CISG Advisory Council Opinion No.
Article 79 exempts a party from liability to pay damages for failing to
perform any of its obligations, including the seller's obligation to deliver
conforming goods.
Comments
Bình luận về tính đúng đắn khi áp dụng Điều 79 CISG trong quá trình
giải quyết tranh chấp
Whether a seller delivering non-conforming goods may claim exemption
of liability for damages under CISG Article 79 was an issue addressed at the
Hague Conference in 1964, in connection with the drafting of Article 74 of
ULIS (the counterpart to CISG Article 79). At that time, some delegates from
common-law jurisdictions favoring a "warranty-based" liability in contract law
raised concerns that the prevailing view in civil law jurisdictions, to the effect
that contractual liability is based on proof of fault, might unduly influence civil-
law judges or arbitrators too ready to allow sellers to escape liability for
defective performance, pleading events beyond their control that could not have
been taken into account.[8]
Bình luận của Judge / scholars
Concerns with filtering in a fault-based concept of liability prompted some
legal commentators to question whether delivery of defective goods may ever
qualify as an impediment under Article 79. Thus, it has been argued that the
choice of the word "impediment" was intended to denote an event external to the
seller and to the goods, excluding the possibility that the seller's liability for
defects in the goods could ever be excused under Article 79.[9]
In contrast, for those who approach liability for non- conforming goods
from the standpoint of fault, a defect present in the goods at the time of the
conclusion of the contract may conceivably constitute an impediment to the
seller's obligation to deliver conforming goods under CISG Article 35. Indeed, to
the extent that delivery of conforming goods is expressed as a contractual
obligation under the CISG (rather than in terms of warranties or guarantees), it
stands to reason that a breach of the obligation to deliver conforming goods
amounts to a seller's failure to perform "any of his obligations." Accordingly,
this type of breach may conceivably be excused due to an impediment of the
kind described in Article 79.[10]
Cases in which a seller may be exempted of liability for delivering non-
conforming goods are extremely rare. For example, goods that are unique and
the subject of the contract may have already perished at the time of the
conclusion of the contract and before the risk of loss passed to the buyer. In this
exceptional case, Article 79 may apply as long as the seller had no knowledge
of the prior destruction and could not reasonably have been expected to take the
destruction of the goods into account at the time of the conclusion of the
contract.[11] Indeed, sellers have invoked Article 79 to claim exemption from
liability for their failure to deliver conforming goods and for late delivery -- but
with very limited success.[12] More importantly, fear that extending the
exemption to delivery of non-conforming goods might reintroduce the principle
of liability for fault through the "backdoor" has been allayed by the German
Federal Supreme Court.
In the "Vine wax case," a seller agreed to supply vine wax to be used by the
buyer to protect grafts of grape vines from drying out and from the risk of
infection.[13] The seller had acquired the wax from his supplier, which
manufactured the wax in part with raw materials provided by a Hungarian
supplier the seller had not used in previous years. The seller forwarded the wax
from his supplier without opening the package, the wax did not protect the vines
as it was supposed to, and the buyer brought suit against the seller. The
intermediate appellate court found the seller liable for delivering goods below
prevailing industry standards. Stating that in principle a seller could claim
exemption when delivering non-conforming goods, the Regional Appeal Court
of Zweibrücken held the seller liable on the ground that he failed to inspect the
wax before sending it to the buyer. Affirming the seller's liability on different
grounds, the Federal Supreme Court Germany ("BGH") did not find it necessary
to make a general pronouncement on whether a seller could ever be exempt
when delivering non-conforming goods. Disagreeing with the reasoning of the
lower appellate court, the BGH held that, unless the parties otherwise agree (and
in this case they did not), the seller undertakes the risk of acquiring conforming
goods when he does not manufacture them himself. This line of reasoning
suggests that the seller's liability under the CISG is one of guarantee, irrespective
of fault, hence the irrelevance of the seller's failure to inspect.[14]
The BGH did not find it necessary to expressly address whether a party's
failure to perform "any of his obligations" under the contract might include the
failure of the seller or any of his suppliers to deliver conforming goods. Yet,
resorting to an explanation why the seller could not be exempted from his
failure to deliver conforming goods suggests that, in the opinion of the German
Supreme Court, Article 79 might conceivably be applied to excuse a seller's
failure to deliver conforming goods.[15] This reading of Article 79 conforms to
what appears as the "plain meaning" of Article 79. Both the language ("... any of
his obligations...") and the location of this provision in the CISG (Chapter V:
"Provisions Common to the Obligations of the Seller and of the Buyer")
suggests that the delivery of non-conforming goods amounts to a failure to
perform an obligation within the meaning of Article 79 and Chapter V. Thus,
there is no reason to exclude this obligation from the broad range of obligations
whose failure to perform may be excused under Article 79.
