Source: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/ziegel49.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 03:59:34+00:00

Document:
1. The difference between the a priori characterization of terms in the OSGA and the treatment of breaches in CISG has been explained, supra, in the analysis of art. 25. Art. 49(1) flows logically from CISG's remedial approach and, if severity of the breach is accepted as a sound test, then there should be no difficulty in accepting art. 49(1). Note too that, unlike OSGA 12(3), art. 49 draws no distinction between a sale of specific and a sale of future goods and, for the purposes of avoidance, attaches no importance to the locus of title.
2. Art. 49(2) adopts the reasonable principle that the remedy of avoidance must be exercised within a reasonable period of time and is a logical consequence of the wider rule in art. 50 (1). Similar rules apply at common law. See OSGA 34 (duty to reject defective goods within reasonable period of time) and OSGA12(1) (waiver of breach of condition).

References: art. 25
 Art. 49
 art. 49
 art. 49
 Art. 49
 art. 50