Perspectives on Law

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 retroact...

The Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG) provides for avoidance of contract as a remedy to both the buyer and seller if there is a fundamental breach of the contract. The buyer is given this right under Art.49 whereas the seller has a right under Art. 64. The CISG also provides for a special article on avoidance  (Article 73) available to both seller and buyer, if the contract is one of installments. A contract is considered to be an installment contract, under the CISG, when it provides for deliveries in separate lots. (Secretariat Commentary on art. 64 of the 1978 Draft [draft counterpart of art. 73 CISG], Art. 73 provides for avoidance in three cases: (1) to avoid only that instalment in respect of which a fundamental breach has occurred, (2) to avoid future instalments if a breach that has actually occurred gives him good reasons to conclude that a fundamental breach will occur with respect to future deliveries, (3) to avoid past and future deliveri...