American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

CISG Article 29
(1) A contract may be modified or terminated by the mere agreement of the
parties.
(2) A contract in writing which contains a provision requiring any modification
or termination by agreement to be in writing may not be otherwise modified or
terminated by agreement. However, a party may be precluded by his conduct from
asserting such a provision to the extent that the other party has relied on that
conduct.
______________________
ROSER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., v. CARL SCHREIBER GmbH
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129242 (Sept. 10, 2013)
ARTHUR J. SCHWAB, U.S.D.J.
[CSN Metals (“CSN”) sent quotations to Roser Technologies, Inc. (“RTI”) for
the manufacture of copper plates. RTI responded with purchase orders that referred
to the CSN quotations. CSN then sent order confirmations to RTI which referenced
RTI’s purchase orders. These confirmations included a new provision, not included in
the original quotes or purchase orders, which allowed CSN to ask for “guarantees or
payment in advance” in some situations. When CSN subsequently insisted on
invoking the payment term, and refused to deliver without it. RTI refused to comply
and subsequently bought its requirements elsewhere. RTI sued. CSN counterclaimed.
The key question before the court was whether a contract had been formed and
whether it included the payment term. The answer, said the court, depended on what
law applied to the transaction.]
The parties agree that the choice is between the Uniform Commercial Code
(“UCC”), and the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods
(“CISG”).
RTI argues that there is no choice-of-law issue because the UCC and CISG do
not differ with respect to the issue before the Court. CSN argues that there is a
difference and that the CISG applies.
[Under the CISG], additional terms are governed by Article 19.
Few American courts, either state or federal, have interpreted Article 19. The
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has stated that “the
CISG applies the common law concept of mirror image.” Miami Valley Paper, LLC v.
Lebbing Eng’g & Consulting GmbH, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25201, 2009 WL 818618,
______________________________________________________________________________
UNIT 12: CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS 229