Q 72-2 a) What was the primary blueprint for Art. 72 CISG? b) In what way has Art. 72 CISG extended this model? Q 72-3 a) How must the requirement that an anticipatory fundamental breach must be ‘clear’ be distinguished from the prerequisite in Art. 71 CISG that it must ‘become apparent’ that one party will not perform a sub-stantial part of its obligations? b) Wherein was the ‘clear’ committal of an anticipatory fundamental breach in C 72-1 to be seen? Q 72-4 Compare the ‘clarity’ requirement with the corresponding provisions in the UP 2004, the PECL, § 2-610(2) UCC, and § 323(4) BGB. Q 72-5 a) What is the purpose of the ‘notice’ requirement in Art. 72(2) CISG? b) In which cases will a notice within the meaning of Art. 72(2) CISG not be required? Cf. also C 72-2. Q 72-6 a) What are the consequences if no notice under Art. 72(2) CISG is given? b) What happens if the debtor cannot furnish any adequate assurance? Q 72-7 a) How is ‘repudiation’ defined in the UCC? b) Does the UCC make a similar distinction to that made under Arts 71, 72 CISG? c) What are the creditor’s possible remedies in case of repudiation by the other party? Q 72-8 a) How does the UCC settle the conflict between renewed willingness on behalf of the debtor to perform, and the creditor’s already having resorted to a remedy incompatible with the debtor’s performance of the contract? b) How is this question solved under the CISG? Q 72-9 In case of repudiation of the contract by one party, § 2-610(1)(b) UCC refers the other party to the general remedies in § 2-703(2). In fact, is there a difference, in comparison to the CISG, with respect to the remedies available to the conforming party?

DOI link for Q 72-2 a) What was the primary blueprint for Art. 72 CISG? b) In what way has Art. 72 CISG extended this model? Q 72-3 a) How must the requirement that an anticipatory fundamental breach must be ‘clear’ be distinguished from the prerequisite in Art. 71 CISG that it must ‘become apparent’ that one party will not perform a sub-stantial part of its obligations? b) Wherein was the ‘clear’ committal of an anticipatory fundamental breach in C 72-1 to be seen? Q 72-4 Compare the ‘clarity’ requirement with the corresponding provisions in the UP 2004, the PECL, § 2-610(2) UCC, and § 323(4) BGB. Q 72-5 a) What is the purpose of the ‘notice’ requirement in Art. 72(2) CISG? b) In which cases will a notice within the meaning of Art. 72(2) CISG not be required? Cf. also C 72-2. Q 72-6 a) What are the consequences if no notice under Art. 72(2) CISG is given? b) What happens if the debtor cannot furnish any adequate assurance? Q 72-7 a) How is ‘repudiation’ defined in the UCC? b) Does the UCC make a similar distinction to that made under Arts 71, 72 CISG? c) What are the creditor’s possible remedies in case of repudiation by the other party? Q 72-8 a) How does the UCC settle the conflict between renewed willingness on behalf of the debtor to perform, and the creditor’s already having resorted to a remedy incompatible with the debtor’s performance of the contract? b) How is this question solved under the CISG? Q 72-9 In case of repudiation of the contract by one party, § 2-610(1)(b) UCC refers the other party to the general remedies in § 2-703(2). In fact, is there a difference, in comparison to the CISG, with respect to the remedies available to the conforming party?

Q 72-2 a) What was the primary blueprint for Art. 72 CISG? b) In what way has Art. 72 CISG extended this model? Q 72-3 a) How must the requirement that an anticipatory fundamental breach must be ‘clear’ be distinguished from the prerequisite in Art. 71 CISG that it must ‘become apparent’ that one party will not perform a sub-stantial part of its obligations? b) Wherein was the ‘clear’ committal of an anticipatory fundamental breach in C 72-1 to be seen? Q 72-4 Compare the ‘clarity’ requirement with the corresponding provisions in the UP 2004, the PECL, § 2-610(2) UCC, and § 323(4) BGB. Q 72-5 a) What is the purpose of the ‘notice’ requirement in Art. 72(2) CISG? b) In which cases will a notice within the meaning of Art. 72(2) CISG not be required? Cf. also C 72-2. Q 72-6 a) What are the consequences if no notice under Art. 72(2) CISG is given? b) What happens if the debtor cannot furnish any adequate assurance? Q 72-7 a) How is ‘repudiation’ defined in the UCC? b) Does the UCC make a similar distinction to that made under Arts 71, 72 CISG? c) What are the creditor’s possible remedies in case of repudiation by the other party? Q 72-8 a) How does the UCC settle the conflict between renewed willingness on behalf of the debtor to perform, and the creditor’s already having resorted to a remedy incompatible with the debtor’s performance of the contract? b) How is this question solved under the CISG? Q 72-9 In case of repudiation of the contract by one party, § 2-610(1)(b) UCC refers the other party to the general remedies in § 2-703(2). In fact, is there a difference, in comparison to the CISG, with respect to the remedies available to the conforming party?