I hope you survived todays seminar and that you learned a few new things.

I think you did good and that we had a good discussion 🙂

Please give us some feedback.

What was good and what was bad with the exam?

Best regards,

Hi everybody.

Thanks for today’s seminar. I especially appreciated your questions which I think were at a very good standard.

“the Machine Case” on page 70 in Lookofsky

The Seller provided information about a different machine with a better capacity which actually is a step further than showing a sample or a model (see Article 35 (2 c). However, due to the fact that the Buyer did not notify the Seller in reasonable time CISG remedies was not available for him. Lookofsky’s further discussion is about whether the Buyer can claim remedies under domestic law and the conclusion is that it is allowed in some countries and other not. The attitude that does not allow a claim for damages is called the pre-emption (excluding, non-cumul a French expression which means nonoverlapping, see footnote 59) Thus, you cannot claim damages under domestic law if you are not able to apply contractual remedies under CISG. On the contrary – the countries which allow the use of damages in such a situation have a “competition attitude”.
The student asked why the Buyer just couldn’t avoid the contract. Well, firstly he could not refer to non-conformity due to article 39. But the seller also loses the right to any remedial relief as to avoid and claim damages, see footnote 61 on page 68 and Lookofsky § 4.9page 78 in fine.
However it may also be considered that CISG is not concerned with validity such as fraud, duress, mistake or the unreasonableness of contract terms and that domestic law must resolve such issues, see Lookofsky p 21.

Italian Seller liable when the goods did not comply to  American public law

Another issue we discussed was whether it was fair that an Italian Seller of medical equipment was held liable for damages since the goods did not comply with American public law, see footnote 84 on page 74. If you google on Medical Marketing v Internazionale Medico Scentifica you will have access to the case and comments to it.
The issue was initially determined by an Arbitration tribunal, which decided that CISG was applicable. The seller argued that the Buyer was not entitled to avoid the contract under Article 49 since the breach was not fundamental under Article 25. In support of this the Seller referred to the New Zealand Mussels Case in which the German Federal Supreme Court made an interpretation of Article 35 in CISG and made the conclusion that under article 35 the Seller is normally not responsible for meeting the regulation in a Buyer’s country unless the Buyer stipulated that its own country requirements should be met.
However the German case also acknowledged tree exceptions of which the third exception was found applicable: if the seller knew or should have known about the regulations at issue. The Tribunal concluded that the Seller was aware of the federal regulations from prior sales in US and it was noted that the Seller had made prior statements to the Buyer that its equipment complies with all federal safety regulations in Buyer’s country.
The Medical Marketing Case has been described as “among the narrowest known to law” and there are many other Court cases that support that the compliance with specialized public law provisions of the Buyer’s country cannot be expected.

Other issues

A student asked me what the difference was between Articles12 and 96 in CISG – are both Articles necessary?

Article 12 says that a contract made in oral form   -which is possible under article 11, 29 or Part II – is not valid if not in writing if place of business is  in a State who has made a declaration under Article 96. This provision is mandatory.

Article 96 says that if a contract must be in writing under the laws of a contracting state  this State can make a declaration under Article 12 that contract etc has to be in writing.

Tus, Article 12 says that an oral contract is not valid when  a 96 declaration is made and Article 96 gives a contracting State the possibility to make a declaration provided the domestic law requires contract to be in written form.

If you have questions regarding the Seminar A please come forward.

Best regards

Hi again 🙂 ,

Intellectual Property Law, difficult but very interesting.
Important to understand the big picture how different conventions interact with EU Law and National Law in a specific country.
The Berne Convention stipulates minimum requirements and is a frame work that allows different solutions i national law.
It is always national law in the country where alleged infringement was done that applies.

Next lecture we will go through some articles in The Berne Convention.

Best regards,


Todays lecture was an introduction to Personal Data Protection.
The purpose was to give you some background to the Personal Data Act and to the Directive.
It is very important that you print out the case from ECJ, see last Lecture Slide on today’s slides an then watch the Movie from Webinar.
Do all references i Law Text Compendium and underline important articles.

Take care 🙂
Best regards,


In todays lecture we talked about the different courts in Europe. It is important for you to know the name of the different courts and what kind of cases they give judgement on. Look at the lecture slides and go to the homepage for each court. Look around on the home pages so you get a little bit familiar with each court.

We went briefly through one case from ECJ. I don’t expect you to read all papers concerning the case. It was only an introduction to case studies.

On the next lecture it is important that you bring the Law Text Compendium.

Take care 🙂
Best regards

Hi again

Now we have finished the introduction part and I hope you have a better understanding of the legal frame work after this introduction.

In next three lectures Inger will cover The Contract Law.
Bring the Law Text Compendium and the CISG book to the lectures and please print out the ”CISG Table of Content – English” from the homepage under Lecture 3.

To all of you who were not at today’s lecture.
You will have a very hard 🙁 time to pass the exams if you don’t attend the lectures.

Take care 🙂


Hope you survived the first lecture 🙂

I am always very nervous the first lecture and it takes a while to get used to the language but I hope I you could understand my English.
The first lecture is of course different from the rest because it is a lot of information regarding the course that I must go through so it takes a while until the real lecture can start.
I want you to understand that the integration with social media in the course is a way to keep you a little bit more involved. For you who has no interest in different social media i will try, during the course, to show you how important social media can be for information regarding the course subject. Social media is not only about what others have done during the day, just wait and see.

Please give me feedback about what you thing regarding the first lecture. What was bad, good and OK? Important for me to get feedback during the whole course so I can learn how to improve the teaching.

The seminar group list is now published on the homepage. Check it out and let me know if something did not come out the way you wanted. I also need to get in contact with some of you during next lecture.

Take care and see you tomorrow 😉
Best regards

To all Students
Welcome to the course Introduction to Commercial Law.
I hope we will have an interesting time together for ten weeks, from November 10, and that we will have some good discussions on this blogg.

Please follow me on Twitter @EKrister and like my page on Facebook too

See you soon 😉
Best regards

© 2019 Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha