MENARA ASPEN ADVISORY LTD AUTHORED WORK - NOT FOR REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION

Written by Elaine Obika

October 2025

Doctrinal Architecture and Jurisprudential Divergence

This section introduces the new features of the Vienna Convention on the International sale of Goods (hereinafter CISG) while critically unpacking the doctrinal and jurisdictional tensions surrounding Article 25. The analysis adopts a structured doctrinal method, recognising its reform-orientated potential. [1]

Unlike domestic sales regimes, the CISG prioritises transnational neutrality and upholds an equitable distribution of rights and obligations between contracting parties. [2] Among its novel features are the exclusion of validity and property rules; [3] its neutral stance on standard terms; [4] electronic communication compatibility; [5] flexible offer and acceptance formation; [6] and strict liability in its remedial architecture. [7] The governance of contractual validity is excluded from its purview [8] nevertheless the CISG constructs a substantive framework for breach classification, most notably, the concept of fundamental breach under Article 25. [9]

Article 25 operates as a functional filter through which both judicial and arbitral bodies interpret breach severity. It defines a fundamental breach as one that “results in such detriment to the other party as substantially to deprive them of what they are entitled to expect under the contract,” provided the breaching party foresaw or should have foreseen such result”. [10]

The provisions language embeds a dual axis test: substantial detriment and foreseeability, both of which have yielded significant interpretative heterogeneity across jurisdictions. [11] This phrasing while deceptively straightforward, has fostered doctrinal fragmentation and inconsistent thresholds. [12] [13]

The doctrinal complexity of article 25 cannot be understood in isolation from the interpretative apparatus outlined in Article 7(1)[14] which underscores the need for autonomous and globally coherent doctrinal analysis. The protracted success of the CISG is contingent upon how national courts construe its innovative provisions, [15] particularly, through an internationally orientated method.

Against this backdrop, three key interpretative challenges have emerged - two of which pertain to Article 7(1) and frame this analysis. First, concerns persist regarding the extent to which judicial and arbitral bodies faithfully adopt an international approach and acknowledge relevant jurisprudence. [16] Second, significant doctrinal indeterminacy surrounds the good faith requirement whose scope and normative weight remain unresolved. These interpretative challenges bear directly on how fundamental breach under Article 25 is assessed and applied in practice. [17]

Tribunals vary: some favour commercial impact, others relational or expectation-based reasoning. [18] This divergence complicates remedy predictability and underscores the need for structured critique [19]

This paper proposes a matrix-based breach assessment model to reconcile interpretative divergence and guide principled application. Article 25 is framed as both a doctrinal node and a site of analytical contestation.

Doctrinal Foundation of Article 25 CISG

Foreseeability

Foreseeability concerns the evidentiary burden borne by the alleging party. A breach is fundamental only if the breaching party actually foresaw or ought reasonably to have foreseen its consequences. Thus, Article 25 requires proof of both subjective and objective unpredictability. [20]

However, foreseeability is not decisive in assessing breach severity; it may function as an affirmative defence. [21] The breaching party must show actual ignorance and lack of foreseeability from a reasonable standpoint [22] [23] Shifting this burden to the aggrieved party would be disproportionate. Interpreting “and” as “or” would demand proof of subjective foresight—an untenable interpretation. The reasonable person standard remains the decisive lens through which foreseeability is assessed. [24]

Importing foreseeability into breach analysis misaligns with Article 25’s remedial logic. While relevant under Article 74 for damage quantification, its migration into breach classification makes gravity contingent on speculation. Conditioning fundamental breach on ex ante privileges conjecture over objective performance failure. In cross-border trade, where volatility and opacity prevail, this risks shielding serious breaches. A seller’s failure to supply goods as agreed frustrates the buyer’s commercial expectation in fact, regardless of predictability. Recognising delivery failure as fundamentally grave upholds the CISG’s protective and certainty-promoting function, confining foreseeability to its compensatory domain. [25]

Substantial Deprivation

Construction of Article 25 rests on evaluative standards such as “substantially to deprive” or “entitled to expect” both noted for their indeterminacy and lack of authoritative definition. [26] While this deliberate vagueness accommodates factual diversity it risks undermining legal predictability. [27] [28] The standard-rule dichotomy often invoked to justify such broad language remains underexamined. [29] One might question whether Article 25 should incorporate threshold indicators or presumptive benchmarks to temper interpretive discretion. [30]. Jurisprudence shows selective engagement with contextual factors but lacks a harmonised framework—revealing a structural lacuna in breach analysis. [31] [32]

Entitled To Expect

Article 25 must be read in conjunction with Articles 7, [33] 35, 48, and 49. [34] Article 7(1) mandates interpretation consistent with CISG’s international character and uniformity goals. [35] [36] “Entitled to expect” in Article 25 CISG denotes objective expectations rooted in the contract, trade usages, and prior dealings; not subjective preferences. It anchors the inquiry into whether a breach has defeated the contract’s core benefit.

The CISG Advisory Council interprets entitlement autonomously, grounded in full commercial context and consistent with the good faith principle in Article 7(1). [37] Liu interprets “under the contract” to include both express and implied terms, aligning with the CISG’s teleological aim of preserving economic balance and predictability in international trade. [38] In Schmitz-Werke, [39] tribunals affirmed that a buyer’s entitlement under Article 25 encompasses both technical conformity and the commercial purpose. [40] Ishida likens entitlement to foreseeability, embedding a reasonableness criterion. This supports an objective, context-sensitive breach threshold and curbs opportunistic avoidance. [41]

Other Supporting Concepts

Supporting concepts include detriment, curability, good faith and reasonable person standard.

