Show simple item record

dc.creatorFlechtner, Harry M.
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-21T10:52:21Z
dc.date.available2024-05-21T10:52:21Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.issn0003-2565
dc.identifier.urihttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1502
dc.description.abstractThis paper addresses the exemptions provisions, articles 79 and 80, of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG). It begins with a general comparison of the two provisions, exploring the significance of stylistic differences between the detailed, complex, even baroque approach of article 79 and the general, straightforward and vague mode of article 80. The paper then explores a recent decision of the Belgian Court of Cassation holding that the CISG incorporates, as part of its general principles, the Hardship provisions (articles 6.2.1 through 6.2.3) of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts. The paper argues that this decision distorts the meaning of the CISG, violates the mandate to interpret the Convention with regard for its international character, and threatens the political legitimacy of the treaty.en
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.sourceAnali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
dc.subjectinternational salesen
dc.subjectHardshipen
dc.subjectforce majeureen
dc.subjectexemptionen
dc.subjectCISGen
dc.titleThe exemption provisions of the sales convention, including comments on Hardship doctrine and the 19 June 2009 decision of the Belgian Cassation Courten
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.licenseCC BY
dc.citation.epage101
dc.citation.issue3
dc.citation.other59(3): 84-101
dc.citation.spage84
dc.citation.volume59
dc.identifier.rcubconv_3088
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record