Status of Hong Kong under the CISG (1997–2022)

Among the court decisions that have applied the CISG to sales contracts concluded between 1 July 1997 and 30 November 2022 involving a buyer or seller from Hong Kong, many have done so because the parties had contractually chosen the domestic law of a CISG Contracting State (e.g. Swiss law or Danish law) as the law applicable to their contract, so that the CISG was applied as part of that domestic law. Less frequently, the CISG was applied because the parties had specifically chosen the CISG in their contract. In both of these situations, Hong Kong‘s status under the CISG is unimportant.

In contrast, the doubtful status of the Hong Kong SAR as a CISG „Contracting State“ territory is relevant whenever the Sales Convention‘s applicability via Art. 1(1)(a) CISG to a sales contract with a Hong Kong-based party is concerned. Furthermore, this status may need clarification where parties have choses Hong Kong law as the law governing their contract, because this could potentially trigger the Sales Convention's applicability under Art. 1(1)(b) CISG.

Courts from various countries have in the past addressed the Convention's applicability to sales contracts involving a party from the Hong Kong SAR. They have reached different conclusions as far as Hong Kong's status under the CISG is concerned:

yes, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is "Contracting State" territory under the CISG:

Memory modules case
Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Court of Appeal Hamm)
Germany, 12 November 2001 – 13 U 102/01, CISG-online 1430

Hong Kong treated as CISG Contracting State territory because it is part of the People's Republic of China (no further reasoning)

Carta Mundi NV v. Intex Syndicate Ltd.
Hof van Beroep Antwerpen (Court of Appeal Antwerp)
Belgium, 14 February 2002 – 2001/AR/551, CISG-online 995

Hong Kong treated as CISG Contracting State territory because it is part of the People's Republic of China (no further reasoning)

CNA Int'l, Inc. v. Guangdong Kelon Electronical Holdings et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 03 September 2008 – 05 C 5734, CISG-online 2043

Based on an extensive reasoning, the Court treated Hong Kong as "Contracting State" territory and held that the People's Republic of China had not made a (sufficiently clear) declaration under Art. 93(1) CISG

Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Super Electric Motors, Ltd
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
USA, 23 December 2009 – 4:09 CV 00318 SWW, CISG-online 2045

Held that Hong Kong is a CISG "Contracting State" because the People's Republic of China has ratified the CISG

no, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is not "Contracting State" territory under the CISG:

Logicom v. CCT Marketing Ltd.
Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court)
France, 02 April 2008 – 04-17726, CISG-online 1651

The French Supreme Court held that the Hong Kong SAR is not CISG Contracting State territory, basing its (brief) reasoning on an information by the French Foreign Ministry that had in turn questioned Chinese authorities on this point. The Chinese authorities had pointed out that the People’s Republic of China had deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations a declaration announcing the conventions to which China was a party at the date of the 1997 hand-over which should apply to Hong Kong, and that the CISG did not figure on that list. As the CISG had not been applicable to Hong Kong before the hand-over (the United Kingdom not having ratified the CISG), the French Supreme Court ruled that the People’s Republic of China had effectuated with the depositary of the Convention a formality "equivalent to" what is provided for in Art. 93 CISG.

Hannaford v. Australian Farmlink Pty Ltd
Federal Court of Australia
Australia, 24 October 2008 – [2008] FCA 1591 / ACN 087 011 541, CISG-online 1782

Held that Hong Kong is not CISG Contracting State territory, because "China has apparently not taken the necessary steps to have the CISG apply to Hong Kong" (following the French Supreme Court's decision in Logicom v. CCT Marketing Ltd. (CISG-online 1651) in this regard)

Innotex Precision Ltd. v. Horei Image Products, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
USA, 17 December 2009 – 1:09-CV-547-TWT, CISG-online 2044

Hong Kong textiles case
Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Court of Appeal Koblenz)
Germany, 10 August 2015 – 12 U 580/11, CISG-online 2911

Held that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region cannot be considered to part of a Contracting State in the meaning of the CISG

Ipso Facto S.A.S. v. Win System Int‘l Ltd.
Cour d'appel de Bordeaux (Court of Appeal Bordeaux)
France, 06 October 2020 – 18/00338, CISG-online 5570

Held that Hong Kong is not CISG Contracting State territory, quoting the reasoning of the French Supreme Court in Logicom v. CCT Marketing Ltd. (CISG-online 1651) in this regard

Sungin Knitting Co. Ltd. v. Knit to Fit B.V.
Rechtbank Oost-Brabant (District Court Oost-Brabant)
Netherlands, 04 August 2021 – 355987 HA ZA 21-149, CISG-online 5649

Held (in para. 40 of the decision) that Hong Kong is not CISG Contracting State territory, because it has not ratified the Convention

Cryptocurrencies mining systems case
Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)
Arbitration, 31 December 2019 – [2019/a] (Final Award), CISG-online 5690

Held that Hong Kong is not CISG Contracting State territory, following the decision of the French Supreme Court in Logicom v. CCT Marketing Ltd. (CISG-online 1651)

left open whether the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is "Contracting State" territory under the CISG:

Tantalum powder case I
Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court)
Austria, 17 December 2003 – 7 Ob 275/03x, CISG-online 828

Dragon Crowd Garments Fty Ltd v. Sapph Distribution B.V.
Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court Amsterdam)
Netherlands, 11 December 2013 – 13-527401 HA ZA 12-1212, CISG-online 4641