Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

The last outpost: automatic CISG opt outs, misapplications and the costs of ignoring the Vienna Sales Convention for Australian lawyers

Lisa Spagnolo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Australian lawyers and courts have tried long and hard to ignore the CISG. However, this article argues that widespread exclusion of the CISG and its misapplication in Australian courts has had serious consequences: clients have been disadvantaged, professional obligations have been heavily glossed over, the administration of justice has been compromised, and client costs and judicial resources wasted. This article points out that CISG cases are disseminated and analysed throughout the world, and Australian misapplication of the CISG has not gone unnoticed. This reflects upon the reputation of the Australian legal profession, Australian courts, and Australia’s viability as a location for international dispute resolution. It is argued that, while other jurisdictions are improving their track records, Australia still lags behind. This article explains why Australian lawyers should not routinely exclude the CISG. It outlines its advantages and provisions. The article provides arguments that barristers could run in future, references numerous freely available resources, and gives courts and lawyers guidance on the CISG’s unique interpretive methodology and its effect in displacing local laws, both key elements in its proper application. It is argued that if Australian lawyers and courts do not rise to the challenge, Australia will be left behind as an outpost of CISG ignorance.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)141-216
Number of pages76
JournalMelbourne Journal of International Law
Volume10
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The last outpost: automatic CISG opt outs, misapplications and the costs of ignoring the Vienna Sales Convention for Australian lawyers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this