• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.235-253
• /
• 2000

As to the sphere of application, Article 78 CISG undoubtedly applies to interest on the purchase price. Furthermore, the provision also applies to "any other sum that is in arrears". This language has been interpreted to encompass expenses that one party had on behalf of the other as well as reimbursements when the purchase price is reduced according to Article 50 CISG. However, it is questionable whether this language also extends to claims for damages. Legal scholars seem to agree that one has a right to interest on damage claims under Article 78 if the amount in question has been liquidated vis-a-vis the other party. Whether this right to interest also applies to unliquidated sums, is controversial, however. In this study, as a result of taking into account the puspose of Article 78, we could find the fact that regardless of whether the exact amount of damages has been specified yet, the breaching party still owes compensation to the other party from the time of the breach and, accordingly, the non-breaching party should be entitled to interest payments on the loss from that time. Consequently, Article 78 applies not only to liquidated but also to unliquidated damages.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.31
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2006

This study focus on interest for arrears and filling of the gaps left in Article 78 of CISG. In the case of CISG, Article 78 provides for interest any time a payment under a contract is untimely, but does not specify a particular rate of interest or a method to determine such a rate. This issue did not cause any uncertainty under ULIS, the CISG's antecedent, since Article 83 of ULIS provided for 1%p above the official discount rate in the creditor's country. Lacking any CISG general principle as well as any indication by the very same CISG, one can only conclude that the matter must be deferred to the domestic rule of private international law. Actually, resorting to private international law is not only admissible, but expressly required by Article 7(2). In the interpretation and filling of the gaps left in Article 78, there is a considerable difference of opinion especially amongst commentators on whether the gap is a lacuna praeter legem, i.e., one being governed by, but not expressly settled in the CISG, or whether it is an issue falling outside the scope of application of the CISG, i.e. a lacuna intra legem. The protagonists of the former view lay emphasis on the overall objective of the CISG, namely to create a uniform law, whereas the supporters of the latter view refer to the legislative history of Article 78 as the dominant principle in interpreting Article 78. Some authors believe that the issue of determining the rate of interest is not dealt with by CISG and it is, therefore, governed by the applicable domestic law, which is the subsidiary law applicable to the sales contract, since "no special connecting points seem to have developed for the entitlement to interest." In the light of the relevant case law, it seems correct to conclude that the interest rate is not determined by CISG and that courts normally determine it according to their own rules of private international law. While CISG Article 78 expressly does not deal with this issue, PICC Article 7.4.9 and PECL Article 9.508, on the other hand, set forth a precise method for computing interest. Although a method like the one set by PICC may be useful and may encourage uniformity, it still cannot be used under the CISG. The PICC or PECL formula may, however, be a very good starting point in a de jure condendum analysis when a new Article 78 will be drafted, if an interest rate method will ever be embodied in the text of an international convention.