Detriment activates the substantial deprivation test. Koch sees it as a filter: the breach must cause material or functional injury, not just loss of value. [42]

Curability though not in Article 25, is invoked under Articles 48 and 49, adding a remedial dimension. [43]

Good faith informs entitlement and foreseeability, [44] offering a contextual lens for evaluating conduct. [45]

Reasonable Person Standard tempers subjective claims with commercial logic [46] Beyond breach analysis, its interpretive function is codified in the UNIDROIT principles, [47] where it serves to reconstruct contractual meaning where the parties’ shared intent cannot be established – anchoring ambiguity resolution in contextualised commercial reasonableness. [48] [49]

Comparative Jurisdictional Critique

German

German engagement with the CISG is reflected both in sustained academic interest and in the substantial interpretative contribution of its judiciary. [50] As of 10 January 2021, Germany accounted for the highest number of reported decisions (222) on the CLOUT database, including several rulings by the Federal Supreme Court that have been regarded as highly authoritative beyond German borders. [51]

German commentators typically begin by examining the parties’ contractual intent to determine which obligations are essential for termination. [52] Additional factors include the gravity of the breach relative to the contract’s purpose, the parties’ interests, and the potential for cure.

Bundesgerichtshof – Germany’s federal court of justice (hereinafter BGH), tends to apply foreseeability and curability as mitigating factors—often rejecting avoidance even in cases of significant delay or defect. [53] [54] In Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, [55] the court held that curability negated fundamental breach, even where the goods where defective. [56]

Ferrari observes that German courts frequently deny fundamental breach in cases of non-delivery or late delivery, treating such breaches as curable unless the buyer can demonstrate irreparable detriment or loss of contractual purpose. This reflects a doctrinal preference for preserving contractual efficiency and avoiding unnecessary termination. [57] [58] Koch critiques this outcome-focused stance for marginalising buyer reliance—particularly where curability is privileged over the buyer’s commercial expectations. This paper extends Koch’s concern by arguing that such an approach may disproportionately burden buyers engaged in resale chains or time-sensitive transactions. In practice, sellers are afforded a wide berth to cure non-performance, even where delay undermines the buyer’s commercial viability. The insistence on curability risks obscuring the functional harm caused by delay, subordinating the buyer’s reliance interest to a formalistic notion of contractual preservation. In this respect, the German approach, though doctrinally coherent, may prove commercially untenable and normatively unbalanced. [59]

This paper proposes a recalibration of evidentiary standards under Article 25 CISG, whereby the burden shifts to the seller to demonstrate curability in cases of non-delivery or delay. Concurrently, the buyer should be permitted to establish substantial interference through commercially grounded indicators — such as downstream breach risk, reputational harm, or financial loss exceeding a defined percentage of the contract value. This approach avoids the doctrinal vagueness of ‘loss of contractual purpose’ and restores analytical clarity to breach assessment.

Germany’s structured and remedial-centric approach stands in contrast to China’s more discretionary and context-sensitive interpretation, which we now examine.

Chinese

Chinese arbitral and judicial practice reveals a fragmented approach to Article 25. Ishida observes that CIETAC tribunals often treat reputational harm and buyer reliance as indicators of fundamental breach, especially in branded goods and resale contexts, even where defects are minor. [60]. [61] Liu and Ren’s empirical study of CISG judgments confirms instability, noting the lack of a consistent breach standard across Chinese adjudication. [62]

Chinese CISG adjudication often lacks interpretive uniformity, with courts reverting to domestic legal principles in ways that obscure the CISG’s autonomous framework. Rather than promoting doctrinal clarity, this reliance reflects deeper structural characteristics of China’s legal system, most notably, what Potter describes as legal instrumentalism, wherein statutory vagueness is not a drafting flaw but a deliberate feature designed to accommodate policy flexibility and administrative discretion. [63] Peerenboom similarly notes that Chinese legal development is shaped by broad legislative drafting and Confucian traditions that prioritize moral persuasion and relational harmony over legal determinacy. [64]Rather than fostering harmonization, these features entrench a form of institutional inertia, inhibiting courts from adopting transnational interpretive methodologies.

As Peerenboom highlights, the persistence of adjudicative discretion and statutory indeterminacy in Chinese legal practice poses challenges for transnational instruments like the CISG. In relation to Article 25, this paper contends that such doctrinal entrenchment intensifies the Convention’s own vagueness and destabilizes breach assessments in Chinese case law. Particularly, CISG’s failure to define key evaluative thresholds such as “fundamental breach” and “substantial deprivation” undermines the consistency of breach assessments in Chinese case law.

This paper proposes a complementary remedy to interpretative inconsistency in CISG adjudication. Mandating reference to a transnational case law forum may enhance doctrinal coherence, especially in breach assessments under Article 25, but it could also provoke resistance from jurisdictions wary of external interpretive authority. A more viable alternative may lie in incentivizing judicial engagement with curated case law databases, supported by training and doctrinal commentary, rather than imposing rigid obligations that could jeopardize ratification consensus. This approach respects the Convention’s foundational compromise—uniformity through Article 7(1) without binding precedent—while offering a functional path toward greater consistency in breach determinations.

