Relationship to third (non-contracting) parties and the CISG

In general

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 the CISG only governs the legal relationship between parties to a CISG contract, and therefore does not preempt claims brought by a contracting party against third (non-contracting) parties

Kyle B. Sill & Robert Stone Jeffrey, 'Up, around, over, and under: A Textual Case for Busting through the Supposed Privity Barrier of CISG Article 4', 38 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commerce Regulation (N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg.) (2012), 697–728 [– in English]

Effect of performance of a CISG obligation by a third party

Roba Metals B.V. v. Avotini Estonia OÜ
Riigikohus (Estonian Supreme Court)
Estonia, 21 December 2016 – 3-2-1-133-16, CISG-online 4967

Held that the effect, if any, of a payment by an insurance company to the seller has on the seller's claim against the buyer for payment of the contract price is not governed by the CISG, but by domestic law

Subrogation of a CISG claim to a third party

Roba Metals B.V. v. Avotini Estonia OÜ
Riigikohus (Estonian Supreme Court)
Estonia, 21 December 2016 – 3-2-1-133-16, CISG-online 4967

Held that the subrogation of a CISG claim from the insured seller to his insurance company is not governed by the CISG, but by domestic law