Assessing the challenges faced by different parties when applying the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)

Assessing the challenges faced by different parties when applying the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)


This Blog is written by Vibhuti Rao from Symbiosis Law School, NoidaEdited by Karan Dutt.



United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is also known as the ‘Vienna Convention.’ It is an international framework across borders of countries who ratified it to build a uniform international commerce practice on 25th September 2020. It is believed to be the biggest accomplishment and most successful international document in unified international sales. It is a living document represented by parties from every geographical region, every economic stature and development and every notable social, economic and social system. It was ratified, acceded to, accepted or succeeded last by 94 countries. The UNCITRAL in 1980, introduced the United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods. The CISG is a treaty setting out a uniform law for agreements for the international sale of goods.


International sale of goods contract is a complex one and hence particularly depends on the subject matter of the contract which decided its advantages and disadvantages and require scrutiny. It intended to facilitate international trade by establishing a system of uniform sale of goods rules which can apply to an international sales contract. This eases off the unnecessary burden and creates a level playing field. It gives importance and credit to merit before any other factor. It successfully removes the geographical barrier and brings international contracts under one large umbrella. This makes it more effective to carry these out. There is always a possibility for conflicts to evolve and in such a situation when parties are placed in one similar setting under the same set of laws, the resolution of these conflicts is lesser problematic.


It is natural and logical for every and any phenomenon to have certain advantages and drawbacks alike. The convention does on plenty of levels strive to promote flexibility which does ensure the greater good but certain drawbacks still exist and they are –

Natural differences in countries

Certain differences and inequalities that exist between countries cannot be ignored and ruled out as they are present naturally. They may even include institutional, organisational and legal differences with respect to the legislations that exist. They may either put a country on an added benefit or limit their possibilities and neither is fair to any party under any circumstances.

Does not align with all country-specific laws

The Vienna Convention is an international understanding on the highest level however it cannot blindside the years old existing national laws within the ratified countries which may not always. There is unquestionable deficiency of the system made by the CISG. This deficiency shows itself in somewhere around two distinct ways. The first has to do with the business system of the CISG itself. It is notable that the Show administers just the development of the agreement of offer and the rights what’s more, commitments of the gatherings (counting legally binding cures). Craftsmanship. 4 CISG leaves out inquiries of legitimacy of the agreement and the impact of the agreement on the property in the merchandise sold. The second justification deficiency is that the business parties the CISG expects to serve are typically not just inspired by a reasonable agreement law system, yet additionally in different fields, for example, procedural law and expense law. The issue along these lines is that the CISG system isn’t solely material to the gathering relationship. Holes should be filled by the homegrown law that is appropriate as per the guidelines on struggle of laws. I accept this is one of the principal reasons why gatherings avoid the CISG: they favour the imperfectness of one entire public purview to the circumstance in which their privileges and commitments are administered by parts of diverse beginning, regardless of how high the nature of these pieces might be.

Authors continuously allege that although CISG may be suitable for sale of manufactured goods it does not satisfy needs of commodity trade. Apart from objection concerning the risk of loss, the criticism targets rules on fundamental breach and on cure. Nevertheless, as has been shown in another place, the provisions of CISG can easily be adapted to peculiarities of commodity trade. In the parts of commodity market where string transactions continue to prevail or prices are susceptible to considerable fluctuation, some special standards have to be applied for determining whether there is fundamental breach. In such circumstances, the timely delivery by handing over of clean documents, which can be resold in normal course of business, is essential to the contract. If parties do not stipulate its importance by a respective clause, it can be derived from circumstances by an interpretation of the contract pursuant to Article 8(2), (3) CISG. As a result, seller’s general option to remedy a defect in the documents that is normally provided by CISG does not exist in commodities trade. Thus, in this specific trade branch, the solution under CISG is quite similar to that under perfect tender rule of Common Law.

Representatives of developing nations have argued that the convention is too seller friendly. This allegation focuses mainly on obligation of buyer to examine goods and give a notice of any non-conformity. At Vienna Conference, this position was supported by delegates from certain countries whose legal systems did not provide for a notice requirement. The well-known compromise is now found in Article 44 CISG.

On other hand, especially legal practitioners with a German background fear that CISG is too buyer friendly. They point specifically to Anglo-American concept of “strict liability” and somewhat ironically to attenuation of the notice requirement. Nevertheless, in practice, differences between liability systems are negligible. The opposition reveals mainly a general and irrational fear of hitherto the unknown legal concepts and the outside influences.

All in all it can be concluded that if one side is criticizing the seller friendliness while other side fears the buyer friendliness, these arguments neutralize each other. This, finally, strongly suggests that CISG actually achieves reasonable and fair results for both the parties.


The response to this inquiry is questionable. Its stated uniqueness has frequently been alluded to as a sign of its current or possible achievement. The Commentary to the Convention is, in any case, too sure to even think about estimating precisely the adequacy of its arrangements. There are numerous signs and previous instances of the Convention neglecting to appropriately oversee over states in exchange, instead of other worldwide economic deals, like the World Trade Organization.

