Podcast
Questions and Answers
What was the main reason the Court decided there was a fundamental breach in the first case mentioned?
What was the main reason the Court decided there was a fundamental breach in the first case mentioned?
- The seller was late for the first delivery only.
- The buyer wanted the fashion items specifically for the autumn season. (correct)
- The buyer refused to accept any delayed deliveries.
- The buyer avoided the contract after receiving the last delivery in November.
In the second case, what action did the buyer take as a result of the delayed delivery?
In the second case, what action did the buyer take as a result of the delayed delivery?
- Demanded a refund for the total value paid.
- Refused to accept any delayed deliveries.
- Avoided the contract after receiving two-thirds of the goods. (correct)
- Accepted the partial delivery and waited for the rest of the goods.
What aspect of the contract was considered fundamental in the second case?
What aspect of the contract was considered fundamental in the second case?
- The amount of money paid for the goods.
- The agreement on the variety of bags ordered.
- The prompt delivery timeframe specified. (correct)
- The buyer's expectation of quality goods.
What was the seller's mistake in the first case regarding the deliveries?
What was the seller's mistake in the first case regarding the deliveries?
Why did the buyer avoid the contract in the second case?
Why did the buyer avoid the contract in the second case?
What was the buyer's primary concern in the first case with the seller's actions?
What was the buyer's primary concern in the first case with the seller's actions?
If the defect in the goods can be remedied within a reasonable time, what remedy is rarely available to the buyer in such cases?
If the defect in the goods can be remedied within a reasonable time, what remedy is rarely available to the buyer in such cases?
Under what condition can the defect in the goods lead to the avoidance of the contract?
Under what condition can the defect in the goods lead to the avoidance of the contract?
Which courts are known for taking a strict approach on fundamental breaches, according to the text?
Which courts are known for taking a strict approach on fundamental breaches, according to the text?
According to Article 35 (1), what must the seller provide with regards to the delivered goods?
According to Article 35 (1), what must the seller provide with regards to the delivered goods?
In what circumstance will the buyer have the option of only claiming damages?
In what circumstance will the buyer have the option of only claiming damages?
Which articles of the CISG are mentioned as governing the avoidance of contracts due to fundamental breach?
Which articles of the CISG are mentioned as governing the avoidance of contracts due to fundamental breach?
According to Article 25 of the CISG, a fundamental breach is one that results in which of the following?
According to Article 25 of the CISG, a fundamental breach is one that results in which of the following?
Which of the following is NOT a consequence of a declaration of avoidance under the CISG?
Which of the following is NOT a consequence of a declaration of avoidance under the CISG?
Which of the following statements about the foreseeability of a fundamental breach under the CISG is correct?
Which of the following statements about the foreseeability of a fundamental breach under the CISG is correct?
Which of the following is NOT a requirement for a breach of contract under the CISG to be considered fundamental?
Which of the following is NOT a requirement for a breach of contract under the CISG to be considered fundamental?
What is the definition of a fundamental breach under the CISG?
What is the definition of a fundamental breach under the CISG?
Which of the following is NOT a consequence of a fundamental breach under the CISG?
Which of the following is NOT a consequence of a fundamental breach under the CISG?
What is the primary requirement for the seller according to Art 35 CISG?
What is the primary requirement for the seller according to Art 35 CISG?
What was the consequence of the seller's actions in Example 3?
What was the consequence of the seller's actions in Example 3?
Why did the Court not find a fundamental breach in Example 3?
Why did the Court not find a fundamental breach in Example 3?
What is one of the aspects of non-conformity under Art 35 CISG?
What is one of the aspects of non-conformity under Art 35 CISG?
What could the buyer have done to avoid the issue in Example 3?
What could the buyer have done to avoid the issue in Example 3?
What is the last resort under the CISG according to the Court?
What is the last resort under the CISG according to the Court?
In which situation was a fundamental breach of contract established based on non-conformity of goods?
In which situation was a fundamental breach of contract established based on non-conformity of goods?
Which case resulted in the avoidance of the contract on the grounds of non-conformity with the contract according to Article 35 CISG?
Which case resulted in the avoidance of the contract on the grounds of non-conformity with the contract according to Article 35 CISG?
