CISG Article 31: When Substantive Law Rules Affect Jurisdictional Results

Abstract:     
Judicial application of Article 31 of the U.N. Sales Convention has proved that the determination of the place of performance of the seller's obligation can have implications beyond just the substantive effect of that obligation. In fact, many of the cases dealing with this article apply its substantive rules primarily for purposes of determining jurisdictional outcome. This raises important questions of uniformity in the application of the Convention.

CISG Article 31 provides four rather specific rules for determining the¿ place of performance of the seller's delivery obligation, each depending on party choices and the type of contract relationship-involved. These rules are important for both contract formation and dispute resolution purposes. The fact that parties may structure a transaction to avoid the three default rules of Article 31 makes important a clear understanding of the import and effect of these rules.

This paper begins with a review of the substantive rules found in CISG Article 31. It then discusses the cases under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions that rely on Article 31 to help determine the existence of jurisdiction in a court other than a court in the state of the defendant's domicile. This is compared with the approach to jurisdiction in the United States that makes the Article 31 rules less likely to have significance for jurisdictional purposes. Finally, a series of hypothetical cases is used in order to explore these differences and to consider further aspects of the relationship between CISG rules of substantive law and rules of jurisdiction. The paper concludes that Article 31 is an example of a CISG provision for which the "homeward trend" will have different impact in differing legal systems, particularly in its application to jurisdictional questions.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 22

Keywords: CISG, U.N. Sales Convention, Brussels Convention, jurisdiction

Accepted Paper Series