French

DiMatteo et al state that French courts have generally administered the CISG’s fundamental breach standard with ease, often equating it to the domestic concept of “sufficiently serious breach.” In doing so, they apply factors beyond Article 25’s text, including the obligee’s interest, foreseeability of loss, and additional subjective and objective criteria drawn from domestic law. [65] These include the promptness of each party’s response, [66] fault in causing or mitigating the breach, [67] evidentiary certainty, [68] availability of technical examination, and any refusal to cooperate. [69]

However, French case law remains limited and doctrinally insular, with courts showing reluctance to engage with foreign CISG jurisprudence or adopt transnational interpretive methods. [70] This has led to inconsistent application of the foreseeability test and a tendency to subsume CISG analysis within domestic breach frameworks. [71]

Judicial training, this paper argues, offers a pragmatic path to harmonization. France’s École Nationale de la Magistrature, with support from UNCITRAL, the CISG Advisory Council would strengthen doctrinal depth through CLOUT integration, expert workshops, and curated case law resources. [72]

Introducing the Quad-Matrix Framework

To support a more consistent application of Article 25, this section proposes the Quad-Matrix. A structured framework that classifies breach types and offers courts a doctrinal lens for assessing fundamental breach in a way that reinforces the CISG’s autonomous logic and reduces interpretive divergence.

The Quad-Matrix framework distinguishes breach scenarios along two axes: the nature of the obligation (delivery vs conformity) and the type of impact on the buyer (objective vs subjective). This yields four interpretive quadrants, each guiding courts toward a CISG-consistent assessment of fundamental breach under Article 25.

Non-delivery - typically falls within Quadrant I (Delivery + Objective Impact). It is presumptively a fundamental breach, as it deprives the buyer of the entire benefit of the contract. Article 25 is satisfied unless exceptional circumstances — such as buyer-induced non-performance, force majeure, or effective mitigation — negate substantial deprivation or foreseeability.

Late delivery - where the buyer relies on a fixed delivery date for resale or production, falls within Quadrant II (Delivery + Subjective Impact). Here, the breach may be fundamental if the seller knew or ought to have known of the buyer’s reliance, and the delay foreseeably undermines the buyer’s commercial purpose. Courts must assess foreseeability not by duration alone, but by contextual harm.

Defective goods fall within Quadrant III (Conformity + Objective Impact) when the goods are unusable for their ordinary or agreed purpose. The breach is fundamental if the buyer suffers a substantial deprivation, and the seller could foresee this impact. Article 8 guides the foreseeability analysis, particularly where the buyer’s intended use was communicated.

Wrong quantity and packaging/labelling breaches often fall within Quadrant IV (Conformity + Subjective Impact). These breaches may be fundamental if the seller knew the buyer’s reliance on full quantity or regulatory compliance — for example, where resale or export was anticipated. Courts must assess whether the deprivation was foreseeable considering the seller’s knowledge and the commercial context.

By classifying breach types within this matrix, courts are encouraged to apply Article 25 autonomously, avoiding domestic analogies and focusing on the CISG’s core criteria: substantial deprivation and foreseeability. The matrix does not constrain judicial discretion but disciplines it, offering a doctrinal lens through which breach severity can be assessed consistently across jurisdictions. See the links below for Tables 1 and 2 (Author’s Own) in Appendix’s A and B for breach typologies.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Cure and Avoidance in Breach Classification

Remedies under the CISG — particularly the seller’s right to cure (Article 48) and the buyer’s right to avoid (Articles 49 and 64) — operate within the doctrinal boundaries set by Article 25. [73] Yet across jurisdictions, the interpretation of these remedies often diverges, revealing tensions between buyer protection, seller opportunity, and the Convention’s goal of uniformity. This section critiques how cure and avoidance are applied in practice, assessing whether they reinforce or destabilize the breach framework outlined in the Quad-Matrix. Particular attention is given to Quadrant II breaches, where performance failures cause moderate buyer impact, and the availability of cure becomes decisive.

German courts frequently prioritize the seller’s right to cure under Article 48, even in cases of delayed or defective performance. [74] This approach narrows the scope of fundamental breach, especially in Quadrant II scenarios, where cure is treated as a doctrinal filter before avoidance is considered. The emphasis on preserving contractual performance reflects a seller-protective reading of Article 25.

Chinese jurisprudence tends to favour buyer avoidance, particularly where delay or non-conformity disrupts commercial expectations. Courts often grant avoidance without fully exploring the feasibility of cure, suggesting a stricter interpretation of buyer deprivation. [75] This remedy-first approach expands the reach of fundamental breach, especially in Quadrant I and II cases.

French decisions occasionally invoke domestic concepts of “essential obligation,” which blur the doctrinal boundary between breach and remedy. Avoidance may be granted even where cure is viable, reflecting a hybrid logic that risks undermining CISG autonomy. [76] This interpretive drift complicates the classification of Quadrant II and IV breaches.

Italian courts exhibit doctrinal inconsistency: some decisions emphasize the possibility of cure before recognizing breach as fundamental, [77] subordinating Article 25 to good faith under Article 7(1) while others rely solely on buyer impact and foreseeability. [78] This ambivalence affects the treatment of Quadrant II breaches and reflects an unresolved tension between breach classification and remedial sequencing.

