Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/anno-art-63.html
Timestamp: 2014-11-27 11:36:49
Document Index: 415290638

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 63', 'art. 63', 'Art. 63', 'Art. 63', 'Art. 63', 'art. 64', 'Art. 49']

Article 63 Go to Database Directory || Go to Information on other available case data
Article 63. Seller's Notice Fixing Additional Final Period for Performance
Text of Article 63
[See comparable provisions in article 47] 63A Additional final period for buyer's performance (art. 63(1))
63B Seller's remedies during period (art. 63(2))
63B1 No resort to any remedy for breach of contract unless: 63B11 Buyer refuses to perform within fixed period CROSS-REFERENCE
For the parallel counterpart remedy for buyers (buyer's notice fixing additional final period
for performance), go to the Annotated text of Article 47 CISG.
UNCITRAL has identified relevant cases in Digests containing case annotations for each article of the CISG. UNCITRAL cites eight cases in its Digest of Art. 63 case law:
Argentina 1 Germany 1 Switzerland 1
Presented below is a composite list of Art. 63 cases reporting UNCITRAL Digest cases and other Art. 63 cases. All cases are listed in chronological sequence, commencing with the most recent. Asterisks identify the UNCITRAL Digest cases, commencing with the 17 November 2000 citation reported below. Cases are coded to the UNCITRAL Thesaurus.
There are scholars who believe that there are circumstances in which the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts may be used to interpret or supplement this Article of the CISG. See match-up of this Article with counterpart provisions of the Principles and commentary on this subject. To the extent this reasoning fits, cases on the counterpart provisions of the UNIDROIT Principles may be relevant. To the extent available, such cases may be found on the Unilex website. Germany 18 November 2008 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Brandenburg (Beer case) 63A [translation available]
Serbia 15 July 2008 Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration, Serbian Chamber of Commerce (Milk packaging equipment case) 63A [translation available]
Germany 14 February 2008 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Karlsruhe (Antique Jaguar sport car case) 63A [translation available] China October 2007 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2007/03] (CD-R and DVD-R production line systems case) [translation available]
France 22 December 2006 Tribunal de grande instance [District Court] Strasbourg (Cathode ray tube case) 63A [translation available] Switzerland 20 December 2006 Bundesgericht [Federal Supreme Court] (Machines case) [translation available]
Germany 19 October 2006 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München (Auto case) 63A [translation available]
Russia 7 March 2006 Arbitration Award 37/2005 [translation in process] Slovak Republic 11 October 2005 Regional Court Bratislava (Fur case) [translation available]
Ukraine 19 September 2005 Arbitration Award (Iron ore case) 63A [translation available] China 28 February 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/06] (Wool case) 63A [translation available] China 24 February 2005 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG 2005/08] (Second pork case) 63B [translation available]
Germany 10 December 2004 Landgericht [District Court] Bayreuth (Tiles case) [translation available] Germany 22 July 2004 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Düsseldorf (Shoes case) [translation available] Russia 28 June 2004 Arbitration Award 167/2003 [translation available] Switzerland 29 April 2004 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] St. Gallen 63A [translation available] Italy 31 March 2004 Tribunale [District Court] Padova [translation available]
Russia 17 February 2003 Arbitration Award No. 168/2001 63A [translation available]
Denmark 1 November 2000 Højesterets [Supreme Court] (Gastrolux GmbH v. Pyrolux Production A/S)
Switzerland 11 February 2003 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] St. Gallen 63A [translation available]
ICC 2003 International Court of Arbitration, Case 11849 (Fashion products case) 63A [English text]
Switzerland 12 December 2002 Kantonsgericht [District Court] Zug 63A [translation available]
China 4 February 2002 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2002/03] (Styrene monomer case) 63A [translation available] Austria 24 January 2002 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Graz 63A [translation available]
China 22 March 2001 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/2001/02] (Mung bean case) 63A [translation available]
