1. While most courts and scholars seem to assume that “property” is a very similar notion in many legal systems, there are relevant differences (apart from the transfer of property) that are rarely mentioned. Some legal systems consider property to be a relative notion, other legal systems take an absolute notion of property as a basis, while for example, Nordic countries try to solve all arising conflicts without reference to a single concept such as property at all.

2. The CISG should be interpreted to have its own notion of “property” in Article 30 of the CISG.

3. “Property” under Article 30 of the CISG refers to the legal interest the seller has in the goods with no regard to the quality of this interest.

4. Articles 30 and 41 of the CISG contain distinguishable obligations with regard to the transfer of property based on the definition in the prior thesis. The concerned persons are different, the relevant point in time might be different, and Article 6 of the CISG is to be applied separately. This interpretation deviates from current interpretations of the relationship between Articles 30 and 41 of the CISG.

5. The actual transfer of property in the sense of national law is very limited in practical relevance, since “claims” of third parties also breach the contract in the context of Articles 30 and 41 of the CISG. The most important situation for the “mere” right of a third party is if the third party remains passive and the buyer nonetheless relies on the breach of contract. The CISG protects the buyer already at this stage, and thereby follows the approach of what is called “Eigentumsverschaffungspflicht” in Germany, while deviating from many other legal systems.

6. For purposes of the CISG, “property” in the sense of national laws is merely one right a seller or a third party can have in the goods among many and is not singled out.

7. If “property” is understood to refer to what the respective national law considers to be property, these (diverging) notions should not be used in defining the scope of application by indirectly defining a sales contract 271 under Articles 30 and 53 of the CISG. Otherwise, the scope of the CISG would differ depending on the applicable property law.

8. The reasoning in the English Supreme Court case PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and another (“The Res Cogitans”) should not be extrapolated to the characterization of a sales contract under the CISG.

9. Considering the case PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and another (“The Res Cogitans”) under the CISG shows that also the proposed, autonomous definition of property (Chapter 3, Thesis 3) should not form part of the characterization requirements of CISG contracts.

10. A sales contract under the CISG is a contract that envisions the transaction of goods against payment. To this end, the goods are sufficiently allocated to the buyer when, as between the parties, the buyer permanently receives the benefits and use of the goods, and the seller does not bear the risk of haphazard loss of or damage to the goods and no longer retains any legal interest in them.

11. Article 28 of the CISG applies to the seller’s claim for the price under Article 62 of the CISG. Consequently, the transfer of property can have an impact on the seller’s remedies under the CISG.

12. The practical difference between applying Article 28 of the CISG to the claim for the price under Article 62 of the CISG and not applying it, is limited to whether the seller can economically force the buyer to take the goods by being able to sue for the full purchase price. In particular, Article 28 of the CISG has no impact on the seller’s duty to mitigate the loss under Article 77 of the CISG by requiring the seller to effect a timely cover transaction.

13. If one defines “property” as the legal interest the seller has in the goods with no regard to the quality of this interest (Chapter 3, Thesis 3), this understanding can also be put to use in Article 4, sentence 2(b) of the CISG.

14. OHADA succeeded in harmonizing the transfer of property in contrast to the CISG, which is, however, due to the similar legal roots of legal 272 systems of the Contracting States of OHADA and is not conceivable under the CISG.

15. The CISG does not apply directly to the question whether there is sufficient consent between the parties to hinder the transfer of property by a retention of property clause. International case law only appears to be contradictory in this question at first sight, but is consistent if one understands that the CISG can be relevant to determine consent by way of an incidental question depending on the applicable property law.

16. The parties cannot regulate the transfer of property by means of Article 6 of the CISG, and may only do so as far as the applicable international private law and applicable property law allow for party autonomy.

17. A unification of the contract’s effect on the CISG was and is not necessary under the CISG, since under the interpretation put forward in this study, property is not relevant under the CISG. The exception of the relevance of the transfer of property for the claim for the purchase price under Articles 62 and 28 of the CISG is due to fundamental differences between national sales laws. These differences would, however, not be reconciled by unifying the rules on the effect the CISG has on property.

18. Claims based on property can concern matters that are not governed by the CISG, and should thus not be considered generally preempted by the CISG.

19. Even if the parties have agreed on a retention of property clause, the CISG in principle prevents the seller from repossessing the goods before avoidance of contract.

20. The CISG does not supersede national law regarding the available assets for distribution and priorities under national insolvency law even though the former is an international convention.

21. Whether property is automatically “retransferred” to the seller after avoidance of contract if the goods are situated in France or Italy is not a matter governed by the CISG, and Article 7(1) of the CISG cannot support any interpretation to this end.

22. Whether a CISG contract can still be considered a contrat translatif under the applicable property law after avoidance is not a preliminary question for the lex contractus but should be governed the lex rei sitae.