• buyer has not made payment until today. • buyer has made payment within the additional period granted and notified the seller thereof. • buyer pays on the 12th, 11 a.m. In the early morning of 12 July, seller has declared the contract avoided. • buyer makes payment on the 11th and notifies seller thereof; the money is transferred on the 12th, but prior to transfer the seller has declared avoidance. • same situation as before, but buyer does not notify the seller of its having made payment. b) Buyer has neither paid timely nor has taken over the goods within an additional period of time. Shortly after, • buyer pays, takes over the goods and notifies the seller thereof. • buyer pays but does not take over the goods. • buyer pays and takes over the goods, but is still in breach of another obligation which would allow it to avoid the contract (Art. 64(1)(a)). Q 64-8 Since, generally, where the requirements of Art. 64(1)(a) and (b) are met, the seller can freely choose whether it avoids the contract or claims specific performance of the contract (Art. 61), there might be a risk that it speculates to the detriment of the buyer by avoiding the contract at a date particularly favourable to it. For example, it could avoid the contract when the market price is remarkably high and claim damages under Art. 76(1) CISG. Is there a general principle under the CISG which obliges a party to keep the damage of the other party to a minimum?

DOI link for • buyer has not made payment until today. • buyer has made payment within the additional period granted and notified the seller thereof. • buyer pays on the 12th, 11 a.m. In the early morning of 12 July, seller has declared the contract avoided. • buyer makes payment on the 11th and notifies seller thereof; the money is transferred on the 12th, but prior to transfer the seller has declared avoidance. • same situation as before, but buyer does not notify the seller of its having made payment. b) Buyer has neither paid timely nor has taken over the goods within an additional period of time. Shortly after, • buyer pays, takes over the goods and notifies the seller thereof. • buyer pays but does not take over the goods. • buyer pays and takes over the goods, but is still in breach of another obligation which would allow it to avoid the contract (Art. 64(1)(a)). Q 64-8 Since, generally, where the requirements of Art. 64(1)(a) and (b) are met, the seller can freely choose whether it avoids the contract or claims specific performance of the contract (Art. 61), there might be a risk that it speculates to the detriment of the buyer by avoiding the contract at a date particularly favourable to it. For example, it could avoid the contract when the market price is remarkably high and claim damages under Art. 76(1) CISG. Is there a general principle under the CISG which obliges a party to keep the damage of the other party to a minimum?

• buyer has not made payment until today. • buyer has made payment within the additional period granted and notified the seller thereof. • buyer pays on the 12th, 11 a.m. In the early morning of 12 July, seller has declared the contract avoided. • buyer makes payment on the 11th and notifies seller thereof; the money is transferred on the 12th, but prior to transfer the seller has declared avoidance. • same situation as before, but buyer does not notify the seller of its having made payment. b) Buyer has neither paid timely nor has taken over the goods within an additional period of time. Shortly after, • buyer pays, takes over the goods and notifies the seller thereof. • buyer pays but does not take over the goods. • buyer pays and takes over the goods, but is still in breach of another obligation which would allow it to avoid the contract (Art. 64(1)(a)). Q 64-8 Since, generally, where the requirements of Art. 64(1)(a) and (b) are met, the seller can freely choose whether it avoids the contract or claims specific performance of the contract (Art. 61), there might be a risk that it speculates to the detriment of the buyer by avoiding the contract at a date particularly favourable to it. For example, it could avoid the contract when the market price is remarkably high and claim damages under Art. 76(1) CISG. Is there a general principle under the CISG which obliges a party to keep the damage of the other party to a minimum?