Questions Q3-5 What are the difficulties when determining whether a contract is completely governed by the CISG? Q3-6 What factors are taken into account when determining whether the seller fulfils mere ancillary obligations of a sales contract or whether its duty is to perform a mixed contract which does not fall within the scope of the CISG in its entirety? Q3-7a) What are the typical features of a distribution agreement? Cf. C3-4. b) As a rule, does the CISG apply to distribution agreements as a whole? Consider C3-4 as well as the summary on case law in A3-3. c) Is it possible to apply the CISG to a single ‘supply contract’, which forms part of a frame contract? Cf. once again A3-3. Q3-8a) How does the Oberlandesgericht München in C3-5 quantify the ‘pre-ponderant part’? b) Should such an approach, which is based on the economic value of the various performances, be followed? c) The Russian Tribunal in C3-6 adopts a ‘percentage’ view to determine the ‘preponderant part’. Which approach should be preferred, the one adopted in C3-5 or the one in C3-6? d) What are the arguments in favour and against a ‘percentage’ approach? Cf. once again CISG-AC Opinion No. 4, black letter rules 7-10.

DOI link for Questions Q3-5 What are the difficulties when determining whether a contract is completely governed by the CISG? Q3-6 What factors are taken into account when determining whether the seller fulfils mere ancillary obligations of a sales contract or whether its duty is to perform a mixed contract which does not fall within the scope of the CISG in its entirety? Q3-7a) What are the typical features of a distribution agreement? Cf. C3-4. b) As a rule, does the CISG apply to distribution agreements as a whole? Consider C3-4 as well as the summary on case law in A3-3. c) Is it possible to apply the CISG to a single ‘supply contract’, which forms part of a frame contract? Cf. once again A3-3. Q3-8a) How does the Oberlandesgericht München in C3-5 quantify the ‘pre-ponderant part’? b) Should such an approach, which is based on the economic value of the various performances, be followed? c) The Russian Tribunal in C3-6 adopts a ‘percentage’ view to determine the ‘preponderant part’. Which approach should be preferred, the one adopted in C3-5 or the one in C3-6? d) What are the arguments in favour and against a ‘percentage’ approach? Cf. once again CISG-AC Opinion No. 4, black letter rules 7-10.

Questions Q3-5 What are the difficulties when determining whether a contract is completely governed by the CISG? Q3-6 What factors are taken into account when determining whether the seller fulfils mere ancillary obligations of a sales contract or whether its duty is to perform a mixed contract which does not fall within the scope of the CISG in its entirety? Q3-7a) What are the typical features of a distribution agreement? Cf. C3-4. b) As a rule, does the CISG apply to distribution agreements as a whole? Consider C3-4 as well as the summary on case law in A3-3. c) Is it possible to apply the CISG to a single ‘supply contract’, which forms part of a frame contract? Cf. once again A3-3. Q3-8a) How does the Oberlandesgericht München in C3-5 quantify the ‘pre-ponderant part’? b) Should such an approach, which is based on the economic value of the various performances, be followed? c) The Russian Tribunal in C3-6 adopts a ‘percentage’ view to determine the ‘preponderant part’. Which approach should be preferred, the one adopted in C3-5 or the one in C3-6? d) What are the arguments in favour and against a ‘percentage’ approach? Cf. once again CISG-AC Opinion No. 4, black letter rules 7-10.