CISG by jurisdiction
Taiwan
Status under the CISG:
Uncertain
The status of Taiwan (also known as the Republic of China or Chinese Taipei) under the CISG is currently uncertain.
Taiwan has not declared its accession to the Sales Convention and is not listed as a CISG Contracting State by the UN Treaty Section, which exercises the functions of the Secretary-General of the United Nations as the depositary of the Convention (see Art. 89 CISG). Furthermore, it is at best very doubtfulnot whether Taiwan could accede to the Convention in accordance with the standards described in Art. 91 CISG, or not. The majority among the (relatively few) authors who have addressed Taiwan's status under the CISG in scholarly writing are similarly of the opinion that Taiwan can currently not be considered CISG Contracting State territory.
In contrast, the general "One China policy" followed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and by many other States could be seen as an argument in favor of extending the PRC's Contracting State status under the CISG also to Taiwan. However, as far as can be determined, the PRC has never expressed any support of this approach in respect of the CISG. If one were to assume that Art. 93 CISG applies to the People’s Republic of China, Art. 93(2) CISG states that any declarations in accordance with this provision "are to be notified to the depositary and are to state expressly the territorial units to which the Convention extends." Given that the depositary currently lists no Art. 93-declarations made by the PRC, no clear guidance regarding Taiwan's status under the CISG can be drawn in this respect.
The approach adopted by courts in deciding disputes involving parties from Taiwan mirrors the current uncertainty.
In a case involving a Taiwanese seller and an Australian buyer, a court in the People’s Republic of China applied the CISG under Art. 1(1)(a) CISG without an explicit discussion of the status of Taiwan. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the court considered a mainland Chinese company that acted on behalf of the Taiwanese seller to be a relevant factor in this context. See
- Hummer Shoe Industry Co., Ltd. v. Specialty Fashion Group Ltd., Intermediate People's Court Xiamen, Fujian Province, 17 December 2019 – (2018) Min 02 Min Zhong No. 261, CISG-online 4803
Courts outside of the People's Republic of China applying the CISG have not been uniform in addressing Taiwan's status under the CISG:
On more than one occasion courts have treated parties with a place of business in Taiwan like parties with a place of business in the People’s Republic of China, thereby essentially treating Taiwan as CISG Contracting territory. The reasons for this position are often not elaborated upon in the decisions. See e.g.
- Ideal Bike Corp. v. IMPEXO spol. s r.o., Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 17 December 2013 – 23 Cdo 1308/2011, CISG-online 2749 (no explanation given)
- Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, 31 March 2021 – 3:18-cv-00373-BEN-MSB, CISG-online 5547, at para. 42 (held that the CISG should be applied to contracts involving Taiwanese parties in accordance with Art. 93(4) CISG, given that the People’s Republic of China has made no declaration under Art. 93(1) CISG vis-à-vis Taiwan)
Other courts have expressly held that the CISG does not apply to Taiwan:
- Golden-Legion Automotive Corp. et al. v. LUSA Industries, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 4 October 2010 – CV 09-05962 MMM (CWx), CISG-online 5498, at para. 16 (because Taiwan is not listed as a "signatory state" of the CISG)
- Taiwanese toys case, Court of Appeal Hamburg, 14 October 2021 – 6 U 116/20, CISG-online 6281, at para. 25 (because Taiwan is not a CISG Contracting State)
A Dutch court was spared the burden to examine whether the CISG could be applied to a contract involving a Taiwanese buyer, as the parties had explicitly excluded the CISG in their contract:
- Chikara Nederland B.V. v. Great Sun Europe et al., District Court Utrecht, 18 June 2008 – 227339 / HA ZA 07-486, CISG-online 5249
In a relatively early decision, a U.S. Court of Appeals left the question open because the issue had not been raised in a timely manner during the court proceedings:
- Attorneys Trust and CMC Magnetics Corp. v. Videotape Computer Products Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit), 20 August 1996 – 95-55410, CISG-online 441
Further information:
For commentary addressing (to a varying degree) the status of Taiwan under the Sales Convention, see the entries in our Bibliography for Taiwan.
Published CISG cases adjudicated by courts in Taiwan:
Published CISG cases worldwide involving parties from Taiwan:
Parties from Taiwan most frequently settled their CISG disputes in:
Goods most frequently traded under the CISG by buyers and sellers from Taiwan:
Parties from Taiwan were involved in CISG transactions:
CISG decisions by courts in Taiwan:
CISG decisions in arbitrations administered by institutions based in Taiwan:
Arbitral awards rendered in arbitrations with seat in Taiwan:
Bibliography:
