Under the CISG, avoidance is the one-sided right of a party to terminate the contract by its mere declaration. Such termination of a contract is the hardest sword that a party to a sales contract can draw if the other party has breached the contract. No other remedy—claim for performance, price reduction, damages—has the same incisive effect. For, it not only deprives avoidance to the party in breach of the benefit of the contract including the lost profit and renders often futile prior investments; if it is the seller who has breached the contract he is also burdened with the risks of the goods. These risks of damage to, or even loss of, the goods are particularly high when the goods are already in a foreign country. In CISG sales, this is typically the case. The seller must then either retransport the goods with the respective costs or attempt to resell them on the foreign market, which he may not know very well. Rightfully declared avoidance can therefore be very burdensome to the seller. However, if it is the buyer who has breached the contract the consequences of termination may be hard for him, too, in particular if he already has resold the goods and now faces damages claims from his subbuyers because of non-delivery or if he already made investments in expectation of the delivery. Therefore, it is clear that on the one hand the remedy of avoidance should not be granted too easily, but on the other hand there must be a borderline from where the innocent party must be entitled to bring the contract to an end.

Posted by El Hotepsekhemwy Pero at 2020-10-03 21:12:16 UTC