Even if those decisions by the BGH fall short of an express pronouncement
as to whether the seller may be exempt for delivering defective goods, the
possibility for sellers to be exempted from liability under Article 79 for
delivering non-conforming goods is reduced to a few marginal circumstances.
Assume, for example, the case of a seller bound to deliver frozen goods which,
due to a blackout or power failure occurring before the transfer of risk to the
buyer but after the seller parted with the goods, arrive in a decomposed state at
the place of delivery. Article 79 may apply in this case only if the seller
succeeds in establishing that he did not know of the blackout and that the power
failure was totally beyond his control. The seller would not be exempted of
liability for damages if he reasonably could have been expected to take the
possibility of a power failure into account at the time of the conclusion of the
contract.
There are indeed very few chances for the seller to find an excuse for
delivering non- conforming goods, for it is generally and correctly considered
that sellers implicitly assume the risks involved in the procurement of the goods
they sell. However, in the absence of an express or implicit warranty, the seller
should not be deemed to guarantee, absolutely and unconditionally, that the
goods are free from defects. Article 79 will gain in certainty and fairness if this
straightforward interpretation is adopted, thus precluding dubious distinctions
between excuses for failure to comply with the obligation to deliver conforming
goods and those that may exonerate a party's failure to comply with other
obligations arising out of the contract (e.g., failure to pack the goods in
accordance with the contract under Article 35(2)(d)).
*
* *
Mối quan hệ giữa khoản 2 và khoản 1 Điều 79
If the non-performance or defective performance results from a third
person's failure to perform, Article 79 sets forth different requirements for
establishing an exemption, depending on the nature of the engagement of the third
person with the contracting party.
Article 79(1) remains the controlling provision even if a contracting
party has engaged a third person to perform the contract in whole or in part.
In general, the seller is not exempted under Article 79(1) when those within
its sphere of risk fail to perform; for example, the seller's own staff or personnel
and those engaged to provide the seller with raw materials or semi-manufactured
goods. The same principle applies to the buyer in relation to the buyer's own staff
or personnel and those engaged to perform the obligations of the buyer under the
contract.
In exceptional circumstances, a contracting party may be exempted under
Article 79(1) for the acts or omissions of a third person when the contracting
party was not able to choose or control the third person.
Article 79(2) applies when a contracting party engages an independent third
person to perform the contract in whole or in part. In such a case, the contracting
party claiming an exemption must establish that the requirements set forth in
Article 79(1) are satisfied both in its own regard and in regard to the third person.
Comments
The exemption under Article 79 would hardly become operative to relieve
the seller from the obligation to deliver conforming goods in those cases in
which the goods were produced, manufactured, and delivered by the seller or his
own personnel, or in those cases where the buyer is to take delivery and pay
without relying on any intermediate agent.
But when the failure to deliver conforming goods, pay the price, or
undertake any of the obligations arising under the contract result from the
activities or omissions of the seller's secondary suppliers and sub-contractors, or
by intermediate agents engaged by the buyer to take delivery or pay the price,
the question arises whether such failure should be imputed to contracting parties
under paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of Article 79. Although Article 79(2)
applies to both sellers and buyers seeking an excuse on account of a third
person's failure to perform, this part of the opinion focuses on the conditions
under which a seller could claim an exemption due to failure to perform by a
third person.
Several courts and arbitral tribunals have addressed the question whether
the seller may be excused due to an impediment allegedly beyond the control
of a supplier to whom the seller looks to procure or produce the goods. In a
handful of cases, the seller's plea to be excused has been granted, but in the
majority of cases it has been held that the requirements of Article 79 have not
been satisfied, even when the supplier's failure to deliver conforming goods
was totally unforeseeable to the seller. Decisions vary, however, as to the
analysis used by the courts to reach their conclusions.
Some courts place the analysis of whether the seller qualifies for such an
exemption under paragraph (1) of Article 79;[17] other tribunals prefer to
examine the seller's exoneration under paragraph (2);[18] and still others opt
for deciding the issue on the basis of Article 79 in the abstract.[19] Whether
the seller's claim of exemption falls under one or the other paragraph is
relevant for the purpose of determining where to place the burden of proof.
