However, the idea that the suspicion of defectiveness is inherent in the item itself has not been met with undivided approval even in German-speaking doctrine. In some cases, physical connexity is not regarded as a compelling criterion for the fundamental assumption of suspicion of a defect. This view is strongly advocated in the only English-speaking article on the matter of suspicions by Ingeborg Schwenzer and David Tebel.Schwenzer I., Tebel D. Suspicions, mere suspicions: non-conformity of the goods? //Uniform Law Review. - 2014. - Vol. 19. - №. 1. - P. 154.According to them these days it is widely agreed that non-conformity can be based not only on physical features of the goods but also “on the legal and factual relations of the goods to their surroundings” and therefore the only thing which determines the good's conformity is the buyer's expectations about the feature of the goods. This idea closely resembles idea of emotional non-conformity, widely accepted in the international trade.Ramberg C. 5 Emotional Non-Conformity in the International Sale of Goods, ParticularlyinRelationtoCSR-Policies and Codes of Conduct. - 2014.The same view is advocated by ArnoldRusch another Swiss author, who analyses mainly Swiss law (which is in the part of non-conformity alsoidentical to Article 35 CISG), but provides valuable comparison with the German law and CISG.Arnold F. Rusch, VerdachtalsMangel//AJP/PJA - 2012. Vol. 1. P.41So, this perception of the suspicion can be named a Swiss one in opposition to German one. Under this approach the suspicion is an “environmental relationship lying outside the purchased goods”, which according to the narrow definition of material defect cannot lead to the defectiveness of the purchased goods. It means that a suspicion can not necessarily want to make the suspicionof a defect dependent on the question of whether the suspicion can adhere to the item itself. At the end both authorssuggest that in the event that this is rejected on the basis of the narrow classic definition of material defect, that the seller be held liable for a breach of the information dutyif he has not informed the buyer “of a corresponding, already existing suspicion or its substantiating circumstances”.According to this approach, the only relevant thing that should be proved is the fact of reasonable suspicion itself and itsimpact on goods merchantability. The possible dispelling of the suspicion by the buyer is irrelevant under this approach. Thus, this approach is construed in fact by the model of lowering the standard of proof rather than shifting the burden like in German doctrine.

As the Frozen Pork case under CISG was decided by German SupremeCourt, which in fact entered the suspicion as non-conformity in the CISG jurisprudence and as Swiss approach remains rather minor view being rather extreme, we would mainly focus on the German law model construed on the shift of the burden model.The analysis of the relevant case practice has identified three main scenarios for the reasonable suspicion to be non-conformity: (a) proved defect of one piece legitimates suspicion of defect of further pieces (which is rather self-evident); (b) public law measures (such as general official prohibitions of sale or use, official confiscation) or official warnings may be sufficient to prove non-conformity; (c)suspicion based on mere reports in mass media is also sufficient proof to render non-conformity if it meets three criteria: based on concrete facts, causes fundamental breach and not easily dispelled by the seller (in fact consequential shift of the burden)..Koller T., Jost D. Rinderlasagne mit Pferdefleisch, Salatgurken mit EHEC-Bakterien, dioxinverseuchtes Schweinefleisch-oft nur ein Verdacht und doch ein Mangel? Ьberlegungen zum Mangelverdacht bei Lebensmitteln als Vertragswidrigkeit der Ware nach UN-Kaufrecht (CISG). - Stдmpfli, 2014. - P. 40.

A. Proved defect of one piece legitimates suspicion of defect of further pieces

First principle discussed is that proved defect of one piece legitimates suspicion of defect of further pieces. As was pointed out earlier, after delivery the buyer has to inspect the goods for possible non-conformities under Article 38 CISG. If the buyer acts as an intermediary, he must therefore also inspect the goods for obvious defects in good time. As a rule, he cannot wait for complaints from his customers and pass them on to his supplier, unless the defect can only be discovered after a long period of use.Blood infusion devices case. [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970108s1.html(Accessed 23.04.2020).

As mentioned, the buyer shall inspect the goods in a manner appropriate to the circumstances and customary in the trade (unless special agreements have been made or customs or practices exist), as would be expected of a reasonable person under Article 38 CISG.Schwenzer I. Ibid. Art. 38,footnote 14 In the case of the delivery of a large number of items or of bulk goods (especially in the case of foodstuffs), the buyer cannot reasonably be expected to inspect each item individually. He may therefore be satisfied with (representative) random checks.Ibid. If the random check reveals defects, this usually leads to the defectiveness of the entire delivery, as the buyer cannot normally be expected to filter out the faultless pieces from the entire delivery.

Consequently, in the case of bulk goods or deliveries of large quantities, the suspicion, based on individual random samples, that the delivery contains further defective items shall suffice for the entire delivery to be deemed defective. The defectiveness based on the suspicion cannot be removed even if it should later turn out that the major part of the delivery was free of defects.Magnus U., Martinek M. J. Ibid. P. 259. In contrast to cases of suspicion based on mere reports in the mass media , it will not be possible here to give the seller the opportunity to dispel the suspicion by “exonerating evidence”.Krцll S., Mistelis L., Viscasillas P. Ibid. P. 513.

