Q 35-12 a) On what basis was it argued in the Medical Marketing case (C 35–7) that the goods had to conform to public laws at the buyer’s place of business? b) Why was the seller attributed with knowledge of public law provisions in the buyer’s state in that case? 2. Art. 35(2)(b) CISG – ‘Fitness for a particular purpose’ Art. 35(2)(b) CISG requires that the goods be fit for ‘any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract’. The common law systems contain comparable provisions.

DOI link for Q 35-12 a) On what basis was it argued in the Medical Marketing case (C 35–7) that the goods had to conform to public laws at the buyer’s place of business? b) Why was the seller attributed with knowledge of public law provisions in the buyer’s state in that case? 2. Art. 35(2)(b) CISG – ‘Fitness for a particular purpose’ Art. 35(2)(b) CISG requires that the goods be fit for ‘any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract’. The common law systems contain comparable provisions.

Q 35-12 a) On what basis was it argued in the Medical Marketing case (C 35–7) that the goods had to conform to public laws at the buyer’s place of business? b) Why was the seller attributed with knowledge of public law provisions in the buyer’s state in that case? 2. Art. 35(2)(b) CISG – ‘Fitness for a particular purpose’ Art. 35(2)(b) CISG requires that the goods be fit for ‘any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract’. The common law systems contain comparable provisions.