The key issue is whether a supplier, subcontractor or third person to whom the
seller looks for performance fits the phrase of Article 79(2) "a third person
whom [the party claiming exemption] has engaged to perform the whole or
part of the contract."
Phân tích kỹ hơn điều 79.2
Article 79(2), where it applies, makes it more difficult to succeed in
claiming an excuse because it demands that the requirements for exemption
under Article 79(1) be satisfied with respect to both the party claiming
exemption and the third person.
No one disputes that under Article 79(1) the seller bears the risk of non-
conformity owed to its own personal circumstances and to those employed by
him to perform the contract and whose work the seller is to organize,
coordinate, or supervise. The problem sought to be addressed more
specifically in Article 79(2) is when the nonperformance or defective
performance is due to the act or omission of a person or legal entity separate
and distinct from the seller. There are least two different types of "third
persons," but only one type is sought to be covered by Article 79(2).
The first identifiable group of "third persons" is composed of those who,
while not entrusted with the performance of the contract vis-à-vis the buyer,
nevertheless enable, assist, or create the preconditions for the seller's delivery of
conforming goods. These "third persons" may be distinct and separate from the
seller, such as suppliers of raw materials, subcontractors of semi-manufactured
parts and other "ancillary" or "auxiliary" agents whose performance is a
precondition to the seller's obligation to deliver conforming goods. These third-
party suppliers or subcontractors, to whom the seller turns as a source for the
supply of goods, are not the type of "third persons" contemplated in Article
79(2). There is a consistent line of decisions suggesting that the seller normally
bears the risk that third-party suppliers or subcontractors may breach their own
contract with the seller, so that at least in principle the seller will not be
excused when the failure to perform was caused by its supplier's default.[20]
Article 79(1) remains the controlling provision to ascertain the liability of the
seller for the acts or omissions of that type of "third persons" whose default
cannot be invoked by the seller to excuse his own failure to deliver conforming
goods. An exception should be allowed, however, for those very exceptional
cases in which the seller has no control over the choice of the supplier or its
performance, in which case the supplier's default may be established as a
genuine impediment beyond the control of the seller.[21]
The second group of "third persons" identifiable under Article 79(2) is
composed by those who are "independently" engaged by the seller to perform
all or part of the contract directly to the buyer. It is not easy to ascertain the
precise meaning of "... a third person whom [the party claiming exemption] has
engaged to perform the whole or part of a contract ...", but the expression
seems to point to those third persons who, unlike third- party suppliers or
subcontractors for whose performance the seller is fully responsible, are not
merely separate and distinct persons or legal entities, but also economically and
functionally independent from the seller, outside the seller's organizational
structure, sphere of control or responsibility.[22]
In cases where the defects result from a failure of this genuinely
"independent" third person, the prerequisites for exemption under Article 79(2)
have to be met cumulatively by both the seller and the third person. In this
particular case, the seller's liability stretches to answer for the conduct of such
an independent "third person", unless the impediment was insuperable for the
seller and, additionally, the independent third person would qualify for
exemption under Article 79(1) if such third person had been the seller.
Thus, Article 79(2) is meant to increase the seller's liability, for it makes
the seller in principle responsible for defective performance incurred by
independent third persons as if it were the seller's own conduct.[23] Of course
the seller's liability is not unconditional, for in exceptional cases he may be
able to establish that he had no control over the choice of such third person,
either because the third person enjoys a monopoly in the supply of goods or
services, or if the third person was chosen by the buyer, or if the seller may
otherwise establish that default by the third person was actually beyond his
control.
To the extent that the circumstances of the case allow a distinction between
the two types of "third persons," it is clear that it would be more difficult for the
seller to be exempted from liability for the acts of an "independent" third person
under Article 79(2), than to be exonerated for the delivery of non-conforming
goods procured from or manufactured by a supplier to whom the seller has
resorted to deliver the goods. However, the drafting history of Article 79(2)
reflects confusion by some delegates, to whom the policy of making it more
difficult for the seller to be exempted of liability on account of the conduct of a
genuinely independent "third person" was not so clear. Those delegates sought
unsuccessfully to expressly include suppliers, subcontractors, and any person
working independently for the seller under Article 79(2).[24]
If anything, Article 79(2) and its legislative history suggests that the
phrase "a third person whom [a party] has engaged to perform the contract"
should be given a narrow scope, covering cases such as those in which the
seller turns over to a third person the seller's obligation to manufacture the
goods according to specifications given by the buyer, or whenever the seller
delegates to a third person the seller's obligation to procure the goods and
deliver them to the buyer. In either case, the seller can succeed on a claim to be
exempted for damages for failure to perform only if the seller can establish that
the third person was himself prevented to perform by an impediment
qualifying as an excuse under Article 79(2).[25] This interpretative approach
appears to be consistent with a sound allocation of risks arising from
nonconformity of the goods.
