The purpose of Article 54 CISG is to clarify that, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, it is the buyer’s obligation to complete all formalities necessary for payment to be made under the contract. The costs of such formalities are to be borne by the buyer. Moreover, it is implicit in the reference to an ‘obligation’ that the buyer’s failure to comply will result in the seller’s entitlement to claim remedies.

Given the purpose of Article 54, an obligation de résultat is more effective in ensuring the fulfilment of payment obligations. It motivates a buyer to ensure payment is made, as an obligation de résultat, in principle, does not take into account reasons for non-fulfilment of the payment obligation. At the same time, there can be reasons that hinder payment despite the buyer taking all steps that were agreed or would under normal circumstances be required to affect payment as agreed, yet payment is not fulfilled due to reasons beyond the buyer’s control. This could seem like an argument for an obligation de moyen. 

In the end, the important factor is that Article 54 is supposed to address the standard rights and obligations, as well as the allocation of risks, to apply to the majority of cases. If there are exceptional circumstances, which may be considered to excuse a failure to pay, the CISG has provisions covering exemptions from liability (see Article 79(1)) and the limitations of such excuses. The existence of an excuse for non-fulfilment of an obligation cannot (and should not) change the fact that the obligations exists. Therefore, an obligation de résultat makes more sense.

The seller can claim specific performance, damages, or avoid the contract if the obligation is regarded as an essential term of the contract.

(a)     The buyer failed to complete the contractually required bank transfer within three banking days after receipt of the invoice and bill of lading and, once its bank returned the funds, it did not re process or otherwise ensure that payment was actually credited to the seller, which the tribunal underscored by noting that “an attempted payment is not the same as a payment made.” These completion steps—arranging and effecting the transfer to the designated account and overcoming routine banking hitches—are precisely the “steps and formalities” 

(b)     Even if the buyer had continued to attempt payment, persistent failure to achieve actual transfer to the seller would still constitute a breach of Article 54 because the obligation is result oriented: the price must be paid, not merely attempted. Only a proven Article 79 impediment or a prevention caused by the seller under Article 80 could excuse non payment despite diligent efforts; neither was present on these facts.

(c) It is an obligation de résultat. 

(d) The arguments about the claimants’ supposed need to provide an indemnity, to “complain,” or to monitor internal actors (e.g., Mr Doe) were not contractual duties and were expressly rejected as excuses. The buyer’s stance that it had tried to pay but wanted direction as to the correct payee did not convert its duty into a best‑efforts obligation. The tribunal emphasised the required result—payment—not the level of effort.