A Time-Limit Running Wild? Article 39(2) CISG and Domestic Limitation Periods

Ulrich G. Schroeter
Additional contact information
Ulrich G. Schroeter: University of Basel

No 8vzbk, LawRxiv from Center for Open Science

Abstract: Mads Bryde Andersen & René Franz Henschel (eds.), A tribute to Joseph M. Lookofsky, Copenhagen: Djøf Publishing (2015), 335-362 Article 39(2) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980 (CISG) imposes a cut-off period on the buyer's remedies for the delivery of non-conforming goods, depriving the buyer of all remedies under the CISG if he has not given notice of non-conformity to the seller within two years after the goods were handed over. Despite the fact that the CISG contains no rules on the limitation of actions (prescription), courts in various jurisdictions have held that Article 39(2) CISG preempts the application of limitation periods under domestic laws that are shorter than two years. The present article challenges this approach and argues that the prevailing interpretation of Article 39(2) CISG misunderstands the provision's purpose. If construed correctly, no conflict exists between the CISG's two-year cut-off rule and shorter domestic limitation periods.

Date: 2017-01-06
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://osf.io/download/586f59316c613b01ffac5bf7/

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:osf:lawarx:8vzbk

DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/8vzbk

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in LawRxiv from Center for Open Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by OSF ().