Across jurisdictions, the interpretation of cure and avoidance significantly shapes the application of Article 25. Where cure is prioritized, breach thresholds tend to narrow; where avoidance is readily granted, the scope of fundamental breach expands. Embedding remedy logic into breach analysis is essential for doctrinal coherence and for preserving the CISG’s transnational integrity. A harmonized approach would treat cure not as a procedural afterthought but as a substantive filter within breach classification, particularly in borderline cases where buyer deprivation is partial, and performance remains salvageable

Conclusion

Structuring Breach Analysis to Support Uniformity

The Quad-Matrix Breach Assessment offers a structured method for interpreting Article 25 that respects judicial discretion while promoting doctrinal consistency. By classifying breach scenarios along two axes — obligation type and buyer impact — the framework guides courts toward a CISG-autonomous analysis grounded in substantial deprivation and foreseeability. It discourages reliance on domestic breach concepts and supports a more predictable, harmonized application of the Convention. In doing so, the matrix contributes not only to clearer judicial reasoning but also to the long-term viability of the CISG as a truly transnational instrument.

REFERENCES

[1] P Ishwara Bhat, ‘Doctrinal Legal Research as a Means of Synthesizing Facts, Thoughts, and Legal Principles’ in Idea and Methods of Legal Research (Oxford University Press 2020) 143–168; Terry Hutchinson, ‘The Doctrinal Method: Incorporating Interdisciplinary Methods in Reforming the Law’ [2015] Erasmus Law Review 130<https://www.academia.edu/115517526/The_Doctrinal_Method_Incorporating_Interdisciplinary_Methods_in_Reforming_the_Law > accessed 19th July 2025.

[2] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 59.

[3] Article 4 CISG < https://cisg-online.org/cisg-article-by-article/part-1/art.-4-cisg > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[4] Peter Huber ‘Standard Terms Under the CISG’[2009] Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law of Arbitration [2009] 123, 125 < https://iicl.law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/cisg_files/huber2.html > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[5] Ingeborg Schwenzer ‘The CISG Advisory Council’ CISG Online 1, pp 6-7 < https://cisg-online.org/files/commentFiles/Schwenzer_TheCISGAdvisoryCouncil_2017_3.pdf > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[6] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 63.

[7] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 83.

[8] CISG – AC Opinion 17, p 7 < https://cisgac.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CISG_Advisory_Council_Opinion_No_17_1.pdf > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[9] Koch R ‘The Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International sale of Goods (CISG) (1998) Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 177, 348.

[10] United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods (adopted 11th April 1980, entered into force 1st January 1988) 1489 UNTS 3 (CISG) art 25.

[11] Aneta Spaic ‘Interpreting Fundamental Breach’ from International Sales Law a Global Challenge (Cambridge University Press 2014) 240.

[12] J Brandon Duck- Mayr ‘Explaining Legal Inconsistency’ (2022) Vol 34 Journal of Theoretical Politics 107-126.

[13] Ulrich Magnus ‘The Remedy of Avoidance Under CISG – General Remarks and Special Cases’ UNCITRAL < https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/magnus.pdf > accessed 23rd July 2025; Ingeborg Schwenzer and Paschal Hachem ‘The CISG – Successes and Pitfalls’ (2009) Vol 57 The American Journal of Comparative Law 457, 459 < https://www.jstor.org/stable/25652649?if_data=e30%3D&seq=1 > accessed 23rd July 2025; Larry A Di Matteo ‘Formal and Operative Rules of the CISG: Case of Article 25’ (2025) Vol 43 Journal of Law and Commerce 184.

[14] Article 7 CISG < https://cisg-online.org/cisg-article-by-article/part-1/art.-7-cisg > accessed 27th July 2024.

[15] Sara G Zwart ‘The New International Law of Sales: A Marriage Between Socialist, Third World, Common and Civil Law Principles’ (1988) Vol 13 North Carolina Journal of International Law 109, 111 < https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1347&context=ncilj > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[16] Bonnell and Ligouri ‘The UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods: A Critical Analysis of Current International Case Law’ (1997) Vol 2 Revue de Droit Uniforme 385.

[17] Konstantina Kalaitsoglou ‘Article 7 CISG – An Interpretation Challenge or A Pretext for Non-Adoption? The CISG through UK Lenses’ 13thJune 2022 The Legal Compass Journal < https://www.thelegalcompass.co.uk/post/art-7-cisg-an-interpretation-challenge-or-a-pretext-for-non-adoption-the-cisg-through-uk-lenses > accessed 27th July 2025.

[18] Yashutoshi Ishida ‘Identifying Fundamental Breach of Articles 25 and 49 of the CISG: The Good Faith Duty of Collaborative Efforts to Cure Defects – Make the Parties Draw a Line in the Sand of Substantiality’ (2020) Vol 41 Michigan Journal of International Law 63, 70-73.

[19] Camilla Andersen ‘The Uniform International Sales Law and the Global Jurisconsultorium’ (2005) Vol 24, The University of Western Australia.

[20] Larry A DiMatteo ‘Formal and Operative Rules of the CISG: Case of Article 25’ (2025) Vol 43 Journal of Law and Commerce 179.

[21] Glossary ‘Affirmative Defence’ Thomson Reuters Practical Law <https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-518-1993?comp=pluk&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&OWSessionId=9b440b92e769407da29e036ce3a742a6&skipAnonymous=true&firstPage=true > accessed 20th July 2025.

[22] Stefan Kröll, Loucas Mistelis, Maria del Pilar Perales Viscacillas The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) Commentary (New Edition, Hart Publishing 2011) 341.

[23] Cobalt Sulphate Case (VIII ZR 51/95) 3 April 1996 [17]-[22].

