Case Commentary on Concurrent Remedies in Pamesa v. Mendelson
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning
Standard
Case Commentary on Concurrent Remedies in Pamesa v. Mendelson. / Lookofsky, Joseph.
I: Pace database on the CISG and International Commercial Law, 2010.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
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 -
ID: 18586790