B. Suspicion based on public law measures

Second principle discussed is the suspicion which leads to public law measures (such as general official prohibitions of sale or use, official confiscation) or official warningsmay be sufficient to prove non-conformity.

As a precautionary measure, authorities often issue sales or use bans for certain categories of goods on suspicion, even if it is not certain whether the suspicion (e.g. of bacterial contamination) is true. Such bans actually impair the marketability of the goods. This raises the question of whether the general fitness for use according to Art. 35 para. 2(a) CISG is thereby affected.The problem is very impressively illustrated by the mentionedFrozen Pork case decided by German Supreme Court in 2005, in which the merchantability of the goods was affected by the ban in Belgium, Germany and the whole EU after dioxin affair.

What applies in the case of a general prohibition of use or sale can also be transferred to the case of an official confiscation of foodstuffs as a result of a suspicion of health hazards. It can be deducedfrom the Argentinean Rabbit case.ArgentineanRabbitcase 1969. Ibid. In the case, the competent authorities in Germany had seized frozen Argentinean rabbit meat on the suspicion of salmonella infestation (what is important irrevocably), although a salmonella infestation could not be determined for sure. Under the ruling of the German Supreme Court, the hindered usability of the goods constituted a defect within the meaning of Art. 459 para. 1of the German Civil Code in the version applicable at the time. This must also apply to the CISG, since such a seizure obviously eliminates the marketability required by the CISG in Article 35 para. 2(a).

The fact that even less drastic measures, such as an official warning, can influence marketability is shown by the case of the Spanish cucumbers suspected of being infected with EHEC bacteria. Although no sales ban was issued in Germany, the Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection issued a general warning against the consumption of the cucumbers. Notably, in some federal stateit was stipulated that the import of cucumbers was only permitted with proof of harmlessness just like in the Frozen Pork case. According to surveys, this warning led the majority of German consumers to refrain from eating the suspect vegetables, which meant that they could no longer be sold in Germany in a reasonable manner. The official warning, like the ban on use in the dioxin case, apparently confirmed the suspicion that the Spanish cucumbers were indeed infected with EHEC bacteria. It is questionable and, as far as can be seen, hardly discussed in the academic world whether such an official warning can be equated with a formal ban on sale or use in the present context. This would probably have to be affirmed. Ultimately, it is not the formal qualification of the public law “intervention” (as a prohibition or as a mere warning) that can be relevant to the question of interest here, but rather the fact that the intervention has a decisive influence on the marketability of the respective product or leads to a substantiation of the suspicion. Consequently, it must also be irrelevant whether the public law measure or official warning was issued validly or was contestable.Schlechtriem P., Schrцter U. G. Internationales UN-Kaufrecht. Ein Studien-und ErlдuterungsbuchzumЬbereinkommen der VereintenNationenьberVertrдgeьber den internationalenWarenkauf (CISG). - 2013. P. 170

C. Suspicion based on mere reports in mass media

Third principle suggests that suspicion based on mere reports in mass media is also sufficient proof to render goods non-conforming. A suspicion that certain foods can be harmful to health is often aroused by media reports. However, such reports do not always have to lead to official measures or warnings. Nevertheless, such reports in the mass media can have a major impact on the purchasing behaviour of consumers to the detriment of buyers and intermediaries. Hence, it becomes extremely relevant whether and under what circumstances this can be considered as non-conformity of the goods according to Art. 35 para. 2(2) CISG.Prof. Stephan Krцll notes that a mere (bloЯe) bad press reports are not sufficient for a lack of conformity under Art. 35 CISG.Krцll S., Mistelis L., Viscasillas P. Ibid. P. 511. It is suggested that three components should be present to allow mass media report to be sufficient proof: 1) concreteness of the suspicion; 2) fundamentality of the suspected defect; 3) failure by the seller to sufficiently dispel the suspicion.

First of all, concrete suspicions are required which make the suspicion appear to be justified and substantiated. For comparison purposes, the standard of anticipated breach of contract according to Art. 71 and 72 CISG can be used.Magnus U., Martinek M. J. Ibid. P. 266.According to these articles, if there is an anticipated breach, the contract can be terminated if it becomes obvious that the other party will not fulfil a fundamental part of its duties or will commit a fundamental breach of contract. Both Articles do not require a probability that borders with certainty, but they do require a high degree of probability.An objective standard must be applied for the assessment of probability. This means that the decisive factor is whether a reasonable person in the same position would also assess the suspicion as extremely probable pursuant to Art. 8 Abs. 2 CISG. This assessment must therefore be based on concrete facts and objectifiable circumstances that can be presented and proven. Mere subjective assumptions, fears and anxieties of the buyer (in this case the importer or intermediary) - are irrelevant.

With a media campaign of a certain intensity, which reaches many consumers, the suspicions will usually be sufficiently concrete. If the reported suspicion is not recognizable as untenable for a broad range of addressees, the suspicion must be considered sufficiently objective in the present context. The opposite will only apply if a statement of suspicion in a mass medium quickly becomes generally recognisable as completely implausible.