[24] Cobalt Sulphate Case (VIII ZR 51/95) 3 April 1996 [23].

[25] Yasutoshi Ishida ‘What Does “Foreseeable” Mean, The Scope of Damages Under CISG Articles 74-77: Reasonability Principle of Foreseeability – We Don’t Need a Crystal Ball’ (2022) Vol 40 Journal of Law and Commerce 235.

[26] Ingeborg Schwenzer and Ulrich Schroeter CISG Article 25 - Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (Oxford University Press 2022).

[27] Yasutoshi Ishida ‘Identifying Fundamental Breach of Articles 25 and 49 of the CISG: The Good faith Duty of Collaborative Efforts to Cure Defects – Make the Parties Draw a Line in the Sand of Substantiality’ (2020) Vol 41 Michigan Journal of International Law 63, 67-70 <https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol41/iss1/3/ > accessed 23rd July 2025.

[28] Gerhard Lubbe ‘Fundamental Breach under CISG: A Source of Fundamentally Divergent Results’ [2004] The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 444, 446.

[29] Bruno Zeller ‘Fundamental Breach and the CISG – A Unique Treatment of Failed Experiment?’ (2004) Vol 8 Vindobona Journal of International Commerce, Law and Arbitration 81, 83.

[30] Bruno Zeller ‘Fundamental Breach and the CISG – A Unique Treatment of Failed Experiment?’ (2004) Vol 8 Vindobona Journal of International Commerce, Law and Arbitration 81; ICC Case No 11849 (Final Award 2003) < https://trans-lex.org/211849 > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[31] Ulrich G Schroeter ‘General Principles of CISG Interpretation’ (2007) Vol 22 Pace International Law Review 1, 2; Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 83; Bruno Zeller Damages Under the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Third Edition, 2018); Yasutoshi Ishida ‘Identifying Fundamental Breach of Articles 25 and 49 of the CISG: The Good Faith Duty of Collaborative Efforts to Cure Defects – Make the Parties Draw a Line in the Sand of Substantiality’ (2020) Vol 41 Michigan Journal of International Law 63, 64 < https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol41/iss1/3/ > accessed 23rd July 2025; Ana Paula S C Rizzo de Barros ‘Definition of Fundamental Breach under CISG’s Article 25 and Analysis of Recent Case Law’ Institute of Commercial Law 1, 6 < https://iicl.law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/bibliography/full_text.pdf > accessed 17th July 2025.

[32] Schmitz-Werke GmbH & Co v Rockland Industries Inc, US Court of Appeal (4th circuit) 21st June 2002 < https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1007810/schmitz-werke-gmbh-v-rockland-industries/ > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[33] Article 7(1) CISG.

[34] Article 35 CISG; Article 48 CISG; Article 49 CISG

[35] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 72.

[36] Inma Conde ‘Regard Is To Be Had’: The Legislative Intent of Article 7(1) of the CISG (Part 1)’ European Journal of Commercial Contract Law 1, 3-5 < https://cisg-online.org/files/commentFiles/UPDATED-Part-1---SUMMARY---REGARD-IS-TO-BE-HAD-part-1---INMA-CONDE---EJCCL.pdf > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[37] CISG Advisory Council Opinion No 20 ‘Hardship Under the CISG’ para 2.

[38] Chengwei Liu, The Concept of Fundamental Breach: Perspectives from the CISG, UNIDROIT Principles and PECL (2nd Edition, IICL 2005) s 2.2.

[39] Schmitz-Werke GmbH & Co v Rockland Industries Inc, US Court of Appeal (4th circuit) 21st June 2002, 00-1125 CISG Online Case No 625 < https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1007810/schmitz-werke-gmbh-v-rockland-industries/ > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[40] Schmitz-Werke GmbH & Co. KG v Rockland Industries Inc, US Court of Appeals (4th Cir), 21 June 2002, 00-1125, CISG-online Case No 625 < https://cisg-online.org/files/cases/6581/fullTextFile/625_37962382.pdf > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[41] Yasutoshi Ishida ‘Identifying Fundamental Breach of Articles 25 and 49 of the CISG: The Good faith Duty of Collaborative Efforts to Cure Defects – Make the Parties Draw a Line in the Sand of Substantiality’ (2020) Vol 41 Michigan Journal of International Law 63 <https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol41/iss1/3/ > accessed 23rd July 2025.

[42] Robert Koch, ‘The Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International sale of Goods (CISG) (Kluwer Law International 1999) 177, 218-219 < https://iicl.law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/cisg_files/koch.html#II > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[43] CISG Advisory Council Opinion No 5, ‘The Buyer’s Right to Avoid the Contract in Case of Non-Conforming Goods or Documents’ (2005) para 4.3.

[44] Article 7(1) CISG.

[45] Robert Koch, ‘The Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International sale of Goods (CISG) (Kluwer Law International 1999) 177, 207

< https://iicl.law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/cisg_files/koch.html#II > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[46] Yasutoshi Ishida ‘Identifying Fundamental Breach of Articles 25 and 49 of the CISG: The Good faith Duty of Collaborative Efforts to Cure Defects – Make the Parties Draw a Line in the Sand of Substantiality ‘(2002) Vol 41 Michigan Journal of International Law 63, 69-70 < https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol41/iss1/3/ > accessed 23rd July 2025.

[47] Article 4.1(2) UNIDROIT Principles.

