Q 65-1
(a) Why was Article 65 CISG disputed at the Drafting Conference?
(b) Which party’s interests come to the fore?
(a) Because it allows the seller to make its own specifications if the buyer fails to do so.
(b) The seller’s interest in performance of the contract.
Q 65-2
Even if there is little chance that the buyer will be prepared to execute the contract, why is it helpful for the seller to make a specification of the goods?
Because specifying the goods enables the seller to proceed with its performance under the contract and to assess the remedies that arise from the buyer’s breach.
Q 65-3
Do you think the court in C 65-1 interpreted Article 65(1) correctly? Why or why not?
The court appeared to take a pragmatic approach in C 65-1. While the wording of Article 65(1) refers to qualities of the goods (“form, measurement or other features”) and not to whether or not goods are accepted and paid for, the court’s interpretation led to a solution that appears just in the circumstances.
Q 65-4
Revisit C 64-6. Should Article 65 have impacted the decision? Why or why not?
Jorni should have already succeeded at first instance, had the court considered Art. 65 correctly. The court assumed that Jorni could have made the decision regarding the machine’s colour to avoid further delay and deliver on time. That is a decision pursuant to Art. 65, which the seller may make, but does not have to.