* Australia 17 November 2000 Supreme Court of Queensland (Downs Investments v. Perwaja Steel) 63A
* Austria 28 April 2000 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 63A [translation available]
Switzerland 11 June 1999 Handelsgericht [Commercial Court] Aargau [translation available]
Belgium 5 May 1999 Rechtbank van Koophandel [District Court] Hasselt China 8 April 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/21] (New Zealand raw wool case) [translation available]
China 1 March 1999 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1999/12] (Canned mandarin oranges case) 63A [translation available]
* France 4 February 1999 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 63A [translation available]
Germany 29 December 1998 Hamburg Arbitration award [translation available] * Italy 11 December 1998 Corte di Appello [Appellate Court] Milano 63A [translation available]
Austria 10 December 1997 Vienna Arbitration award, Case S-2/97 63A [translation available]
Austria 11 September 1997 Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 63A [translation available] * United States 21 July 1997 Federal District Court [New York] (Helen Kaminski v. Marketing Australian Products)
* Switzerland 20 February 1997 Bezirksgericht [District Court] Saane 63A [translation available]
ICC September 1996 International Court of Arbitration, Case 8574 63A [English text] Germany 21 June 1996 Hamburg Arbitration award [translation available] Switzerland 31 May 1996 Zürich Chamber of Commerce, Arbitration ZHK 273/1995 [English
text] Russia 1 December 1995 Arbitration award 22/1995 63A [translation available]
Germany 21 September 1995 Landgericht [District Court] Kassel 63A [translation available]
Australia 28 April 1995 Federal District Court, Adelaide (Roder v. Rosedown) 63A Germany 8 February 1995 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] München [7 U 1720/94] 63A [translation available] Germany 17 September 1993 Oberlandesgericht [Appellate Court] Koblenz [translation available] * Germany 14 May 1993 Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 63A [translation available] China 9 January 1993 CIETAC Arbitration Award [CISG/1993/03] (Linseed cake case) 63A [translation available] ICC 1992 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7197 * ICC 1992 International Court of Arbitration, Case 7585 63A [English text] Germany 18 January 1991 Landgericht [District Court] Bielefeld UNCITRAL CASE DIGEST
A/CN.9/SER.C/DIGEST/CISG/63 [8 June 2004]. Reproduced with the permission of UNCITRAL.
(1)	The seller may fix an additional period of time of reasonable length for performance by the buyer of his obligations.� (2)	Unless the seller has received notice from the buyer that he will not perform within the period so fixed, the seller may not, during that period, resort to any remedy for breach of contract. However, the seller is not deprived thereby of any right he may have to claim damages for delay in performance.
DIGEST�OF�ARTICLE 63 CASE LAW
Usefulness of granting an additional period of time
1.	In granting the seller the right to fix an additional period of time, article 63 is in fact
giving him the same right as that granted to the buyer under article 47: the two provisions are
conceived in the same fashion and worded in comparable terms. The principal purpose of
article 63, as of article 47, is to clarify the situation that arises when the buyer does not perform
its obligation to pay the price or take delivery of the goods in time: if the additional period of
time elapses without result, the seller is entitled to declare the contract avoided even if the buyer
has not been responsible for a fundamental breach of contract (art. 64(1)(b)). Article 63 is
especially useful in cases where it is doubtful whether the buyer's delay in performance
constitutes a fundamental breach of contract.[1]
2.	The additional period of time has to be of reasonable length. Decisions about what a
reasonable length is are rare.[2]
Illustrations of recourse to an additional period of time
3.	In practice sellers tend to grant an additional period of time, thereby giving judges the
opportunity to apply article 63. Illustrations in case law are connected with the grant of an
additional period to pay the price,[3] to secure the issuance of a letter of credit [4] and to take
delivery of the goods.[5]
1. CLOUT case No. 243 [FRANCE Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble 4 February 1999, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990204f1.html>].
2. [ITALY Corte di Appello [Appellate Court] Milano 11 December 1998, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/981211i3.html>].
3. [AUSTRIA Oberster Gerichtshof [Supreme Court] 28 April 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000428a3.html>].