[48] Arbitral Award, Zürich Chamber of Commerce (25 November 1994), UNILEX Case No 642 <https://www.unilex.info/principles/case/642 > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[49] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 92.

[50] Beate Gsell, Article 25, in Kommentar Zum Un-Kaufrecht (CISG) Rn. 2 (Heinrich Honsell

Ed 2010); Peter Huber ‘Typically German? Two Contentious German Contributions to the CISG’

Belgrade Law Review No 3 (2011) 1, 150 – 161 < https://anali.rs/xml/201-/2011c/2011-3e/Annals_sveska_2011_59-3.pdf > accessed 23rd July 2025.

[51] UNCITRAL CLOUT database Germany (2021).

[52] Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Apr. 3, 1996, VIII ZB 51/95.

[53] Bundesgerichtshof [German Supreme Court], VIII ZR 51/95 (3 April 1996) < https://cisg-online.org/files/cases/6113/translationFile/135_13548459.pdf > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[54] Bruno Zeller, ‘Fundamental Breach and the CISG – A Unique Treatment or Failed Experiment?’ (2004) Vol 8 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 81; Robert Koch, ‘The Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the CISG’ (1999) Review of the Convention 177.

[55] Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 2 July 1993, 6 U 152/92, CISG-online Case No. 83 (Industrial Ink-Jet Printers Case) < https://cisg-online.org/search-for-cases?caseId=6981 > accessed 22nd July 2025.

[56] Ingeborg Schwenzer (ed), Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press 2016) 424, Art 25 para 13.

[57] Franco Ferrari ‘Fundamental Breach of Contract under the UN Sales Convention: 25 Years of Article 25 CISG’ CHAPTER FIVE The Buyers Right of Avoidance and the Requirement of Fundamental Breach p 250.

[58] Franco Ferrari, ‘Fundamental Breach of Contract Under the UN Sales Convention: 25 Years of Article 25 CISG’ (2006) 25 Journal of Law and Commerce 489, 499–500.

[59] Robert Koch ‘The Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)’ [1999] at the Pace Institute of International Commercial Law 177.

[60] Yasutoshi Ishida, ‘CISG Article 25: A Functional Analysis of the Threshold of Fundamental Breach’ (2020) Vol 25 Uniform Law Review 337, 362–365

[61] Qiao Liu, ‘The Chinese Judicial Approach to CISG Article 25: A Uniformity Assessment’, in Francesca Benatti, Sergio García Long & Filippo Viglione (eds), The Transnational Sales Contract (Wolters Kluwer 2022) 459–486.

[62] Qiao Liu and Xiang Ren, ‘CISG in Chinese Courts: The Issue of Applicability’ (2017) Vol 65 The American Journal of Comparative Law 873.

[63] Pittman B Potter China’s Legal System (Cambridge, Malden Polity Press 2013) pp 45-48.

[64] Randall Peerenboom China’s Long March Toward Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2002) pp 89-94.

[65] Larry A DiMatteo, Marta Infantino, Jingen Wang and Paola Monaco ‘Once More Unto the Breach: A Comparative Analysis of the Meaning of Breach in Contract Law’ (2022) Vol 31 CISG Online 33, 45–48 < https://cisg-online.org/files/commentFiles/DiMatteo_Infantino_Wang_Monaco_31_TLCP_2022_33.pdf > accessed 23rd July 2025.

[66] Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court of judicial matters] com., Mar. 22, 2016, Bull. civ. (Fr.);

Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Bordeaux, June 27, 2011 (Fr.); Cour d’appel [CA]

[regional court of appeal] Paris, civ., June 14, 2001, 98/38724, D. 2005 Somm. 2281 (Fr.) (confirmed

by Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] com., Sept. 24, 2003, Bull. civ. IV,

No. 139 (Fr.)).

[67] Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court of judicial matters] com., July 9, 2019, Bull. civ.

(Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] com., Mar. 26, 2013, Bull. civ.

IV, No. 46 (Fr.); Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Grenoble, civ., Oct. 21, 1999, D. 2000

Somm. (Fr.); Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Grenoble, com., Feb. 22, 1995, 11/01518

(Fr.).; Tribunal de grande instance [TGI] [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Strasbourg, Dec.

22, 2006, 04/00925 (Fr.).

[68] Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court of judicial matters] com., July 9, 2019, Bull. civ.

(Fr.).; Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] com., Mar. 26, 2013, Bull. civ.

IV, No. 46 (Fr.).; Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Versailles, civ., Jan. 29, 1998, 1222/95

(Fr.).

[69] Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] com., Mar. 26, 2013, Bull. civ. IV,

No. 46 (Fr.).; Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Lyon, civ., Feb. 4, 2011, 11/01518 (Fr.);

Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, civ., June 14, 2001, 98/38724, D. 2005 Somm.

2281 (Fr.); Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Versailles, civ., Jan. 29, 1998, 1222/95 (Fr.)

[70] John E Murray Jr ‘The Neglect of CISG: A Workable Solution’ (1998) Vol 17 Journal of Law and Commerce 365.

[71] Larry A DiMatteo, Marta Infantino, Jingen Wang and Paola Monaco ‘ Once More Unto the Breach: A Comparative Analysis of the Meaning of Breach in Contract Law’ (2022) Vol 31 CISG Online 33, 45–48 < https://cisg-online.org/files/commentFiles/DiMatteo_Infantino_Wang_Monaco_31_TLCP_2022_33.pdf > accessed 23rd July 2025.