Secondly, a suspected defect should result in the fundamental breach. According to Art. 25 CISG, a breach of contract is to be qualified as fundamental if a party essentially misses what it should have expected under the contract and this consequence was foreseeable for the defaulting party. In principle, as with the determination of fitness for purpose, it is the subject of the party contract which defects or to what extent defects are to be qualified as material. However, in the absence of such agreements, only substantial defects can be considered fundamental. These include in particular defects which cannot be repaired within a reasonable period of time pursuant to Article 48 CISG so that the goods remain unusable or unsaleable.CISG-online413 case [Electronic resource] // CISG-online. http://www.cisg-online.ch/content/api/cisg/display.cfm?test=413(Accessed 23.04.2020). On the other hand, there is no fundamental breach of contract if the goods (even at a discount) can still be sold in a reasonable manner. CISG-online 900 case [Electronic resource] // CISG-online. http://www.cisg-online.ch/content/api/cisg/display.cfm?test=1900(Accessed 23.04.2020).Only if the buyer has to seek unreasonable distribution channels for resale or has to incur high expenses or if he jeopardises his good reputation by reselling the goods, the limit of reasonableness and thus of materiality is probably exceeded.CISG-online 274 case [Electronic resource] // CISG-online. http://www.cisg-online.ch/content/api/cisg/display.cfm?test=274(Accessed 23.04.2020).

The whole thing is restricted by the fact that the effect of a breach of contract must have been objectively foreseeable for the seller, i.e. that an informed legal participant in the same circumstances at the time of conclusion of the contract must have had to reckon with the consequences of contractual breach.Council C. A. Opinion No 5 //The Buyer's Right to avoid the Contract in Case of Non-Conforming Goods or Documents. - 2005. - Vol. 7. However, mistake on the part of the party in breach of contract is not presupposed.Egyptian cotton case. Ibid. In the case of foodstuffs, this will mean that the suspicion - as in the case of Spanish cucumbers or Belgian pork, for example - must relate to a significant health hazard: “Apart from police seizure, the mere suspicion of a contamination that is hazardous to health and the inevitable unsaleability that this would cause is also a defect in the case of food intended for resale”.Argentinean Rabbit case 1969. Ibid.

The same can be said if there is a suspicion that substances not permitted under food law or incorrectly declared have been added in significant quantities - such as horse meat in beef lasagne - even if the added substances are not harmful to health, provided that only consumers start to avoid the suspect products to a significant extent. The opposite will have to apply, however, if the suspicion is of a lesser weight, for example if a food suddenly claims that it contains too much sugar or salt and is therefore “unhealthy”. If this allegationis objectively justified, it does not necessarily constitute a lack of conformity, and if there is one, it will generally not be fundamental. Then a mere suspicion may not be qualified as a lack of conformity.

Thirdly and finally, the suspicion may only lead to a defect if it cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time by examining the goods.Magnus U., Martinek M. J. Ibid. P. 263.

According to Art. 38 para. 1 CISG the buyer is obliged to inspect the goods for defects. In most serious cases of suspicion, however, the buyer will not be able to confirm the suspicion by means of an examination at all, not with reasonable effortor at least not within a reasonable period of time. For example,in the mentioned Argentinean Rabbit case, in which the examination of the entire consignment for salmonella infestation would have cost more than the goods themselves.Argentinean Rabbit case 1969. Ibid. Recital 2a. This is not necessary in cases of suspicion either. If the suspicion were to prove to be correct, the lack of conformity would no longer be based on the suspicion itself, but on the defective nature of the goods.

In both Argentinean Rabbit cases, the German Supreme Court has described the suspicion as a defect if it is not cleared up.Argentinean Rabbit case 1972. Ibid. Recital 3b. In a later case, the so-called Glycol Wine case, which involved wine contaminated byDiethylene glycol, the German Supreme Court confirmed this definition and (since the suspicion could be removed there) denied the defectiveness of the goods.Glycol Wine case. BundesgerichtshofUrt. v. 07.07.1987, Az.: VI ZR 176/86 [Electronic Resource] //Dejure.org. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=NJW-RR%201987,%201430(Accessed 05.04.2020). This implies that in suspected cases the seller bears the burdento prove that the suspicion is unjustified if he does not want to take responsibility for the lack of conformity. This can be transferred to CISG cases under the Frozen Porkcase, where it was also the first step. The seller must therefore have the right to prove that the suspicion is unfounded.In fact,it meanstheshift of the burden of proof.Grunewald B. Ibid. P. 137. If there is reasonable suspicion in the sense discussed, the seller bears the burden to prove the existence of the quality not the buyer.

