In his contribution to this volume, Professor Joseph Lookofsky argues that the resolution of a given buyer’s non-conformity claim is likely to reflect an attempt to balance competing interests: the countervailing pulls between traditional caveat emptor doctrine (what you see is what you get) and the buyer’s expectation that the seller should be responsible for certain defects (caveat venditor). Since the Danish (and other Scandinavian) domestic solutions to this conundrum do not match the international solution set forth in Article 35(3) of the CISG Convention, and since Article 35(3) has itself been subjected to differing interpretations, Professor Lookofsky sees reason to ask whether these differences might lead to a Scandinavian CISG “homeward trend.”