Case Commentary on Concurrent Remedies in Pamesa v. Mendelson

TY - JOUR

T1 - Case Commentary on Concurrent Remedies in Pamesa v. Mendelson

AU - Lookofsky, Joseph

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - The Commentary relates to the decision of Israel Supreme Court (Pamesa Ceramica v. Yisrael Mendelson Ltd) decided on 17 March 2009. Although the law directly applied was the 1964 Hague Sales Convention (ULIS), the court discussed Articles 38, 39 and 40 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), regarding their interpretation as relevant to the interpretation of Articles 38, 39 and 40 of ULIS. The court also discussed concurrent coverage in the context of Article 4 of the CISG, relying on similarity between it and Article 8 of ULIS.

AB - The Commentary relates to the decision of Israel Supreme Court (Pamesa Ceramica v. Yisrael Mendelson Ltd) decided on 17 March 2009. Although the law directly applied was the 1964 Hague Sales Convention (ULIS), the court discussed Articles 38, 39 and 40 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), regarding their interpretation as relevant to the interpretation of Articles 38, 39 and 40 of ULIS. The court also discussed concurrent coverage in the context of Article 4 of the CISG, relying on similarity between it and Article 8 of ULIS.

M3 - Journal article

JO - Pace database on the CISG and International Commercial Law

JF - Pace database on the CISG and International Commercial Law

ER -