However,certain problems are connected with such a “exonerating proof”. On the one hand, the seller can only exonerate himself if he clears the suspicion sufficiently reliably and within a reasonable period of time so that the buyer can still resell or use the goods.Magnus U., Martinek M. J. Ibid. P. 263Especially in the case of food this can lead to considerable difficulties due to the often very limited shelf life. If the seller does not succeed in proving this or not in time, the goods must be considered defective, even if the proof can still be provided later. On the other hand, it is not enough for the seller to dispel the suspicion with his evidence. It is also necessary that tradability or usability is thus restored.Arnold F. Rusch. Ibid. P.44In cases of suspicion that are widely covered in the mass media - especially in the food sector - a mere expert opinion will usually not suffice. This will require further efforts on the part of the seller, such as the rapid and convincing dissemination of the successful “exonerating evidence” in the media. Whether it is enough however is left to decide onlyon a case-by-case basis. Since the seller is entitled to such “exonerating evidence”, the buyer may not immediately exercise the rights to which he is entitled in the event of a breach of contract. This can lead to problems in individual cases, above all because it is often difficult for the buyer to estimate when the period of time granted to the seller for clearing the suspicion has expired.

To summarize, the mere suspicion that the delivered goods are defective does not constitute a lack of conformity. Only if such a suspicion leads to lack of usability, a lack of conformity can be considered at all.Grunewald B. Ibid. P. 138. In the case of foodstuffs, even a small report in a mass media may under certain circumstanceslead to a massive drop in sales to final consumers. However, this is not sufficient in itself to assume a non-conformity of the goods. The goods shall only be considered to be conforming if the suspicion is strong and reasonable, i.e. ifshould the suspicion prove to be correctthere would be a fundamental breach of contract and if the resellability and usability of the goods cannot be quickly restored by removing the suspicion.



Conclusion

In accordance with the structure and list of research question outlined in the introduction, in the first chapter general rules on the burden of proving the non-conformity under CISG were assessed. It was established that both issues tend to fall under the scope of CISG, although the latter is yet more debatable in practice. The general rule for burden of proof is “rule-exception” principle and the general rule for the standard of proof is “reasonable degree of certainty”.

In the beginning a brief comparative introduction showed that both Common and Civil law jurisdiction are relatively consistent to the issue of the burden of proof allocation. Under rule-exception principle dating back to Roman law and Glossographs, the legal (or persuasive) burden generally rests with the party bringing the case to court as the party asserting an issue bears the burden of proving that issue. Thus, as the claimant brings the case involving a matter of non-conformity, it has a burden of proving the facts in issue in his case against the defendant, while the defendant bears the legal burden of proving anything that he raises in his defence.

This consistency secures that it is now widely acknowledged that CISG regulates the burden of proof, although drafting history shows initially it was not supposed to. The majority of case law and doctrine these days considers burden of proof to fall in the scope of CISG under rule-exception principle, meaning that a party has to prove the facts for the provision it invokes in a claim or defence.As this principle is inherited almost in all legal systems, recourse to national law is literally useless.

However, an important consideration in the disputes on non-conformity under CISG should be given to the moment the risk passes and the acceptance linked to the time for examination and notice of non-conformity. As soon as the buyer has accepted the goods, they are within his territorial jurisdiction. However, the burden of proof may not immediately fall on the buyer, because according to CISG, acceptance of the goods does not mean physical taking of the goods. Only when the short period for examination of the goods and an additional measured period for notice of defect has elapsed, “exclusive possession” over the goods is established. This measured period differs from the category of goods but can be quite long up to 1,5 months. After this moment, the buyer should bear the burden to prove non-conformity under Article 35 CISG. On the contrary, if a defect is notified within a reasonable period of time after expiry of the inspection, the seller must therefore prove that this non-conformity did not exist at the relevant time of assessment.

Closely connected to the burden of proof is the standard of proof, which resolves the question of how sure the tribunal of fact must be in any given case be. Standard of proof is needed because it is difficult to establish objective truth within the time, limited evidentiary capacities of the parties and economic efficiency of justice. Contrary to almost identic understanding of the burden of proof in common and civil law traditions, the standard of proof from the first point of view seems to be understood very differently.Common law determines the standard on the balance of probabilities based on objective evidentiary criterion, while civil standard of inner conviction bases on the subjective criterion of proof.

However,discussion over the standard of proof under CISG reflects the same line of argumentation as formerly with the burden of proof. The latter was not also in the first place intended to be regulated by CISG according to travaux prйparatoires and initial case practice but later unilaterally was considered to fall within the scope of CISG.In the contemporary CISG doctrine it is unilaterally stated that CISG regulates the standard of proof and that appropriate standard is “reasonable degree of certainty”. Nevertheless, tribunals only start to apply this standard in practice, in fact there is not so much difference in common and civil law approaches to the standard of proof as both include objective and subjective criterion of proof.

Coming up to exceptional rules on the burden of proof allocation, in the second chapter three main principles were identified for the shifting the burden of proof under CISG. Strict application of the general rules can cause substantial inequality of the parties in situations when a serious asymmetry of evidentiary possibilities is present.

First exception from the general rule-exception principle under CISG is the shift of the burden of proof even after acceptance on the seller, if he acknowledged expressly or impliedly the lack of conformity of the goods.

