« »
December 6th, 2020

Distribution Agreement Cisg

The role of the parties in a distribution agreement and the characteristics of the agreement differ from those normally involved in a contract to sell goods. Unlike a purchaser of goods, “a merchant buys goods and resells them in his own name and in his own name, and is more than an intermediary between the manufacturer and the buyer.” [62] Thus, the distributor assumes responsibility not only for the sale of goods, but also for the organization and implementation of “the distribution of products in their own territory, in a country or country [page 422] in which the manufacturer is not established.” [63] In addition to defining the terms and conditions for sales contracts in accordance with the distribution agreement, distribution agreements also deal with issues outside the scope of the ICSG. These agreements control, for example, issues related to resale restrictions, if any, as well as the rights and obligations of the parties at the end of the distribution relationship to which the CISG does not apply. [64] However, contrary to the Tribunal`s contention, there is a power to allow for a more complete analysis of the applicability of the ICSG to distribution agreements. Both scientific analyses and international cases suggest that the court should shift its short-sighted focus on American jurisprudence as the only source of interpretation of the ICSG. [45] By broadening its focus on international jurisprudence, the Tribunal could have assessed the unique international character of the ICSG and promoted its objective of uniform application. Moreover, the court could have shown that the American courts are prepared to look beyond their borders. Further analysis of the GSSA provides a clearer pathway for future decisions using the GSS. 72. See id.; See also Harry M. Flechtner, More U.S. Decisions on the U.N.

Sales Convention: Scope, Parol, Evidence, “Validity” and Reduction of Price under Article 50, 14 J.L. – Com. 153, 164-65 (1995) (noting that the “party” plans have requested inclusion in framework agreements in future sales . . . it is likely that they will be submitted to the ICSG”). 73. See OLG Dusseldorf, UNILEX, No. 6 U 152/95 (July 11, 1996). 74.

See id. 75. See Id. 76. See Id. 77. See Id. 78.

See OLG Dusseldorf, UNILEX, 6 U 152/95 (July 11, 1996). 79. See id.; See also CISG, supra note 1, art. 53. 80. OLG Dusseldorf , UNILEX, No. 6 U 152/95 (July 11, 1996), “cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930917gl.html” (visited September 25, 1997). 81. See id. 82. See id. 83.

See id.; (citing CISG, note 1 above, Article 7, paragraph 2). 84. See OLG Coblence, UNILEX, No. 2 U 1230/91 (17 Sec 1993) [cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960711gl.html]. 85. See Id. 86. See Id. 87. See Id. 88.

See Id. 89. OLG Coblence, UNILEX, No. 2 U 1230/91 (17 Sec 1993). 90. See Id. 91. See Id.

92. See Id. 93. See Cook, supra note 13, at 258. 94. See Helen Kaminski Pty. Ltd. v. Marketing Australian Products, Inc., 97-8072A, 1997 WL 414137, (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 1997). Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law – Last Updated August 2, 1999 Comments/Contributions In database directory For the bibliography The German court ruled that the CISG did not apply to a distribution contract.

[90] It found, however, that the case was applicable to each individual sales contract under the agreement. [91] Thus, the French seller was entitled, under the CISG, to the payment of the price of the chip within the meaning of Article 53 [92] 54.

Comments are closed.