[72] UNCITRAL Digest on CISG < https://cisg-online.org/search-for-cases/uncitral-digest-on-the-cisg > accessed 23rd July 2025.

[73] Indira Carr and Peter Stone International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018) 84.

[74] Cobalt Sulphate Case (VIII ZR 51/95) 3 April 1996 [17]-[22] [23].

[75] Qiao Liu and Xiang Ren, ‘CISG in Chinese Courts: The Issue of Applicability’ (2017) Vol 65 The American Journal of Comparative Law 873.

[76] Larry A DiMatteo, Marta Infantino, Jingen Wang and Paola Monaco ‘Once More Unto the Breach: A Comparative Analysis of the Meaning of Breach in Contract Law’ (2022) Vol 31 CISG Online 33, 45–48 < https://cisg-online.org/files/commentFiles/DiMatteo_Infantino_Wang_Monaco_31_TLCP_2022_33.pdf > accessed 23rd July 2025.

[77] Yasutoshi Ishida ‘Identifying Fundamental Breach of Articles 25 and 49 of the CISG: The Good faith Duty of Collaborative Efforts to Cure Defects – Make the Parties Draw a Line in the Sand of Substantiality’ (2020) Vol 41 Michigan Journal of International Law 63, 103-106 <https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol41/iss1/3/ > accessed 23rd July 2025

[78] Larry A DiMatteo, Marta Infantino, Jingen Wang and Paola Monaco ‘Once More Unto the Breach: A Comparative Analysis of the Meaning of Breach in Contract Law’ (2022) Vol 31 CISG Online 33, 54–55 < https://cisg-online.org/files/commentFiles/DiMatteo_Infantino_Wang_Monaco_31_TLCP_2022_33.pdf > accessed 23rd July 2025.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary sources

Cases

International cases

American

Schmitz-Werke GmbH & Co. KG v Rockland Industries Inc, US Court of Appeals (4th Cir), 21 June 2002

French

Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Grenoble, com., Feb. 22, 1995, 11/01518

(Fr.)

Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Versailles, civ., Jan. 29, 1998, 1222/95 (Fr.)

Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Grenoble, civ., Oct. 21, 1999, D. 2000

Somm. (Fr.)

Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, civ., June 14, 2001, 98/38724, D. 2005 Somm.

2281 (Fr.)

Cour d’appel [CA][regional court of appeal] Paris, civ., June 14, 2001, 98/38724, D. 2005 Somm. 2281 (Fr.) (confirmed by Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] com., Sept. 24, 2003, Bull. civ. IV,

No. 139 (Fr.))

Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Bordeaux, June 27, 2011 (Fr.)

Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Lyon, civ., Feb. 4, 2011, 11/01518 (Fr.)

Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] com., Mar. 26, 2013, Bull. civ. IV,

No. 46 (Fr.)

Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court of judicial matters] com., Mar. 22, 2016, Bull. civ. (Fr.)

Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court of judicial matters] com., July 9, 2019, Bull. civ.

(Fr.)

International Chambers of Commerce - ICC Case No 11849 (Final Award 2003)

Tribunal de grande instance [TGI] [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Strasbourg, Dec.

22, 2006, 04/00925 (Fr.)

Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, civ., June 14, 2001, 98/38724, D. 2005 Somm. 2281 (Fr.) (confirmed by Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] com., Sept. 24, 2003, Bull. civ. IV,

No. 139 (Fr.))

German

Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Apr. 3, 1996, VIII ZB 51/95

Bundesgerichtshof [German Supreme Court], VIII ZR 51/95 (3 April 1996)

Cobalt Sulphate Case (VIII ZR 51/95) 3 April 1996

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 2 July 1993, 6 U 152/92, CISG-online Case No. 83 (Industrial Ink-Jet Printers Case)

Swiss

Arbitral Award, Zürich Chamber of Commerce (25 November 1994), UNILEX Case No 642

Legislation

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods

Secondary sources

Andersen C ‘The Uniform International Sales Law and the Global Jurisconsultorium’ The University of Western Australia (2005)

Bhat P I, ‘Doctrinal Legal Research as a Means of Synthesizing Facts, Thoughts, and Legal Principles’ in Idea and Methods of Legal Research (Oxford University Press 2020)

Bonnell and Ligouri ‘The UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods: A Critical Analysis of Current International Case Law’ (1997) Vol 2 Revue de Droit Uniforme

Carr I and Stone P International Trade Law (Sixth Edition, Routledge 2018)

CISG Advisory Council Opinion No 5, ‘The Buyer’s Right to Avoid the Contract in Case of Non-Conforming Goods or Documents’ (2005)

CISG Advisory Council Opinion No 20 ‘Hardship Under the CISG’

Conde I ‘Regard Is To Be Had’: The Legislative Intent of Article 7(1) of the CISG (Part 1)’ European Journal of Commercial Contract Law

DiMatteo L A ‘Formal and Operative Rules of the CISG: Case of Article 25’ (2025) Vol 43 Journal of Law and Commerce

DiMatteo L A, Infantino M, Wang J and Monaco P ‘Once More Unto the Breach: A Comparative Analysis of the Meaning of Breach in Contract Law’ (2022) Vol 31 CISG Online

<https://cisgonline.org/files/commentFiles/DiMatteo_Infantino_Wang_Monaco_31_TLCP_2022_33.pdf> accessed 23rdJuly 2025

Duck-Mayr J B ‘Explaining Legal Inconsistency’ (2022) Vol 34 Journal of Theoretical Politics