Second exception for the shift of the burdenis the notion of proof-proximity. Itis well-established in modern CISG doctrine and caselaw and the least debatable. This principle is applicable to the non-conformity “in a wide sense” both to Article 35 CISG about the non-conformity, third party rights under Article 42 CISG and seller's knowledge of non-conformity under Article 40 CISG. Important to emphasize that the proof proximity principle is not limited to the physical control of the goods butmeans the evidence which can be more easily financially or organizationally be adduced, consequentially including for example documents attached to the quality of goods. This principle can be named as a basic one for the shift of the burden under CISG as its international character is widely accepted in the doctrine.

Third exceptional rule is provided by the suspicion as non-conformity (VerdachtalsMangel) doctrine, which was precedentially introduced by the German Supreme Court in 2005.This concept is well-established in German and Swiss legal system and therefore its compliance with international character of CISG pursuant to Article 7 para. 1 is the more debatable.

Under this approach the mere suspicion that the delivered goods are defective does not constitute a lack of conformity. However, the doctrine suggeststhat reasonable suspicion can suffice to render goods non-conforming. Three components should be present for that: (1) at the core of this doctrine lies the shifting of the burden of proof, namely that lack of usability cannot be quickly restored by removing the suspicion; (2) the suspicion is based on the concrete facts not rumors; (3) ifshould the suspicion prove to be correctthere would be a fundamental breach of contract.

Relevant case practice has also identified three main scenarios for the reasonable suspicion to be non-conformity: proved defect of one piece legitimates suspicion of defect of further pieces; public law measures (such as general official prohibitions of sale or use, official confiscation) or official warnings may be sufficient to prove non-conformity;suspicion based on mere reports in mass media is also sufficient proof to render non-conformity if it meets three criterialaid out above.

Summing up, the more undebatable issues in the doctrine are the inclusion of the burden of proof in the scope of CISG under rule-exception principle and its shift under the proof proximity principle and acknowledgement of the non-conformity by the seller himself. The inclusion of the uniform “reasonable degree of certainty” standard of proof and the suspicion as non-conformity doctrine remains is more controversial.

It is proposed that to promote the uniform approach and the international character of CISG not only the burden of proof but also the standard of proof should be governed by the uniform “reasonable degree of certainty” standard. As there are already cases which use this standard on the disputes on non-conformity under CISG, it is suggested that inclusion of the standard of proof within the time will become widely acknowledged approach as now the burden of proof itself.

Though there is no case evident after the Frozen Pork in 2005 under CISG which involved the suspicion as non-conformity doctrine. However German and Swiss case law deals with such cases frequently as such problems especially in the intermediary sector are not rare in Europe and bearing in mind that CISG and German law provisions on the non-conformity of goods are identical, it seems reasonable to introduce this doctrine in CISG jurisprudence.It is suggested that its inclusion in the scope of CISG does not alter its international character but only can make its application more effective.

To conclude this research, the burden of proof under CISG, especially in the context of exceptional rules involving its shifting and furthermore evidential difficulties as with suspicions give a rise to the general question who “the superior risk bearer” is.Arnold F. Rusch. Ibid. P. 49. In terms of exceptional rules Ingeborg Schwenzer and Pascal Hachem also come to this political choice and state that neither the buyer nor the seller is to blame and the decision as to where the loss should lie is difficult one. In the majority of cases the buyer will be “the least blameworthy party and therefore deserves some protection” as the cause for the suspicions is most likely to originate in the sphere of control of the seller.Schwenzer I., Hachem P., Kee C. Global sales and contract law. - Oxford University Press, 2012. P. 393.Economic analysis of law considerations suggest that an appropriate risk allocation is which most trading partners would reasonably prefer. And the parties would for sure prefer the seller to bear the risk if the seller could bear the relevant risks more easily than the buyer.



List of references

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

1.ICC. Incoterms® 2010: ICC Rules for the Use of Domestic and International Trade Terms: Entry Into Force: 1 January 2011. - ICC, 2010.

2.United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: concluded in Vienna on April 11, 1980 // ВестникВАСРФ. 1994. №. 1.

3.Германское Гражданское Уложение, статья 434. [Электронный ресурс] // Ex-jure. URL: http://www.ex-jure.ru/law/news.php?newsid=166#_Toc70851054(Доступ 18.04.2020).

4.Гражданский кодекс Российской Федерации (часть первая) от 30.11.1994 № 51-ФЗ (ред. от 29.07.2017) // Собрание законодательства РФ. 1994. № 32, Ст. 3301.

CASE PRACTICE

Arbitral awards and procedural orders

5.Heliotropin case wheat case. [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/930710c1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

6.Steel bars case. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/936653i1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

Courtdecisions Austria

7.CD Media case. [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060912a3.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

8.Garden flowers case. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940701a3.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

9.Paprika case [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/120214a3.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

Belgium

10.Namur-Kreidverzekering v. Wesco. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010614f1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

England and Wales

11.Miller v. Minister of Pensions case (1947) 2 All ER 372. [Electronic resource] // Thomson Reuters Practical Law UK. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-500-6576 (Accessed 23.04.2020).

