Concurrent domestic law rights and remedies and the CISG

Domestic law can provide further or more extensive rights than the CISG offers in terms of remedies. Consequently, courts are facing the task of deciding whether the CISG preempts the respective right stemming from domestic law. Categorized by the kinds of claims, the following list provides an overview of the courts' responses:

In general:

Invalidity (or avoidability) of contracts because of the buyer's error about qualities of the goods at the moment of contract formation

Electronic electricity meters case
Bundesgericht/Tribunal fédéral (Swiss Federal Supreme Court)
Switzerland, 28 May 2019 – 4A_543/2018, CISG-online 4463

Held that a recission of contract due to a "Grundlagenirrtum" in accordance with Art. 24(1) No. 4 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (Obligationenrecht) is inadmissible in case of a CISG contract, because this domestic law right is preempted by Arts. 35 et seq. CISG

Hearing implants case
Landgericht Aachen (District Court Aachen)
Germany, 14 May 1993 – 43 O 136/92, CISG-online 86

Franco Ferrari, 'The Interaction Between the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and Domestic Remedies (Rescission for Mistake and Remedies in Tort Law)', 71 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht (RabelsZ) (2007), 52–80 [– in English]

Karin Flesch, Mängelhaftung und Beschaffenheitsirrtum beim Kauf, Baden-Baden: Nomos (1994) [– in German]

Matthias Gstoehl, 'Das Verhältnis von Gewährleistung nach UN-Kaufrecht und Irrtumsanfechtung nach nationalem Recht', Zeitschrift für Europarecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) (1998), 1 [– in German]

Peter Huber, 'UN-Kaufrecht und Irrtumsanfechtung: Die Anwendung nationalen Rechts bei einem Eigenschaftsirrtum des Käufers', Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) (1994), 585–602 [– in German]

Rudolf Lessiak, 'UNCITRAL-Kaufrechtsübereinkommen und Irrtumsanfechtung', Juristische Blätter (JBl) (1989), 487–496 [– in German]

Friedrich Niggemann, 'Erreur sur une qualité substantielle de la chose et application de la C.V.I.M. / Error About a Substantial Quality of the Goods and Application of the C.I.S.G.', Revue de Droit des Affaires Internationales/International Business Law Journal (RDAI/IBLJ) (1994), 397–415 [– in French]

Invalidity (or avoidability) of contracts because of a party's error about the content of its offer or acceptance

Air filters case
Handelsgericht des Kantons St. Gallen (Commercial Court Canton St Gall)
Switzerland, 24 August 1995 – HG 48/1994, CISG-online 247

Held that a recission of contract due to a party's "Erklärungsirrtum" in accordance with Art. 24(1) No. 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (Obligationenrecht) is admissible in case of a CISG contract

Tort claims (in general):

Viva Vino Import Corp. v. Franese Vini S.r.l.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
USA, 29 August 2000 – CIV.A.99-6384, CISG-online 675

Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
USA, 21 August 2002 – 98 CIV 861 RWS, 99 CIV 3607 RWS, CISG-online 664

B.R. Cohn Winery, Inc. v. Sabaté USA, Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
USA, 27 February 2004 – C 03-03478 SI, CISG-online 4824

Eastern Concrete Materials, Inc. v. Jamer Materials Limited
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
USA, 25 October 2019 – 19-9032 (SDW) (LDW), CISG-online 4853

Held that the CISG does not preempt claims sounding in tort

Martin Köhler, Die Haftung nach UN-Kaufrecht im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Vertrag und Delikt: ein rechtsvergleichender Blick aus Sicht des deutschen und des französischen Rechts, Tübingen: Mohr (2003) [– in German]

Claims for negligence:

B.R. Cohn Winery, Inc. v. Sabaté USA, Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
USA, 27 February 2004 – C 03-03478 SI, CISG-online 4824

Claims for promissory estoppel:

Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
USA, 21 August 2002 – 98 CIV 861 RWS, 99 CIV 3607 RWS, CISG-online 664

Held that a claim for promissory estoppel would be preempted by the CISG because promissory estoppel and breach of contract are “two sides of the same coin"

Caterpillar, Inc. et al. v. Usinor Industeel et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 30 March 2005 – 04 C 2474, CISG-online 1007

Held that promissory estoppel claims are not preempted by the CISG

Shagrow Telecom Tech Co. Ltd. v. Gentec Enterprises, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
USA, 20 February 2014 – CV 13-08799-RGK-SSx, CISG-online 4625

Held (in para. 23 of the decision) that state promissory estoppel claims are not preempted by the CISG

Claims for fraud and misrepresentation:

Perkins Manufacturing Comp. v. Haul-All Equipment Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 07 May 2020 – 19 cv 03769, CISG-online 5233

Held that if the buyer's claim for "fraud/misrepresentation" (under Illinois law) is that the seller’s misrepresentations induced the buyer to enter into a contractual relationship with the seller, and that the seller breached its promise by delivering non-conforming goods, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation claim stems from representations made in the parties’ agreement. Accordingly, the claim is not based on an independent duty but is rather supported by the same factual allegations as the breach of contract claims - it is therefore preempted by the CISG