To survey the viability of the debate avoidance and settlement arrangements of the CISG Convention, contrast them with that of other peaceful accords between states. While the CISG Convention is sufficiently adequate to forestall and resolve questions, maybe it isn’t just about as fruitful as different arrangements might be.

In any case, understand that there isn’t really a causal connection between unification of laws and an increment in cross border trade. There are two purposes behind this. The first is that gatherings, when settling on the choice (not) to contract, are normally driven by different components than (contract) law. In case they are limited from going into a cross-line the exchange, this might be expected more to factors like distance and contrasts in language or culture than to contrasts in the law. What’s more, to the extent that law does assume a part in settling on choices about contracting,16 all things considered, fields like procedural law or duty law structure more prominent obstructions to exchange than contrasts in contract law (that comprises to a great extent of non-required principles at any rate). This implies we should not overestimate the significance of unification of agreement law for choices about contracting: as a general rule, parties are driven by different thought processes. The subsequent point is more principal: business parties don’t fundamentally have an interest in the unification of laws. It should be expected to be that their anxiety is to have some general set of laws pertinent to their agreement, rather than that this framework is a uniform one. This is imperative to underscore since to the extent that business parties have a decision between different lawful frameworks that can be pertinent to their agreement, they are probably going to pick the overall set of laws they know best, or that (in their view) furnishes them with most legitimate sureness. Valid, in an optimal world they would most likely really like to have one law material to every one of their exchanges, regardless of where they happen. In any case, the overall issue of uniform laws is that they never give a really self-standing locale that totally prohibits the pertinence of public law. In this sense, the production of a uniform deals system can even confound matters: it implies that gatherings are as of now not administered by one law, yet, by a few parts comprising of public standards (relevant because of the contention of laws rules being referred to) and of the guidelines of the CISG. These overall contemplations uncover that if parties have the decision between a uniform global deals system and a homegrown framework, they do not really favour the previous. Allow us currently to investigate some particular issues of the CISG against the foundation of this finding.


To forestall struggle between states, gatherings to an agreement have the alternative to disavow their commitments in case of another state’s conduct showing a forthcoming penetrate of agreement. This adaptability licenses states to keep away from struggle in such manner.

In any case, it is perceived that debates might in any case emerge, particularly on account of deciphering the commitments of the gatherings to the Convention. For instance, in the Explanatory note of the CISG Convention, Part One incorporates a segment with respect to the “understanding of the Convention”

The content of this part explicitly subtleties the essential conduct of states on account of contention. Contemplations of the law are to be applied just in case there is no agreement between the gatherings on the understanding of the Convention. Nonetheless, note that this likewise applies to courts who are utilized to determine a debate. The Convention presents worldwide uniform meaningful standards to be embraced by the signatory states and, in case of a debate, the Court should initially set up whether those guidelines apply to the question prior to using the principles of global law.

The most well-known association pointed toward facilitating the cycle of exchange is the World Trade Organization (the WTO), which is the replacement to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the GATT). With a sum of 162-part expresses, the likelihood of questions emerging inside the WTO is incredible. In this way, to keep away from the impedance with issues, the Organization orchestrated there to exist a different body exclusively pointed toward settling possible questions. The Dispute Settle Body (the DSB)— which is accommodated in the Understanding on Rule and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the Understanding)— is set and set up with the expectation to direct the principles and techniques of the Understanding in various situations.

While the first point of DSB to settle clashes, there still exists arrangements that are permitted to be empowered to forestall the debates before they even happen. The WTO, through the DSB, routinely attests that each gathering is embraced their commitments according to the Convention and the particular exchange they have entered.


The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is the great representation of unification of private law at the worldwide level. With more than 75 contracting States that make up for an expanding number of the world’s biggest economies, the CISG is normally seen as a major achievement. Be that as it may, this evaluation is to a great extent dependent on how States see the upsides of the CISG. This commitment asks how different entertainers engaged with the legitimate cycle (like business parties, lawyers, in house-legal advisors and courts) see the CISG. To this end, three constant issues of the CISG are distinguished: its hazardous uniform application by public and arbitral courts, its ordinary prohibition by gatherings, and its deficiency. This calls for acknowledgment that the foundation of a worldwide uniform law isn’t the lone conceivable manner by which global exchange can be advanced. It would be similarly critical to permit gatherings to settle on their preferred public locale material to the agreement. The worth of the CISG then, at that point lies basically in furnishing business parties with a typical edge of reference, permitting them to contrast the arrangements of the CISG and different public purviews and to follow up on this.


Albeit not the general benefits of CISG are undisputable, the analysis in regards to use of the show to global business exchanges remains, and it appears to foster an emphatically regrettable perspective on CISG in specific nations. On a more intensive gander at these reactions, it is uncovered that they are unwarranted as they result from general misconception. Indeed, even in situations where the analysis has some legitimacy, proper protections/cures can be created. It has however diffused several organisational defaults and brought parties on an equal footing but it is harder to tackle some challenges than others!








Leave a Comment