European Union

12.European Court of Justice 5 March 2015, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v AOK Sachsen-Anhalt - Die Gesundheitskasse et all., Joined Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13 [Electronic Resource] // EUR-lex Database. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62013CJ0503 (Accessed 05.04.2020).

France

13.Aluminium and Light Industries Company v. Saint Bernard MiroiterieVitrerie. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010614f1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

14.Thermo King v. Cigna Insurance. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/960515f1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

Germany

15.Argentinean Rabbit case 1969. BundesgerichtshofUrt. v. 16.04.1969, Az.: VIII ZR 176/66 [Electronic Resource] // Dejure.org. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=16.04.1969&Aktenzeichen=VIII%20ZR%20176/66 (Accessed 05.04.2020).

16.Argentinean Rabbit case 1972. BundesgerichtshofUrt. v. 14.06.1972, Az.: VIII ZR 75/71 [Electronic Resource] // Dejure.org. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=VIII%2520ZR%252075%2F71&Suche=Bundesgerichtshof%20Urt.%20v.%2014.06.1972%2C%20Az.%3A%20VIII%20ZR%2075%2F71 (Accessed 05.04.2020).

17.CISG-online 274 case [Electronic resource] // CISG-online. http://www.cisg-online.ch/content/api/cisg/display.cfm?test=274 (Accessed 23.04.2020).

18.Frozen Pork case. [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050302g1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

19.Hungarian wheat case. [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/060208g1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

20.Paprika case. [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040630g1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

21.Powdered Milk case. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020109g1.html] (Accessed 23.04.2020).

22.Glycol Wine case. BundesgerichtshofUrt. v. 07.07.1987, Az.: VI ZR 176/86 [Electronic Resource] // Dejure.org. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=NJW-RR%201987,%201430 (Accessed 05.04.2020).

23.Dry rot case. Landesgericht Bonn Urt. v. 30.10.2003, Az.: 10 O 27/03 [Electronic Resource] // Dejure.org. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=NJW%202004%2C%2074&Suche=njw%202004%2C%2074 (Accessed 05.04.2020).

24.BundesgerichtUrt. v. 16.03.2012, Az.: V ZR 18/11 [Electronic Resource] // Dejure.org. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=V%20ZR%2018/11(Accessed 05.04.2020).

25.BundesgerichtUrt. v. 22.10.2014, Az.: VIII ZR 195/13 [Electronic Resource] // Dejure.org. https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=VIII%2520ZR%2520195%2F13&Suche=22.10.2014%20-%20VIII%20ZR%20195%2F13(Accessed 05.04.2020).

Spain

26.Rainbow trout eggs case. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/020621s4.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

Switzerland

27.Blood infusion devices case. [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970108s1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

28.Cable drums case. [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040707s1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

29.CISG-online 413 case [Electronic resource] // CISG-online. http://www.cisg-online.ch/content/api/cisg/display.cfm?test=413 (Accessed 23.04.2020).

30.CISG-online 900 case [Electronic resource] // CISG-online. http://www.cisg-online.ch/content/api/cisg/display.cfm?test=1900 (Accessed 23.04.2020).

31.CISG-online case 2936. [Electronic resource] // CISG-online database. http://www.cisg-online.ch/content/api/cisg/display.cfm?test=2936 (Accessed 23.04.2020).

32.Cocoa beans case. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980115s1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

33.Farm machines case. [Electronic resource] // CISG-online database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/050523s1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

34.Oven case. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070427s1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

35.Spinning mill case. [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/111108s1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

36.Spirits case. [Electronic resource] // CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/970220s1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

37.Used laundry machine case. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/031113s1.html (Accessed 23.04.2020).

38.Wire and cable case. [Electronic resource] //CISG Database. http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040211s1.html (Accessed 10.04.2020).

MONOGRAPHIC PUBLICATIONS AND EDUCATIONAL LITERATURE

39.Achilles W. A. Kommentarzum UN-Kaufrechtsьbereinkommen (CISG). - Neuwied :Luchterhand, 2000.

40.Antweiler C. Beweislastverteilungim UN-Kaufrecht: insbesonderebeiVertragsverletzungen des Verkдufers. - Lang, 1995.

41.Baumgдrtel G. et al. Handbuch der BeweislastimPrivatrecht. - C. Heymann, 1981.

42.Brinkmann M. DasBeweismaЯimZivilprozessausrechtsvergleichenderSicht. - C. Heymanns, 2005.

43.Brunner C., Gottlieb B. Commentaries on Article 35 CISG. - 2019.

44.Grunewald B. DerVerdachtalsMangel //Festschrift fьr Horst KonzenzumsiebzigstenGeburtstag, Tьbingen: Mohr Siebeck. - 2006.