Claims for negligent misrepresentation:

B.R. Cohn Winery, Inc. v. Sabaté USA, Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
USA, 27 February 2004 – C 03-03478 SI, CISG-online 4824

Sky Cast, Inc. v. Global Direct Distribution, LLC
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
USA, 18 March 2008 – 07-161-JBT, CISG-online 1652

Held that negligent misrepresentation according to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (as adopted as the law in Kentucky) "is a tort claim completely different from a claim for breach of contract" and therefore not preempted by the CISG

Claims for strict product liability:

B.R. Cohn Winery, Inc. v. Sabaté USA, Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
USA, 27 February 2004 – C 03-03478 SI, CISG-online 4824

Claims for unjust enrichment:

Semi-Materials Co., Ltd. v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
USA, 10 January 2011 – 4:06CV1426 FRB, CISG-online 2169

U.S. Nonwovens Corp. v. Pack Line Corp.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County
USA, 12 March 2015 – 2015 NY Slip Op 25078, CISG-online 2676

Held that because an express contract exists between buyer and seller, the CISG preempts buyer’s claim for unjust enrichment

Claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith:

Shagrow Telecom Tech Co. Ltd. v. Gentec Enterprises, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
USA, 20 February 2014 – CV 13-08799-RGK-SSx, CISG-online 4625

Held (in paras. 18, 19 of the decision) that Art. 7(1) CISG with its reference to good faith "seemingly provides for" a claim for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but (in para. 20 of the decision) also allows a tortious breach of implied covenant claim under state (California) law

Weihai Textile Group v. Level 8 Apparel, LLC et al.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
USA, 28 March 2014 – 11 Civ. 4405(ALC)(FM), CISG-online 2923

U.S. Nonwovens Corp. v. Pack Line Corp.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County
USA, 12 March 2015 – 2015 NY Slip Op 25078, CISG-online 2676

Held that buyer’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith (under New York law) is preempted by the CISG because it is duplicative of the claim for breach of contract under the CISG as it is based on the same underlying facts

THI Medical, S.A.C. v. Filmore Management Trading, LLC et al.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
USA, 23 August 2023 – 21-21632-Civ-GAYLES/TORRES, CISG-online 6489

Regarding the buyer’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith (under Florida law), the Court stated (in paras. 24–26 of the decision) "that we doubt that any such claim can be made that contradicts or undermines the specific obligations on the seller and buyer that are party to a sale of goods agreement governed by [the CISG]" and "So, to the extent [the buyer] has no claim under the [CISG] as found above, we strongly doubt that [the buyer] could resort to a purely domestic theory of liability to obtain remedies for a purported breach of a [CISG]-governed agreement."

Claims under domestic contract laws:

Asante Technologies, Inc. v. PMC-Sierra, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
USA, 30 July 2001 – C 01-20230 JW, CISG-online 616

Held that '[a]lthough the CISG is plainly limited in its scope (15 U.S.C.App., Art. 4), the CISG nevertheless can and does preempt state contract law to the extent that the state causes of action fall within the scope of the CISG.'

Asia Telco Technologies v. Brightstar Int'l Corp.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
USA, 20 August 2015 – 15-20608-Civ-Scola, CISG-online 3056

Eastern Concrete Materials, Inc. v. Jamer Materials Limited
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
USA, 25 October 2019 – 19-9032 (SDW) (LDW), CISG-online 4853

Held that the CISG preempts contrary provisions of Article 2 of the UCC and other state contract law to the extent that those causes of action fall within the scope of the CISG

Strategy Enterprises Ltd. v. Zigi USA, LLC
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
USA, 29 December 2021 – 21-23965-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres, CISG-online 5759

Held that as far as the CISG applies to a contract between the parties if one exists, a party's breach of contract claims under (Florida) state contract law are preempted

Tort and quasi-contractual claims arising from seller's double-dealing:

Eastern Concrete Materials, Inc. v. Jamer Materials Limited
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
USA, 25 October 2019 – 19-9032 (SDW) (LDW), CISG-online 4853

Held that buyer's claims that seller allegedly sold the same goods twice and kept the proceeds of both sales for itself (conversion) are not preempted by the CISG

Claims for tortious interference with a business relationship:

Reecon North America, LLC v. Du-Hope Int'l Group et al.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
USA, 20 June 2019 – 2:18-CV-00234-JFC, 2:18-CV-00631-JFC, CISG-online 4425

Perkins Manufacturing Comp. v. Haul-All Equipment Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 07 May 2020 – 19 cv 03769, CISG-online 5233

Held that the buyer's claim for tortious interference with a business relationship (under Illinois law) was not preempted by the CISG

Unfair business practices claims:

Shagrow Telecom Tech Co. Ltd. v. Gentec Enterprises, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
USA, 20 February 2014 – CV 13-08799-RGK-SSx, CISG-online 4625

Held (in para. 28 of the decision) that unfair business practices claims (under California law) were not preempted by the CISG