Franco Ferrari ‘Fundamental Breach of Contract under the UN Sales Convention: 25 Years of Article 25 CISG’ CHAPTER FIVE The Buyers Right of Avoidance and the Requirement of Fundamental Breach

Ferrari F, ‘Fundamental Breach of Contract Under the UN Sales Convention: 25 Years of Article 25 CISG’ (2006) 25 Journal of Law and Commerce

Glossary ‘Affirmative Defence’ Thomson Reuters Practical Law < https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-518-1993?comp=pluk&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&OWSessionId=9b440b92e769407da29e036ce3a742a6&skipAnonymous=true&firstPage=true > accessed 20th July 2025

Gsell B, Article 25, in Kommentar Zum Un-Kaufrecht (CISG) Rn. 2 (Heinrich Honsell

Ed 2010)

Huber P ‘Standard Terms Under the CISG’[2009] Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law of Arbitration [2009] < https://iicl.law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/cisg_files/huber2.html > accessed 22nd July 2025

Huber P, ‘Typically German? Two Contentious German Contributions to the CISG’

Belgrade Law Review No 3 (2011) 1, 150 – 161 < https://anali.rs/xml/201-/2011c/2011-3e/Annals_sveska_2011_59-3.pdf > accessed 23rd July 2025

Hutchinson T, ‘The Doctrinal Method: Incorporating Interdisciplinary Methods in Reforming the Law’ [2015] Erasmus Law Review 130<https://www.academia.edu/115517526/The_Doctrinal_Method_Incorporating_Interdisciplinary_Methods_in_Reforming_the_Law> accessed 19th July 2025

Ishida Y, ‘CISG Article 25: A Functional Analysis of the Threshold of Fundamental Breach’ (2020) Vol 25 Uniform Law Review

Ishida Y ‘Identifying Fundamental Breach of Articles 25 and 49 of the CISG: The Good faith Duty of Collaborative Efforts to Cure Defects – Make the Parties Draw a Line in the Sand of Substantiality’ (2020) Vol 41 Michigan Journal of International Law <https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol41/iss1/3/ > accessed 23rd July 2025

Ishida Y ‘What Does “Foreseeable” Mean, The Scope of Damages Under CISG Articles 74-77: Reasonability Principle of Foreseeability – We Don’t Need a Crystal Ball’ (2022) Vol 40 Journal of Law and Commerce

Kalaitsoglou K ‘Article 7 CISG – An Interpretation Challenge or A Pretext for Non-Adoption? The CISG through UK Lenses’ 13th June 2022 The Legal Compass Journal

Koch R, ‘The Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the CISG’ (1999) Review of the Convention

Koch R ‘The Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)’ [1999] at the Pace Institute of International Commercial Law

Koch R, ‘The Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International sale of Goods (CISG) (Kluwer Law International 1999)

Kröll S, Mistelis L, del Pilar M Viscacillas P The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) Commentary (New Edition, Hart Publishing 2011)

Liu C, The Concept of Fundamental Breach: Perspectives from the CISG, UNIDROIT Principles and PECL (2nd Edition, IICL 2005)

Liu Q and Ren X, ‘CISG in Chinese Courts: The Issue of Applicability’ (2017) Vol 65 The American Journal of Comparative Law

Liu Q, ‘The Chinese Judicial Approach to CISG Article 25: A Uniformity Assessment’, in Benatti F, Long S G & Viglione F (eds), The Transnational Sales Contract (Wolters Kluwer 2022)

Lubbe G ‘Fundamental Breach under CISG: A Source of Fundamentally Divergent Results’ [2004] The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law

Magnus U ‘The Remedy of Avoidance Under CISG – General Remarks and Special Cases’ UNCITRAL < https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/magnus.pdf > accessed 23rd July 2025

Murray Jr J E ‘The Neglect of CISG: A Workable Solution’ (1998) Vol 17 Journal of Law and Commerce 365

Peerenboom R China’s Long March Toward Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2002)

Potter P B China’s Legal System (Cambridge, Malden Polity Press 2013)

Rizzo de Barros A P S C ‘Definition of Fundamental Breach under CISG’s Article 25 and Analysis of Recent Case Law’ Institute of Commercial Law

Schroeter U G ‘General Principles of CISG Interpretation’ (2007) Vol 22 Pace International Law Review

Schwenzer I ‘The CISG Advisory Council’ CISG Online 1, pp 6-7 < https://cisg-online.org/files/commentFiles/Schwenzer_TheCISGAdvisoryCouncil_2017_3.pdf >

Schwenzer I and Hachem P ‘The CISG – Successes and Pitfalls’ (2009) Vol 57 The American Journal of Comparative Law

Schwenzer I and Schroeter U CISG Article 25 - Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (Oxford University Press 2022).

Schwenzer I (ed), Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press 2016)

Spaic A ‘Interpreting Fundamental Breach’ from International Sales Law a Global Challenge (Cambridge University Press 2014)

UNCITRAL Digest on CISG < https://cisg-online.org/search-for-cases/uncitral-digest-on-the-cisg > accessed 23rd July 2025

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

Zeller B Damages Under the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Third Edition, 2018)

Zeller B, ‘Fundamental Breach and the CISG – A Unique Treatment or Failed Experiment?’ (2004) Vol 8 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration

Zwart S G ‘The New International Law of Sales: A Marriage Between Socialist, Third World, Common and Civil Law Principles’ (1988) Vol 13 North Carolina Journal of International Law