Although a seller who depends on ancillary suppliers cannot always
control the conformity of the goods, it seems fair to assign to the seller the risk
of non-conformity and resulting damages for non-conformity as part of the
overall procurement risk borne by sellers. Even though the first and second
paragraphs of Article 79 provide for different requirements for a party to be
excused on account of another person's failure to perform, for all practical
purposes most cases are likely to be resolved under Article 79(1). This is,
indeed, the conclusion reached by the German Supreme Court (BGH) in the
"Vine wax case" referred to in connection with the question whether a seller
could ever be exempt under Article 79 for delivering non-conforming goods.
In that case, an Austrian seller invoked an exemption from liability
under Article 79(1) on the ground that it played the role of a mere
intermediary in a contract to supply vine wax to a German buyer, which
vine wax the seller had manufactured with raw materials acquired from a
Hungarian supplier. The seller's central argument was that it was
exempted from liability under Article 79 on the grounds that the alleged
defects were caused by the supplier and were, therefore, "beyond his
control." The BGH held that it makes no difference under Article 79(1)
whether the defect could be imputed to the seller or to its suppliers or sub-
suppliers. According to the court, the existence of the defects should in any
event be imputed to the seller, for even if caused by the suppliers or sub-
suppliers, such defects are deemed to be within the seller's "sphere of
influence." In a subsequent case, also touching upon Article 79, the
"Powder milk case",[26] the BGH once again suggested that it is "all the
seller's fault" even in cases where the failure to perform appears to be
blamed on the seller's suppliers. Since the seller was unable to establish
whether the lipase that spoiled the powdered milk had been introduced by
his whole milk suppliers or during the seller's processing of the milk, the
BGH reversed a lower court judgment with instructions to ascertain
whether the spoiling of the powdered milk had been actually beyond the
seller's control.
Attributing to the seller the responsibility for the supplier's actions under
Article 79(1) appears consistent with a sound policy of placing the risks
involved in non- conformity on the party who is in the best position to avoid
or minimize those risks. The seller may be exempted from liability in some
extreme and exceptional cases, such as when the supplier is the only available
source of supply, or when other supplies are unavailable due to unforeseeable
and extraordinary events, or in situations in which the defects in the goods are
unconnected with the typical procurement risks assumed by the seller.
Liên hệ trong bối cảnh covid thì có thể gặp những rủi ro gì do việc thực
hiện nghĩa vụ của bên thứ ba
Trên thực tế, các thương nhân cũng như luật gia đang quan tâm tìm hiểu liệu
COVID có tạo thành sự “nằm ngoài sự kiểm soát” theo Điều 79 CISG hay không.
Rõ ràng dịch bệnh và ảnh hưởng nhìn chung là không lường trước được. Tuy
nhiên, các doanh nghiệp sẽ cần phải chứng minh những điểm sau: Liệu khi ký hợp
đồng thì việc bùng nổ dịch bệnh có lường trước được ở quốc gia cụ thể đó hay
không, hay trở ngại không lường trước được là sự thay đổi chính sách pháp luật
của Chính phủ để ứng phó với COVID; cũng như việc không thực hiện được nghĩa
vụ là vì dịch bệnh và đã thực hiện các biện pháp có thể nhưng không khắc phục
được tình trạng, v.v. thì COVID có thể được coi là một “trở ngại” theo Điều 79.
Lời khuyên cho các bên khi ký kết hợp đồng
Trong thực tiễn kinh doanh quốc tế, khi một bên vi phạm hợp đồng, rất
thường xảy ra tình huống họ viện dẫn lỗi của một bên thứ ba có tham gia một phần
vào việc thực hiện hợp đồng để được hưởng miễn trách. Bên thứ ba này phải là
một bên độc lập với bên vi phạm (nhà sản xuất, nhà cung cấp, nhà thầu phụ, công
ty logistics, ngân hàng... của bên vi phạm). Vì thế, các nhân viên hay người làm
công của bên vi phạm không được coi là bên thứ ba theo quy định của điều khoản
này.
