Drafters left a matter open consciously, thereby propagating the common understanding that it should be settled in conformity with the applicable domestic law. The diﬃculty in deciding whether a gap should be ﬁlled uniformly or by the applicable domestic law is augmented by the fact that the CISG contains almost no general principles which are explicitly described as such (exception: Art. 7(1) CISG). Whether a general principle can be derived from a single CISG provision must, therefore, be carefully examined. C7-4 : US Dist Ct (N D IL) (USA), 21 May 2004, CISG-online 851 (For a summary of the facts see C 7–1 above.)

doi:10.4324/9780203945445-50

Chapter

Drafters left a matter open consciously, thereby propagating the common understanding that it should be settled in conformity with the applicable domestic law. The diﬃculty in deciding whether a gap should be ﬁlled uniformly or by the applicable domestic law is augmented by the fact that the CISG contains almost no general principles which are explicitly described as such (exception: Art. 7(1) CISG). Whether a general principle can be derived from a single CISG provision must, therefore, be carefully examined. C7-4

Chapter

Drafters left a matter open consciously, thereby propagating the common understanding that it should be settled in conformity with the applicable domestic law. The diﬃculty in deciding whether a gap should be ﬁlled uniformly or by the applicable domestic law is augmented by the fact that the CISG contains almost no general principles which are explicitly described as such (exception: Art. 7(1) CISG). Whether a general principle can be derived from a single CISG provision must, therefore, be carefully examined. C7-4

ABSTRACT

In March 1994, an Italian seller and a Swiss buyer entered into a contract for the sale of Egyptian cotton, to be delivered by 5 June in four deliveries of ﬁve tons each. Since the seller did not inform the buyer in good time that the delay indicated in the ﬁrst contract would not be respected, the buyer was forced to purchase substitute goods from other suppliers at a higher price. The buyer commenced a legal action, asking for damages. The First Instance Court held that the seller was liable for non-performance and ordered the seller to compensate the buyer for the loss it had suffered. The seller appealed.