In which case did the seller attempt to remedy the defects but ultimately failed?
In which case did the seller attempt to remedy the defects but ultimately failed?
Which case resulted in the buyer avoiding the contract due to fundamental breach caused by non-conformity of goods?
Which case resulted in the buyer avoiding the contract due to fundamental breach caused by non-conformity of goods?
In which situation was the delivery not in conformity with the contract, as per Article 35 CISG?
In which situation was the delivery not in conformity with the contract, as per Article 35 CISG?
The buyer was able to avoid the contract due to the delayed delivery of one-third of the goods two months after contract formation and payment of the full contract price.
The buyer was able to avoid the contract due to the delayed delivery of one-third of the goods two months after contract formation and payment of the full contract price.
In cases of defective performance, the buyer will always have the option of claiming damages as a remedy.
In cases of defective performance, the buyer will always have the option of claiming damages as a remedy.
The defect in goods must be rectifiable within a reasonable time for the buyer to avoid the contract due to a fundamental breach.
The defect in goods must be rectifiable within a reasonable time for the buyer to avoid the contract due to a fundamental breach.
German and Swiss Supreme courts are known for taking a flexible approach on fundamental breaches, unlike French, Austrian, and United States courts.
German and Swiss Supreme courts are known for taking a flexible approach on fundamental breaches, unlike French, Austrian, and United States courts.
Article 35 (1) of the CISG requires the seller to provide goods of quantity, quality, and description specified in the contract, in the desired container, or packaging.
Article 35 (1) of the CISG requires the seller to provide goods of quantity, quality, and description specified in the contract, in the desired container, or packaging.
If the defect in goods can be remedied within a reasonable time, the buyer will likely be able to avoid the contract due to a fundamental breach.
If the defect in goods can be remedied within a reasonable time, the buyer will likely be able to avoid the contract due to a fundamental breach.
The seller in the first case made the final delivery on time according to the contract.
The seller in the first case made the final delivery on time according to the contract.
In the second case, the buyer accepted the partial delivery of one-third of the goods.
In the second case, the buyer accepted the partial delivery of one-third of the goods.
The Court found a fundamental breach in the first case due to the seller's failure to deliver fashion for the summer season.
The Court found a fundamental breach in the first case due to the seller's failure to deliver fashion for the summer season.
The Court decided in the second case that prompt delivery was not a fundamental aspect of the contract.
The Court decided in the second case that prompt delivery was not a fundamental aspect of the contract.
In the first case, the buyer avoided the contract due to the late delivery of goods.
In the first case, the buyer avoided the contract due to the late delivery of goods.
The seller in the second case managed to deliver all the goods within the initially agreed timeframe of 10-15 days.
The seller in the second case managed to deliver all the goods within the initially agreed timeframe of 10-15 days.
The Italian seller intentionally delivered a non-conforming product to the French buyer, violating Article 35 CISG.
The Italian seller intentionally delivered a non-conforming product to the French buyer, violating Article 35 CISG.
The portable air conditioning compressor delivered to the Italian buyer had a larger cooling capacity than agreed, causing the buyer to avoid the contract.
The portable air conditioning compressor delivered to the Italian buyer had a larger cooling capacity than agreed, causing the buyer to avoid the contract.
In both cases, the buyers immediately declared avoidance of the contract without considering the possibility of remedying the defects.
In both cases, the buyers immediately declared avoidance of the contract without considering the possibility of remedying the defects.
The US courts apply a strict approach when considering the fundamental breach under the CISG, resulting in the allowance of avoidance of contracts.
The US courts apply a strict approach when considering the fundamental breach under the CISG, resulting in the allowance of avoidance of contracts.
The buyer in Example 4 had the option to only claim damages instead of avoiding the contract due to the non-conformity of the wine delivered.
The buyer in Example 4 had the option to only claim damages instead of avoiding the contract due to the non-conformity of the wine delivered.
A fundamental breach can only be committed by the buyer under the CISG.
A fundamental breach can only be committed by the buyer under the CISG.
A breach of contract committed by one of the parties is considered fundamental only if it is foreseeable.
A breach of contract committed by one of the parties is considered fundamental only if it is foreseeable.
If the breach of contract is considered a fundamental breach, the parties are not released from their remaining contractual obligations under the CISG.
If the breach of contract is considered a fundamental breach, the parties are not released from their remaining contractual obligations under the CISG.
A declaration of avoidance under the CISG can lead to unjust enrichment of one of the parties.
A declaration of avoidance under the CISG can lead to unjust enrichment of one of the parties.
Under the CISG, a breach of contract can be considered fundamental even if the consequences of the breach were not foreseeable.
Under the CISG, a breach of contract can be considered fundamental even if the consequences of the breach were not foreseeable.
According to the CISG, the avoidance of a contract is only possible if the breach is considered 'minor' rather than 'fundamental' breach of contractual obligations.
According to the CISG, the avoidance of a contract is only possible if the breach is considered 'minor' rather than 'fundamental' breach of contractual obligations.
In the given scenario, the German Supreme Court ruled that delivery of goods different from what was agreed upon in the contract constitutes a fundamental breach under Art 35 CISG.
In the given scenario, the German Supreme Court ruled that delivery of goods different from what was agreed upon in the contract constitutes a fundamental breach under Art 35 CISG.
Under Art 35 CISG, the seller must deliver goods which are not only of the quantity, quality, and description required by the contract but also fit for the ordinary purposes of such goods.
Under Art 35 CISG, the seller must deliver goods which are not only of the quantity, quality, and description required by the contract but also fit for the ordinary purposes of such goods.
In the given scenario, the seller supplied the agreed quality of cobalt sulphate but the accompanying documents were partially falsified.
In the given scenario, the seller supplied the agreed quality of cobalt sulphate but the accompanying documents were partially falsified.
The CISG allows for 'avoidance' and 'restitution' as remedies for non-conforming goods, without considering them as last resorts.
The CISG allows for 'avoidance' and 'restitution' as remedies for non-conforming goods, without considering them as last resorts.
The buyer in the scenario could not have avoided the issue by stipulating the particular characteristics of the goods as fundamental in the contract.
The buyer in the scenario could not have avoided the issue by stipulating the particular characteristics of the goods as fundamental in the contract.
Under Art 35 CISG, the seller is not responsible for ensuring that goods are fit for a particular purpose, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Under Art 35 CISG, the seller is not responsible for ensuring that goods are fit for a particular purpose, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Flashcards are hidden until you start studying
Study Notes
Fundamental Breach
- A fundamental breach of contract by one party allows the other party to avoid the contract under the CISG.
- A declaration of avoidance releases the parties from their remaining contractual obligations, with no unjust enrichment.
Article 25: Fundamental Breach
- A breach of contract is fundamental if it results in such detriment to the other party as to substantially deprive them of what they are entitled to expect under the contract.
- The party in breach must have foreseen, or a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen, such a result.
What Constitutes the “Fundamentality” of the Breach?
- A fundamental breach is committed when a party fails to deliver goods that meet the quantity, quality, and description required by the contract.
- Non-conformity with the contract or law, partial performance, impossibility, delay, and non-conformity with ordinary or particular purposes are also considered fundamental breaches.
Foreseeability in Fundamental Breach
- Foreseeability is a crucial element in determining whether a breach is fundamental.
- The party in breach must have foreseen, or a reasonable person would have foreseen, the detrimental consequences of the breach.
Uniform Concept of Nonconformity under Art 35 CISG
- Non-conformity includes:
- Partial performance
- Impossibility
- Delay
- Quantity and quality non-conformity
- Non-conformity with law and contract
Case Examples
- Example 3: German buyer vs. Dutch seller (BGH)
- No fundamental breach found, buyer had remedies in damages and reduction in value.
- Example 4: Italian seller vs. French buyer
- Fundamental breach found due to non-conforming wine delivery, allowing avoidance of the contract.
- Example 5: US Courts (New York company vs. Italian buyer)
- Fundamental breach found due to non-conforming air conditioning compressor delivery, allowing avoidance of the contract.
National Approaches to Fundamental Breach
- Different national legal systems and traditions lead to varying approaches to finding fundamental breaches and allowing avoidance of the contract.
- Examples include:
- German and Swiss Supreme courts taking a strict approach
- French, Austrian, and US courts being more flexible in finding fundamental breaches
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.