Can an instalment contract be avoided under Art.49/64 CISG?

In continuation to my earlier post, in this post, I will be proposing a counter argument - that an instalment contract can be avoided under Art.49/64 CISG

In determining the meaning of an international treaty, one of the rules of the 1969 UN Convention on the Law of Treaties is that recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation including the preparatory work of the treaty. (Article 32 of the 1969 Vienna Treaty Convention.) In the interpretation of the CISG also, its legislative history can be decisive, as this would be in accordance with Art. 7(1) of the CISG.


If we look at the legislative history of Art.73, we will see that the purpose of incorporating 73(1) is to enable the buyer to make partial avoidance of an installment contract. The purpose of 73(2) was to encompass an anticipatory breach situation, where the basis of the anticipation is a breach already committed. While the purpose of Art. 73(3) is to provide for a right of avoidance having retroactive effect, justified by the close interdependence between the breached instalments and other instalments. Art.73 however does not take into account a situation where, the breach of obligation in respect of an instalment amounts to fundamental breach of the whole contract.

On the other hand Art. 49 (1) (a) allows the buyer to avoid the contract when the failure by the seller of any of his obligations under the contract or convention, constitutes a “fundamental breach of the contract.” Thus Art 49 refers to situations where the failure to perform by the seller concerns the contract as a whole.( Anna Kazimierska ) Thus even if the contract is a contract for delivery of goods by instalments, the buyer can avoid the entire contract under Art. 49(1)(a) if the seller's default constitutes a fundamental breach of the entire contract. (Harry M. Flechtner). This argument can similarly apply to Art.64 i.e. it refers to situations where the failure to perform by the buyer concerns the contract as a whole and thus the seller can avoid the entire contract under Art. 64 (1)(a) if the buyer’s default even in respect of one instalment constitutes a fundamental breach of the entire contract.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Competition Law - Presumption in Section 3(3) contd..

I have in my earlier posts,( here , here and here ) proposed argumets which may be made in favour of the the presumption being irrebuttable. I will now present the arguments  from the other side. Argument 1- Presumption Rebuttable . One of the principles of Interpretation of Statutes is that another statute may be referred to while interpreting a statute when the two are similar i.e. when they are statutes in pari materia  ( Harshad S. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra , (2001) 8 SCC 257) It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. A Vaidyanath Aiyer , AIR 1958 SC 61, that it is not necessary that the entire subject-matter in the two statutes should be identical before any provision in one may be held to be in pari materia with some provision in the other. In this case, Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which directs that on proof that the accused has accepted any gratification other than the legal remuneration, it shall be presumed unless the con
Read more

NOMINEE v/s LEGAL HEIRS

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its very recent decision, Harsha Nitin Kokate Vs. The Saraswat Co-op. Bank Limited & Others , held that position of a nominee under section 109A of the Companies Act is not merely that of a trustee for the estate of the deceased, and it further held that, "  on the death of the share holder, the nominee would become entitled to all rights in the shares to the exclusion of all other persons ." This means that, the nominee will be made the beneficial  owner thereof and all the rights incidental to ownership of shares would follow i.e. the right to transfer, pledge or hold the shares. The court based its decision on the express provisions of the section which provide as follows: ­S. 109A. Nomination of shares – (1) Every holder of shares in, or holder of debentures of a company may, at any time, nominate, in the prescribed manner, a person to whom his shares in or debentures of, the company shall vest in the event of his death. (2)
Read more

Retrospective Operation of PWDV Act

Amongst the many conflicting decisions arising out the application of Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, one of them, is in respect of the operation of the Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the PWDV Act does not apply retrospectively and that an action under the Act can lie only if the acts of domestic violence are committed on or after 26 Oct 2006, i.e. the date on which the Act came into force. Similarly, a Delhi Metropolitan Court  and a JMFC in Goa also took the view that this Act will not be applicable if the acts complained of have been committed prior to the passing of the Act. On the other hand the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court have taken a different view. They held that, the court is competent to take cognizance of the act of domestic violence committed even prior to the Act came into force and pass necessary protection orders. The Act can be applied retrospectively to take cognizance of the act of violence alleged to have been committed
Read more