Impact of Art. 74 on the interpretation of non-CISG provisions

Beyond its actual sphere of application, courts have occasionally drawn guidance from Art. 74 CISG when interpreting provisions of domestic or international law. Some examples are listed below.

Dutch law:

Liebherr crane case
Parket bij de Hoge Raad (Advocate General at the Dutch Supreme Court)
Netherlands, 18 November 2016 – 15/04734, CISG-online 5276

The Advocate General at the Dutch Supreme Court looked to the criterion of foreseeability under Article 74 sentence 2 CISG to interpret Art. 6:98 Dutch Civil Code

European Convention on Human Rights:

Cyprus v. Turkey
European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe, 12 May 2014 – 25781/94, CISG-online 2851

Judge Pinto de Albuquerque's Concurring Opinion refers to Art. 74 CISG in interpreting Art. 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its concept of "just satisfaction"

El Salvadorian law:

Las Cascadas Multiservicios S.A. de C.V. v. Operadora Del Sur, S.A. de C.V.
Corte Suprema de Justicia de El Salvador (Supreme Court of El Salvador)
El Salvador, 05 March 2018 – 183-CAC-2017, CISG-online 4595

Reference made to Art. 74 CISG in discussing to what extent the foreseeability of a loss is relevant under Art. 1429 of the Civil Code of El Salvador

German law:

Electricity case
Bundesgerichtshof (German Supreme Court)
Germany, 18 July 2012 – VIII ZR 337/11, CISG-online 2356

Reference made to Art. 74 CISG in determining the validity of contractual exclusion of liability clauses that, under case law interpreting German domestic law, inter alia depends on the foreseeability of the excluded loss