Contracts of sale and other types of contracts

The CISG applies to "contracts of sale of goods" according to Art. 1(1). It can appear questionable whether a contract is encompassed by the scope of application of the Convention.

Particularily, distributorship contracts and software contracts have become prominent examples regarding the subject matter of the CISG.

Definition of the term "contract for the sale of goods" (Art. 1(1) and Art. 3(1) CISG):

Gardena House S.a.r.l. v. Timber group UAB
Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Lithuania, 09 March 2012 – 3K-3-85/2012, CISG-online 5111

Definition of "contract of sale" developed from Art. 30 and 53 CISG in conjunction with Art. 3(1) and (2) CISG

Further types of contracts that have been discussed in case law include:

Barter contracts:

Barse Trading Ltd. v. Selkhozpromexport
Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow Region)
Russian Federation, 26 May 2003 – KG-A40/3225-03, CISG-online 836

Held that the CISG does not apply to barter contracts

Andrew J. Horowitz, 'Revisiting Barter under the CISG', 29 Journal of Air Law and Commerce (J. Air L. & Com.) (2010), 99–115 [– in English]

Brigitta Lurger, 'Die Anwendung des Wiener UNCITRAL-Kaufrechtsübereinkommens 1980 auf den internationalen Tauschvertrag und sonstige Gegengeschäfte', Zeitschrift für Europarecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) (1991), 415 [– in German]

Brokerage contracts:

Peteris v. Acobois S.a.r.l.
Cour d'appel d'Angers (Court of Appeal Angers)
France, 15 January 2001 – 1999/02510, CISG-online 4858

Held that the CISG does not apply to a brokerage contract (contrat de courtage)

Framework contracts:

Metallurgical sand case
Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court of Poland)
Poland, 27 January 2006 – III CSK 103/05, CISG-online 1399

Held that CISG also applies to framework sales contracts, and that the requirements of Art. 14 CISG do not prevent such an application even if the amount of goods to be delivered and the time of their delivery will only be specified by the buyer at a later point in time

Joint venture agreements:

Amco Ukservice & Promriladamco v. American Meter Comp.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
USA, 29 March 2004 – Civ. A. 00-2638, CISG-online 1664

Held that joint venture agreements themselves are not governed by the CISG, although the CISG may govern discrete contracts for the sale of goods that the parties enter into pursuant to such an agreement

Letters of intent:

Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA v. Viveo Cognitive Systems NV
Rechtbank Utrecht (District Court Utrecht)
Netherlands, 19 November 2003 – 145645/HAZA 02-957, CISG-online 4613

Parties concluded a letter of intent preparing the further negotiation and conclusion of a contract of software. Court held the CISG not to be applicable to the letter of intent

Frog AGV Systems BV v. D. Bader Söhne GmbH & Co. KG
Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (District Court Midden-Nederland)
Netherlands, 30 December 2013 – C-16-324902 - HA ZA 12-807, CISG-online 4640

Held that the CISG does not apply to a letter of intent

Option contracts:

Florian Schumacher, 'Kaufoptionsvertrag und Verwendungsrisiko im UN-Kaufrecht', Internationales Handelsrecht (IHR) (2005), 147–151 [– in German]