Q 1-15 Why did the court in C1-5 ultimately apply the CISG, although it had not entered into force in one of the Contracting States? Q 1-16 a) Why does the CISG provide for the possibility of a reservation in Art. 95 CISG? b) What is the purpose of Art. 95 CISG? Q 1-17 a) In C1-5, why was the CISG not applicable through Art. 1(1)(a)? b) Why was the court wrong to find that the CISG governed this case? c) Could the court have found out the reservation made by the USA under Art. 95 CISG? Where could it have been looked up? Q 1-18 Look at the following examples and decide whether the CISG is the applic-able law: a) The lex fori of Swiss courts leads to the law of China. b) The lex fori of a Czech court leads to French law. c) The lex fori of a US court leads to US law. d) A claim arising from a sales contract between a US and an Italian enter-prise has been brought before a US court. e) A US buyer sues a Slovakian seller in a US court. Q 1-19 Germany has made a declaration that it will not apply Art. 1(1)(b) CISG if the conflict of laws rules lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State which has made a reservation within the meaning of Art. 95 CISG. Can you imagine why Germany made such a declaration? To put it differently, a minority view in legal commentary holds that the CISG could be applicable via Art. 1(1)(b) despite the fact that the other party is located in a Contracting State that has made a declaration according to Art. 95 CISG. What reasons could there be for such a view? Q 1-20 Work out the most significant differences with regard to the applicability of the UP 2004, the PECL, and the CISG. Consider the legal status of the UP 2004 and the PECL, respectively. Q 1-21 Compare the way in which ‘international’ is defined in the UP 2004 and the CISG, respectively. Q 1-22 Do the parties to an international sales contract have the possibility to choose the UP 2004 or the PECL as the law applicable to their contract?

DOI link for Q 1-15 Why did the court in C1-5 ultimately apply the CISG, although it had not entered into force in one of the Contracting States? Q 1-16 a) Why does the CISG provide for the possibility of a reservation in Art. 95 CISG? b) What is the purpose of Art. 95 CISG? Q 1-17 a) In C1-5, why was the CISG not applicable through Art. 1(1)(a)? b) Why was the court wrong to find that the CISG governed this case? c) Could the court have found out the reservation made by the USA under Art. 95 CISG? Where could it have been looked up? Q 1-18 Look at the following examples and decide whether the CISG is the applic-able law: a) The lex fori of Swiss courts leads to the law of China. b) The lex fori of a Czech court leads to French law. c) The lex fori of a US court leads to US law. d) A claim arising from a sales contract between a US and an Italian enter-prise has been brought before a US court. e) A US buyer sues a Slovakian seller in a US court. Q 1-19 Germany has made a declaration that it will not apply Art. 1(1)(b) CISG if the conflict of laws rules lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State which has made a reservation within the meaning of Art. 95 CISG. Can you imagine why Germany made such a declaration? To put it differently, a minority view in legal commentary holds that the CISG could be applicable via Art. 1(1)(b) despite the fact that the other party is located in a Contracting State that has made a declaration according to Art. 95 CISG. What reasons could there be for such a view? Q 1-20 Work out the most significant differences with regard to the applicability of the UP 2004, the PECL, and the CISG. Consider the legal status of the UP 2004 and the PECL, respectively. Q 1-21 Compare the way in which ‘international’ is defined in the UP 2004 and the CISG, respectively. Q 1-22 Do the parties to an international sales contract have the possibility to choose the UP 2004 or the PECL as the law applicable to their contract?

Q 1-15 Why did the court in C1-5 ultimately apply the CISG, although it had not entered into force in one of the Contracting States? Q 1-16 a) Why does the CISG provide for the possibility of a reservation in Art. 95 CISG? b) What is the purpose of Art. 95 CISG? Q 1-17 a) In C1-5, why was the CISG not applicable through Art. 1(1)(a)? b) Why was the court wrong to find that the CISG governed this case? c) Could the court have found out the reservation made by the USA under Art. 95 CISG? Where could it have been looked up? Q 1-18 Look at the following examples and decide whether the CISG is the applic-able law: a) The lex fori of Swiss courts leads to the law of China. b) The lex fori of a Czech court leads to French law. c) The lex fori of a US court leads to US law. d) A claim arising from a sales contract between a US and an Italian enter-prise has been brought before a US court. e) A US buyer sues a Slovakian seller in a US court. Q 1-19 Germany has made a declaration that it will not apply Art. 1(1)(b) CISG if the conflict of laws rules lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State which has made a reservation within the meaning of Art. 95 CISG. Can you imagine why Germany made such a declaration? To put it differently, a minority view in legal commentary holds that the CISG could be applicable via Art. 1(1)(b) despite the fact that the other party is located in a Contracting State that has made a declaration according to Art. 95 CISG. What reasons could there be for such a view? Q 1-20 Work out the most significant differences with regard to the applicability of the UP 2004, the PECL, and the CISG. Consider the legal status of the UP 2004 and the PECL, respectively. Q 1-21 Compare the way in which ‘international’ is defined in the UP 2004 and the CISG, respectively. Q 1-22 Do the parties to an international sales contract have the possibility to choose the UP 2004 or the PECL as the law applicable to their contract?