Impact of Art. 77 on the interpretation of non-CISG provisions

Beyond its actual sphere of application, Art. 77 CISG has occasionally been used as guidance by courts when interpreting provisions of domestic or international law. Some examples are listed below.


Brazilian law:

Czech Republic
Auto Posto Shopping Diadema Ltda. v. Mercoil Distribuidora de Petróleo Ltda.
Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (Court of Appeal of the State of São Paulo)
Brazil, 03 July 2007 – 1.170.013-1, CISG-online 2409
Reference made to Art. 77 CISG in interpreting Section 169 of the Brazilian Restatement of Law (Enunciado no. 169 na III Jornada di Direito Civil do Conselho da Justica Federal)

Colombian law:

Czech Republic
Marítimas Internacionales Limitada v. Caja de Crédito Agrario Industrial y Minero
Corte Suprema de Justicia de Colombia (Colombian Supreme Court)
Colombia, 16 December 2010 – 11001-3103-008-1989-00042-01, CISG-online 2186
Reference made to Art. 77 CISG in interpreting the general duty to mitigate damages under Colombian principles of contractual liability and tort liability

Japanese law:


Czech Republic
Japanese outstanding rental fees case
東京地裁平 (District Court Tokyo)
Japan, 18 July 2012 – 2001 (wa) No. 285551, CISG-online 5634
Held (in a case involving a domestic rental contract) that Japanese domestic law does not contain a general duty to mitigate losses comparable to Art. 77 CISG