynotobtainingtheletterofcredit?(2)Hadthesellerbreached?(3)Wasthecontractavoided?(4)Wasthebuyerentitledtolostprofits?(5)Hadthebuyerfailedtomitigate?BuyerthensuedsellertorecoHoldings:(1)No,thebuyerdidnotbreach,becausethefailuretoprovidealetterofcreditwascausedbytheseller’sfailuretoprovidetheplaceofloading.(2)Yes,thesellerbreachedbyfailingtoobtainclearancefortheexportofthegasandfailingtodeliverthegas.(3)No,thebuyernevernotifiedthesellerthatitwasavoidingthecontract.Notificationoftheamountoflossesincurredisnotanotificationofavoidance.(4)Yes,whenmerchantablegoodsaresoldtoamerchant,resaleispresumed.Indeed,sellerknewthatthiswasthecase.Lostprofits,therefore,areanappropriatemeasureofdamages.(5)No,thesellerfailedtoshowhowthebuyercouldhavemitigated.Holdings:PassageofRisk(Art.66-70)ConceptThelegalconceptof

passageorrisk

isthepointintimewhenthebuyerbecomesresponsibleforlossestothegoods.EffectOncetheriskpasses,thebuyermustpayforthegoods.Eveniftheyaredamagedordestroyed.PartyAutonomyCISGallowsthepartiestoallocateriskandspecifywhenriskwillpass.Thepartiesusuallyshowpassageofriskthroughtheusageoftradeterms,suchasFreeonBoard(FOB)orCost,Insurance,andFreight

(CIF).PassageofRisk(Art.66-70)ConPassageofRiskIdentificationofgoods：Inshipment,transshipment,in-transit,anddestinationcontracts,theriskoflosswillnotpassuntilthegoodsareclearlyidentified（特定化）tothecontractbymarkingsonthegoods,shippingdocuments,ornoticegiventothebuyer.Non-destinationcontract:Inashipmentcontractwheretheselleristodeliverthegoodstoacarrieranddoesnot

requirethatthesellerdelivertoaparticularplace,theriskpasseswhenthegoodsarehandedovertothefirstcarrier.PassageofRiskIdentificationPassageofRiskDestinationcontract:Whenacontractrequiresthesellertoarrangetransportationtoaspecificdestination,theriskoflossdoesnotpasstothebuyeruntilthegoodsare

handedoverorplacedathis/herdisposalatthatplace.In-transitcontract:Theriskinrespectofgoodssoldintransitpassestothebuyerfromthetimeoftheconclusionofthecontractifthecircumstancessoindicate,theriskisassumedbythebuyerfromthetimethegoodswerehandedovertothecarrierwhoissuedthedocumentsembodyingthecontractofcarriageExceptions:thesellerkneworoughttohaveknownthatthegoodshadbeenlostordamagedanddidnotdisclosethistothebuyer,thelossordamageisattheriskofthesellerPassageofRiskDestinationconFundamentalBreach(根本违约）Whenonepartybreaches,theotherpartymayavoidthecontract,makeademandforspecificperformance,and/orseekingforotherremediesConceptofFundamentalBreachofContract:A

breach

ofcontractcommittedbyoneofthepartiesisfundamentalifitresultsinsuchdetrimenttotheotherpartyassubstantially

todeprivehimorherofwhatheorsheisentitledtoexpectunderthecontract.RemedyofAggrievedPartyTheinjuredpartymayusetheremedyofavoidancebynotifyingtheotherpartyandreturninganygoodsalreadyreceived.FundamentalBreach(根本违约）WhenoAvoidance(art.81-84)（宣告合同无效）Concept:notificationbythepartythatheiscancelingthecontract.Procedure:theinjuredpartymust-inallcases-notifytheotherpartyTheeffectofavoidanceReleasesbothpartiesfromtheirobligations,returnthegoodandprices(withinterests)alreadyreceived.Dosenotaffecttheprovisionsofsettlementofdisputesoranyotherprovisionofthecontractgoverningtherightsandobligationsofthepartiesconsequentupontheavoidanceofthecontract.Avoidance(art.81-84)（宣告合同无效）CoAvoidanceLostofrighttoclaimavoidanceIfitisimpossibleforaggrievedbuyertomakerestitutionofthegoodssubstantiallyintheconditioninwhichhereceivedthemExceptionstoLostofrightiftheimpossibilityofmakingisnotduetohisactoromission;ifthegoodsorpartofthegoodshaveperishedordeterioratedasaresultofthe;orifthegoodsorpartofthegoodshavebeensoldinthenormalcourseofbusinessorhavebeenconsumedortransformedbythebuyerinthecourseofnormalusebeforehediscoveredoroughttohavediscoveredthelackofconformity.AvoidanceLostofrighttoclaiRequestsforSpecificPerformance（实际履行）ConceptofSpecificperformance

courtorderdirectingapartytocarryouttheobligationsheorshehadcontractuallypromisedtodo.Therequestforspecificperformanceonepartyisentitledtorequireperformanceofanyobligationbytheotherparty,acourtisnotboundtoenterajudgmentforspecificperformanceunlessthecourtwoulddosounderitsownlawinrespectofsimilarcontractsofsalenotgovernedbyCISG.Insomecivillawcountries,apartyisentitledtorequireperformance.IntheUS,specificperformanceisgrantedifthegoodsareuniqueandcannotbeobtainedelsewhere.RequestsforSpecificPerformaBuyer’sRemediesThebuyer’sremediesarecumulative,meaningtheyareabletobejoinedortakentogether.Theremediesuniquetothebuyerare:tocompelspecificperformance（实际履行）toavoidthecontract（宣告合同无效）toreducethepricetorefuseear