4. CLOUT case No. 261 [SWITZERLAND Berzirksgericht [District Court] Sanne 20 February 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970220s1.html>]; CLOUT case No. 301 [ICC International Court of Arbitration, case No. 7585 of 1992, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/927585i1.html>]; [AUSTRALIA Downs Investments v. Perwaja Steel [Supreme Court] Queensland 17 November 2000, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/001117a2.html>]. However, in this case the court did not attach any particular consequences to the additional period of time fixed by the buyer since it found that a fundamental breach of contract had occurred; in this context, compare the granting of an additional period of time for the opening of a letter of credit required under a distribution agreement, CLOUT case No. 187 [UNITED STATES Helen Kaminski v. Marketing Australian Products Federal District Court [New York] 21 July 1997, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970721u1.html>]. 5. CLOUT case No. 47 [GERMANY Landgericht [District Court] Aachen 14 May 1993; available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930514g1.html>].
different conceptual means in other legal systems. See Treitel, "Remedies for Breach of Contract", in: Int�l
Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Chapter 16 (Tübingen, Mouton, The Hague, Paris: J.C.B. Mohr, 1976) �� 149-151 (discusses the Nachfrist provision in German law and similar provisions in other legal systems).
ed., The Hague: Kluwer 1999), at � 351.
6. For the same conclusion, see Honnold, supra note 4, at � 351; Hager, in: Schlechtriem/Schwenzer eds.,
13. This requirement has been stressed, e.g., by Honnold, supra note 4, at � 289 (regarding the counterpart
UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna: Manz 1986), at 39; Honnold, supra note 4, at � 95; for the relevance of the standard of reasonableness in determining good faith, see Kritzer's
<http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/reason.html> (stating that "� regarding reasonableness as a fundamental
For the same conclusion with regard to the counterpart provisions on buyer�s right of avoidance see Huber, in: Schlechtriem ed., Commentary on the U.N. Convention on the International Sale of Goods (Clarendon Press: Oxford 1998), Art. 49 Comment 22; see also Treitel, supra note 2, � 150 (stating with regard to the Nachfrist requirement under German, Austrian and Swiss law that the main purpose of the requirement of a Nachfrist is to protect the promisor by giving him a further period of grace within which to perform, but that in case of the seller�s refusal, "no useful purpose would be served by the Nachfrist"). 29. See, e.g., Schlechtriem, supra note 22, at 81 (stating that "as long as the contract does not obligate the seller to perform first, the seller can make payment a condition precedent to a transfer of the goods or documents controlling their disposition (Article 58(1) sentence 2 and 58(2)"), available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/schlechtriem.html.
Remarks on the manner in which the Principles of European Contract Law may be used to interpret or supplement Articles 63 and 64(1)(b) CISG [*]
Bruno ZellerVictoria University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
The principle of Nachfrist must be viewed in two ways, firstly as a mandate within the CISG but secondly also as another example of the "sea change in the landscape of international trade." Not only is "additional period of time" contained in basically the same form in PECL but also in the UNIDROIT principles. It is the domestic systems of law and specifically the common law, which is out of step with international developments. The reality is that there is a drastic change in the market place for legal services. PECL in a subtle way will be shaping English common law practices and it will not be too far in the future when English courts need to deal with concepts such as Nachfrist. The fact that the concept of Nachfrist has been included in various international laws indicates that certainty now has a brother, namely flexibility. Globalization requires that legal rules must be flexible in order to be applicable to changing circumstances and avoid costly disputes in circumstances, which could have been solved by an instrument like Nachfrist. Common law attorneys must become aware of the existence and basic content of different concepts contained in uniform international law, the CISG, an in international "Restatements" of the law, the PECL and UNIDROIT Principles, because they will be shaping the rules for contractual dealings in the future. FOOTNOTE
* A match-up of CISG Articles 63 and 64(1)(b) and PECL
Article 8:106 [Notice fixing additional period for performance] is available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/peclcomp63.html>. The match-up is accompanied by: - Comments on PECL 8:106 authored by the European Commission describing and illustrating the manner in which it is to be applied; and - Notes that compare this provision with continental and common law domestic rules, doctrine and jurisprudence.