Source: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/ho72.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:39:16+00:00

Document:
Excerpt from John O. Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nations Convention, 3rd ed. (1999), pages 437-440. Reproduced with permission of the publisher, Kluwer Law International, The Hague.
"(2) If time allows, the party intending to declare the contract avoided must give reasonable notice to the other party in order to permit him to provide adequate assurance of his performance.
"(3) The requirements of the preceding paragraph do not apply if the other party has declared that he will not perform his obligations."
In examining the right to suspend performance (Art. 71, supra at �387) we saw that standards for suspension are less rigorous than the standards for avoidance under Article 72. Article 72 authorizes an aggrieved party (A) to avoid the contract prior to the date for performance only when "it is clear" that the other party (B) "will commit a fundamental [page 437] breach of contract." Unless B has declared that he will not perform (para. (3)), A�s attempt to avoid the contract in advance of the time for performance may overstep the limits set by Article 72. In this event, A still has a duty to accept performance by B. Moreover, A�s wrongful declaration of avoidance may constitute a repudiation giving B the right to avoid the contract under Article 72(1).
We have just noted some of the hazards of Article 72 avoidance. Are there advantages of early avoidance? Where A�s avoidance responds to B�s wrongful repudiation and therefore is clearly justified (Art. 72(3)), A�s declaration of avoidance makes it possible for A to resell (or repurchase) the goods called for by the initial contract; A need not be concerned lest B change its mind and tender performance. In addition, by virtue of Article 75, infra at �409, a reasonably prompt resale or repurchase (even prior to the date for performance) may fix the damages for which the repudiating party will be liable. May A bring legal action before the date for B�s performance? Such haste in instituting legal proceedings is seldom of practical value but Articles 75 and 76, infra at �409, seem to authorize action immediately on avoidance.
The effects of avoidance in various settings (Arts. 49, 64, and 72) are prescribed in Ch. V, Sec. V (Arts. 81�85) infra; these include the right to recover damages (Arts. 81(1)) and to claim restitution of whatever the avoiding party has supplied or paid under the contract (Art. 81(2)).
Commentary: Bonell/Ligouri, ULR (1996-2) 359 at 368�369; Strub, M.G., Anticipatory Breach and Developing Counties, 38 Int. & Comp. L. Q. 475�501 (1989); Schlechtriem, Com. (1998) 533�541 (Leser).
Paragraphs (2) and (3) were added to this article at the Diplomatic Conference. The discussion of Article 71, supra at �388, referred to the concern, primarily on behalf of developing countries, that the power of suspension might be abused. Similar concerns were expressed with respect to avoidance under Article 72; the addition of paragraphs (2) and (3) was part of the compromise developed by an ad hoc working group with respect to both Articles 71 and 72.
1. Paragraph (1) of Art. 72 is substantially the same as Art. 63 of the 1978 Draft and ULIS 76. Paragraphs (2) and (3) were added at the Diplomatic Conference; see infra, n.6. Other developments at the Diplomatic Conference were linked to Article 71; see �388, supra at notes 3 and 4. For earlier action in UNCITRAL see V YB 41�42, 57, VI YB 72, 106, VIII YB 55, Docy. Hist. 150, 187�188, 203, 231, 348.
2. A�s hazards would be reduced if A, pursuant to Art. 72(2), notifies B of A�s intention and thereby gives B an opportunity to provide assurances of performance. See Arts. 71(3) and 72(2). Failure by B to respond effectively to such a notice would make it more difficult for B to challenge a subsequent declaration of avoidance. See also Art. 7(1) (interpretation to promote "the observance of good faith").
3. If the aggrieved party does not respond to repudiation by declaring the contract avoided, he may be obliged to accept performance if the repudiator changes his mind. Cf. Art. 81, infra Treitel, Contract 653�654, 661. Cf. Corbin ��980�981 (retraction of repudiation may be barred by other party�s change of position).
4. See Gulotta, Anticipatory Breach�A Comparative Analysis, 50 Tulane L. Rev. 927, 932 (1976); Restatement, Second of Contracts �250, Comments c and d, Corbin ��984, 1259 Treitel, Remedies (1988) 379�381. For the approach of German (FRG) law see Dölle, Kommentar Art. 76 p. 485 at 11�12. On repudiation under CISG see Stoll, 52 Rabels Z. 617 (1988) (In German; English summary).
5. The leading English decision authorizing immediate legal action is Hochster v. De la Tour, 118 Eng. Rep. 922 (Q.B. 1853). Recovery of damages, of course, does not present the problem of requiring specific performance before the agreed date. See Corbin �961, �962; Restatement, Second of Contracts �253.
6. Com. I Action: O.R. 130�131, Docy. Hist. 702�703; discussion: O.R. 419�422, 431�433, Docy. Hist. 640�643, 652�654, 702�703.
7. See also note 2, supra. Accord: Bennett, B-B Commentary 530. The significance of communications between the parties was discussed under Art. 7, supra at �100.

References: Art. 72
 Art. 63
 Art. 72
 Art. 7
 Art. 81
 Art. 76
 v. 
 Art. 7