Skip to content

ACCA Applied Skills · Corporate and Business Law (Global) · Obligations of the seller and buyer, and provisions common to both

Evermont Ltd received a delivery of goods from Fargo Inc under a CISG contract. The goods were visibly the wrong colour. Evermont did nothing for eight months and then complained. Fargo argues that Evermont has lost its right to rely on the lack of conformity. Which statement is correct?

The buyer must examine the goods promptly and give the seller specific notice of non-conformity within a reasonable time of discovering, or when it ought to have discovered, the defect. Evermont's eight-month delay over an obvious defect probably loses its right to rely on it.

  1. AEvermont may rely on it, because the CISG sets no duty to give notice
  2. BEvermont has probably lost the right, because the buyer must examine the goods promptly and give notice specifying the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after discovering it or when it ought to have discovered itCorrect
  3. CEvermont has lost the right only if it failed to give notice within 24 hours

Explanation

The CISG requires the buyer to examine the goods within as short a period as is practicable and to give notice specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after it discovered or ought to have discovered it. A visible defect left eight months is very likely outside a reasonable time. There is no fixed 24-hour rule.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Obligations of the seller and buyer, and provisions common to both shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Obligations of the seller and buyer, and provisions common to bothFree diagnostic mock

More Obligations of the seller and buyer, and provisions common to both questions