Theo quy định tại Điều 79.2 CISG, trong hoàn cảnh này, bên vi phạm sẽ chỉ
được miễn trách nếu như: (1) bên vi phạm được miễn trách theo Điều 79.1 (tức là
việc bên thứ ba không thực hiện hợp đồng cấu thành môt trường hợp bất khả
kháng đối với bên vi phạm); và (2) bên thứ ba cũng được miễn trách khi áp dụng
các điều kiện tại Điều 79.1cho bên đó (hay nói cách khác, bên thứ ba không thực
hiện hợp đồng là do gặp bất khả kháng).
Lưu ý là cả hai điều kiện nói trên phải được đồng thời đáp ứng.
Điều 79.2 được áp dụng một cách rất hạn chế và thận trọng trong thực tiễn,
đặc biệt khi bên thứ ba được viện dẫn là nhà cung cấp của bên bán. Về nguyên tắc,
khi nhà cung cấp vi phạm nghĩa vụ giao hàng với người bán (ví dụ không giao
hàng, hay giao hàng muộn), người bán phải chịu trách nhiệm với người mua về
việc này vì đã chọn nhà cung cấp tồi; mặt khác, trong mọi trường hợp, người bán
luôn có thể tìm một nhà cung cấp thay thế. Trường hợp ngoại lệ chỉ xảy ra khi nhà
cung cấp là độc quyền, hay là nhà cung cấp duy nhất có thể cung cấp một lượng
hàng đủ lớn theo đơn hàng của người mua; lúc này người bán không thể có một
nhà cung cấp thay thế và được coi là gặp bất khả kháng khi nhà cung cấp này vi
phạm hợp đồng với người bán (điều kiện (1) ở trên được đáp ứng).
Ngay trong trường hợp này thì người bán vẫn không được miễn trách nếu
điều kiện (2) chưa được thỏa mãn, bởi vì, trong mọi tình huống, khi nhà cung cấp
vi phạm hợp đồng với người bán thì nhà cung cấp này sẽ phải bồi thường theo hợp
đồng giữa anh ta và người bán; và người bán sẽ phải bồi thường cho người mua do
vi phạm hợp đồng với người mua. Điều kiện (2) chỉ xảy ra khi chính nhà cung cấp
của người bán vi phạm hợp đồng là do gặp phải trường hợp bất khả kháng (ví dụ
do gặp phải động đất hay thiên tai) khiến cho họ không thể cung cấp hợp đồng cho
người bán. Trường hợp này, người bán sẽ không nhận được khoản bồi thường nào
(do nhà cung cấp được miễn trách).
Bên bán nên đảm bảo được nguồn hàng và chất lượng hàng hóa
trước khi chuyển hàng cho bên mua. Không nên đặt hết niềm tin vào bên cung
cấp hàng hóa đồng thời phải có trách nhiệm với hàng hóa do mình giao bởi mặc
dù không trực tiếp “tạo ra” hàng hóa mà chỉ là “trung gian” thì trong hợp đồng
với bên mua hàng thì bên bán sẽ là bên chịu trách nhiệm về chất lượng hàng hóa
trước khi giao cho bên bán.
Khi soạn thảo và ký kết hợp đồng, các bên nên phân biệt rõ ràng
định nghĩa giữa bên thứ ba độc lập và không độc lập. Đồng thời thỏa thuận chi
tiết về điều khoản thời điểm chuyển giao rủi ro, hiểu rõ về hàng hóa đang được
mua bán để đưa ra những mốc thời gian phù hợp.
Khi phát sinh tranh chấp để tránh bối rối và rạn nứt quan hệ trong
kinh doanh, các bên nên hòa giải nội bộ trước khi đưa vụ việc ra tòa án. Để làm
được điều này thì nên có điều khoản quy định trong hợp đồng, ví dụ: Khi phát
sinh tranh chấp, các bên sẽ ưu tiên phương thức giải quyết hòa giải nội bộ, nếu
không thể thực hiện biện pháp hòa giải khiến cả hai bên hài lòng thì sẽ đưa vụ
việc ra….;
Cuối cùng, các bên nên thỏa thuận kỹ về định nghĩa bất khả kháng
có thể được ghi nhận trong hợp đồng bởi CISG là một công ước khung để căn cứ
xử lý tranh chấp chứ không đủ cụ thể, chi tiết để áp dụng xử lý tranh chấp phát
sinh từ những bản hợp đồng cụ thể.
