278

The well-balanced result achieved by the CISG, which served as a blueprint for harmonization also on the European level, as can be seen under Article IV.A.-2:305 of the DCFR and Article 102(1) of the CESL, has for unknown reasons (potentially) been diluted or at least blurred under Article 9 Directive (EU) 2019/771:

279

In contrast to the CISG, where remedies under national law are preempted, this provision does not unify the remedies available to the buyer since national laws can provide for nullity or rescission in such cases.558 Moreover and importantly, it might be interpreted to shift the liability regime back in the direction of an eviction-based liability system, because the wording requires buyers to be prevented or limited in their use of the goods. While one could argue that already the existence of a third party right can limit buyers in their use, one could also argue the opposite. Therefore, it is not clear whether the mere existence of a third party right (without it being asserted) will be considered a breach of contract. This reintroduces uncertainty and dogmatic discussions that had been resolved under the CISG.

280

Moreover, as long as there is no unified property law or notion of property, (future) uniform sales laws may benefit from eliminating the reference to an obligation to transfer the property. Instead, the laws could refer to the seller’s obligation to transfer his or her legal interest in the goods. Combining this obligation with an obligation to deliver goods free from third party rights and claims would render misunderstandings less likely, while providing the same level of protection for the buyer as the CISG under the proposed interpretation.