45.Hanotiau B. Satisfying The Burden of Proof in International Commercial Arbitration: The Viewpoint of A Civil Law Lawyer // Arbitration International, 1994

46.Henninger M. Die Frage der BeweislastimRahmen des UN-Kaufrechts: zugleicheinerechtsvergleichendeGrundlagenstudiezurBeweislast. - VVF, Florentz, 1995.

47.Herzog P. E. et al. Civil procedure in France. - Springer, 2014.

48.Honnold J. Documentary history of the uniform law for international sales: the studies, deliberations, and decisions that led to the 1980 United Nations Convention with introductions and explanations. - Kluwer Law Intl, 1989.

49.James F., Geoff C. Hazard, and John Leubsdorf. 1992. Civil Procedure.

50.Kazazi M. Burden of proof and related issues: a study on evidence before international tribunals. - MartinusNijhoff Publishers, 1996.

51.Kцller T., Mauerhofer M. Das Beweismass im UN-Kaufrecht (CISG). - 2011.

52.Koller T., Jost D. Rinderlasagne mit Pferdefleisch, Salatgurken mit EHEC-Bakterien, dioxinverseuchtes Schweinefleisch-oft nur ein Verdacht und doch ein Mangel? Ьberlegungen zum Mangelverdacht bei Lebensmitteln als Vertragswidrigkeit der Ware nach UN-Kaufrecht (CISG). - Stдmpfli, 2014.

53.Koziol H. European tort law 2004. - Springer, 2005.

54.Kritzer A. H. Overview Comments on Reasonableness. - 2015.

55.Krцll S., Mistelis L., Viscasillas P. (ed.). UN Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods (CISG). Commentary - Verlag CH Beck, 2018.

56.Lew J. D. M. et al. Comparative international commercial arbitration. - Kluwer Law International BV, 2003.

57.Lilly G. C. et al. An introduction to the law of evidence. - West Publishing Company, 1978.

58.Magnus U., Martinek M. J. von StaudingersKommentarzumBьrgerlichenGesetzbuchmitEinfьhrungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen: Wiener UN-Kaufrecht (CISG). - Walter de Gruyter, 2005. - Vol.2

59.Monaghan N. Law of evidence. - Cambridge University Press, 2015.

60.Mьller T. M. AusgewдhlteFragen der Beweislastverteilungim UN-KaufrechtimLichte der aktuellenRechtsprechung. - Sellier European Law Publishers; Quadis, 2005.

61.Murray P. L., Stьrner R. German civil justice. - Carolina Academic Press, 2004.

62.Murray P.L., Stьrner R. German Civil Justice. Durham, 2004.

63.Nunner-Krautgasser B., Anzenberger P. Evidence in Civil Law-Austria. - Institute for Local Self-Government and Public Procurement Maribor, 2015.

64.O'Malley N. D. Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration: An Annotated Guide. - Taylor & Francis, 2019.

65.Phipson S. L. The Law of Evidence. - Stevens and Haynes, 1907. - №. 10.

66.Posner R. A. Economic Analysis of Law. Aspen Casebook Series. - 2011.

67.Prцlss J. BeweiserleichterungenimSchadensersatzprozeЯ. - Verlag Versicherungswirtschaft, 1966. - №. 7.

68.Ramberg C. 5 Emotional Non-Conformity in the International Sale of Goods, ParticularlyinRelationtoCSR-Policies and Codes of Conduct. - 2014.

69.Rosenberg L. Die Beweislast: auf der grundlage des bьrgerlichengesetzbuchs und der zivilprozessordnung. - Liebmann, 1923.

70.Schlechtriem P., Schrцter U. G. Internationales UN-Kaufrecht. Ein Studien-und ErlдuterungsbuchzumЬbereinkommen der VereintenNationenьberVertrдgeьber den internationalenWarenkauf (CISG). - 2013.

71.Schwenzer I. Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG). - Oxford University Press, 2016.

72.Schwenzer I., Hachem P., Kee C. Global sales and contract law. - Oxford University Press, 2012.

73.Sonde S. L. Das kaufrechtlicheMдngelrechtals Instrument zurVerwirklichungeinesnachhaltigenKonsums. - Kassel University Press GmbH, 2016.

74.Thayer J. B. A preliminary treatise on evidence at the common law. - Little, Brown, 1898.

75.Vogel H. J. Die Untersuchungs-und Rьgepflichtim UN-Kaufrecht. - na, 2000.

76.Waincymer J. Procedure and evidence in international arbitration. - Kluwer Law International BV, 2012.

77.Wolf C., Zeibig N. Evidence in Civil Law-Germany. - Institute for Local Self-Government and Public Procurement Maribor, 2015.

78.Wright R. W. Proving facts: Belief versus probability //European tort law 2008. - Springer, Vienna, 2009.

79.Zuckerman A. on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice. - Sweet & Maxwell, 2006.

80.Боннер А. Т. Проблемы установления истины в гражданском процессе. - 2009.

81.Венская конвенция о договорах международной купли-продажи товаров. Комментарий / Богуславский М.М., Вилкова Н.Г., Городисский А.М. и др. М.: Юридическаялитература, 1994.

