Impact of Art. 8 on the interpretation of non-CISG provisions

Beyond its actual sphere of application, Art. 8 CISG has frequently been referred to by courts when interpreting provisions of domestic or international law. Some examples are listed below.

Australian law:

Franklins Pty Ltd v. Metcash Trading Ltd
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Australia, 16 December 2009 – [2009] NSWCA 407; 40253/07, 40348/07, CISG-online 2248

Reference made to Art. 8(3) CISG in discussing whether the parties' later conduct may be taken into account when interpreting a written contract in accordance with the "objective theory of contract" prevailing in Australian domestic case law

Dutch law:

ASCA 92 N.V. et al. v. Shipdock Amsterdam B.V.
Parket bij de Hoge Raad (Advocate General at the Dutch Supreme Court)
Netherlands, 26 October 2001 – C99/312HR, CISG-online 3796

Reference made to Art. 8(3) CISG in support of the notion that subsequent correspondence can be taken into account when interpreting a contract governed by Dutch domestic law

English law:

ProForce Recruit Ltd v. Rugby Group Ltd
Court of Appeal of England and Wales
United Kingdom, 17 February 2006 – 2006 EWCA Civ 69, CISG-online 1424

Reference made to Art. 8(3) CISG in discussing whether evidence as to negotiations between the parties to a contract leading up to the making of that contract may be admissible for the purposes of interpretation under English law

Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd
House of Lords
United Kingdom, 01 July 2009 – [2009] UKHL 38, CISG-online 2088

Reference made to Art. 8(3) CISG in discussing whether the admission of evidence of previous communications between the parties is inconsistent with the objective theory of contractual interpretation under English law

Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

Child abduction case
Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Court of Appeal Karlsruhe)
Germany, 14 August 2006 – 2 UF 139/06, CISG-online 2692

Reference made to Art. 8 CISG in determining whether the person having the care of the person of the child had "consented to or subsequently acquiesced" in the child's removal or retention under Article 13(1)(a) of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

New Zealand law:

Hideo Yoshimoto v. Canterbury Golf International Ltd.
Court of Appeal of New Zealand
New Zealand, 27 November 2000 – 2000 NZCA 350, CISG-online 1080

A.C. Thompson v. J.M. Cameron
High Court of New Zealand
New Zealand, 27 March 2002 – AP 117/SW99, CISG-online 2450