82.Скворцов О. Ю., Савранский М. Ю., Севастьянов Г. В. Международный коммерческий арбитраж: Посвящается профессору Валерию Абрамовичу Мусину. - 2018.



PERIODICAL LITERATURE

83.Arnold F. Rusch, VerdachtalsMangel //AJP/PJA - 2012. Vol. 1.

84.Clermont K. M., Sherwin E. A comparative view of standards of proof //The American Journal of Comparative Law. - 2002. - Vol. 50. - №. 2.

85.Dane F. C. In search of reasonable doubt //Law and Human behavior. - 1985. - Vol. 9. - №. 2.

86.Engel C. Preponderance of the evidence versus intime conviction: A behavior perspective on a conflict between American and Continental European law //Vt. L. Rev. - 2008. - Vol. 33.

87.Flechtner H. M. Funky Mussels, a Stolen Car, and Decrepit Used Shoes: Non-Conforming Goods and Notice Thereof under the United Nations Sales Convention (CISG) ///Boston University International Law Journal. - 2008. -Vol. 26.

88.Kaplan J. Decision theory and the factfinding process //Stan L. Rev. - 1967. - Vol. 20.

89.Krцll S. et al. Cost and Burden of Proof under the CISG-A Discussion amongst Experts //International Trade and Business Law Review. - 2017. - Vol. 20.

90.Krцll S. et al. The Burden of Proof for the Non-conformity of Goods Under Art. 35 CISG //АналиПравногфакултета у Београду. - 2011. - Vol. 59. - №. 3. -

91.Linne A. L. Burden of Proof under Article 35 CISG //Pace Int'l L. Rev. - 2008. - V. 20.

92.Redfern A. et al. The standards and burden of proof in international arbitration //Arbitration International. - 1994. - Vol. 10. - №. 3.

93.Saidov D. Article 35 of the CISG: Reflecting on the Present and Thinking about the Future //Vill. L. Rev. - 2013. - Vol. 58.

94.Saidov D. Standards of Proving Loss and Determining the Amount of Damages //Journal of Contract Law. - 2006. - Vol. 22. - №. 1.

95.Schweizer M. The civil standard of proof--what is it, actually? //The International Journal of Evidence & Proof. - 2016. - Vol. 20. - №. 3.

96.Schwenzer I., Tebel D. Suspicions, mere suspicions: non-conformity of the goods? //Uniform Law Review. - 2014. - Vol. 19. - №. 1.

97.Skontzos A. V. The burden and standard of proof in model international procedural law: dealing with the burden and standard of proof in international disputes //Uniform Law Review. - 2018. - Vol. 23. - №. 3-4.

98.Taruffo M. Rethinking the Standards of Proof // 51 American Journal of Comparative Law. 2003.

99.Von Mehren R. B. Burden of Proof in International Arbitration //ICCA Congress Series. - Kluwer Publishers, 1994. - Vol. 7.

100.Будылин С. Л. Внутреннее убеждение или баланс вероятностей? Стандарты доказывания в России и за рубежом //Вестник экономического правосудия Российской Федерации (0869-7426). - 2014. - №. 3.

101.Елисеев Н. Г. Основные понятия доказательственного права //Законы России: опыт, анализ, практика. - 2007. - №. 1.

102.Карапетов А. Г., Косарев А. С. Стандарты доказывания: аналитическое и эмпирическое исследование //Вестник экономического правосудия Российской Федерации. - 2019. - №. 5.

OTHER SOURCES AND MATERIALS

103.ALI / UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure [Electronic resource]// UNIDROIT website. https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/transnational-civil-procedure(Accessed 22.04.2020).

104.Council C. A. Opinion No 5 //The Buyer's Right to avoid the Contract in Case of Non-Conforming Goods or Documents. - 2005. - Vol. 7.

105.Final presentation and evaluation of the epidemiological findings in the EHEC O104:H4 outbreak, Germany 2011, Robert Koch-Institute, September 2011 [Electronic resource] // Robert Koch Institute Website. https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/epidemiology/outbreaks/EHEC_O104/EHEC_final_report.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (Accessed 23.04.2020).

106.Kobe Steel scandal hits Boeing, Toyota and Nissan [Electronic resource] // The Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/a1e494c2-ad9f-11e7-beba-5521c713abf4 (Accessed 22.04.2020).

107.Lock C., Powell D. The Belgian dioxin crisis of the Summer of 1999: a case study in crisis communications and management. February 1, 2000. - Report, 2000. - Vol. 13.

108.United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods. - United Nations Publications, 2008. [Electronic resource] // CISG database. http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/digest-art-35.html (Accessed 22.04.2020).

109.WTO (World Trade Organization). World trade statistical review 2017. - 2018.

110.В ФРГ причиной вспышки кишечной инфекции стали испанские огурцы [Electronicresource] // Коммерсант. https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1746584 (Accessed 22.04.2020).

111.Конференция Организации Объединенных Наций по договорам международной купли-продажи товаров. Официальные отчеты. Документ № A//CONF. 97//19. Нью-Йорк. 1981.

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...