PRAVICE KUPCA GLEDE ISTOVETNOSTI BLAGA PO OZ IN DUNAJSKI KONVENCIJI - Drobnič, Primož ([P. Drobnič], 2015)
CISG definira istovetnost kot dolžnost prodajalca, da dobavi blago, ki je po količini, kakovosti, vrsti in pakiranju skladno s pogodbo. V odsotnosti dogovora, lastnosti blaga določi konvencija. Kršitev katerekoli omenjene predpostavke pomeni kršitev pogodbe. CISG torej enotno obravnava pojem kršitve pogodbe in nanj navezuje ustrezne sankcije. A to ne pomeni, da lahko kupec po CISG uveljavlja katerokoli sankcijo želi. Sankcije so namreč odvisne od teže kršitve. Konvencija to problematiko ureja z ločitvijo kršitev na bistvene in nebistvene. Bistvena kršitev je kršitev, ki kupca prikrajša za pogodbeni interes to pomni, da mora kupcu s kršitvijo pogodbe nastati takšna škoda, da je dejansko ostal brez tistega, kar je upravičeno pričakoval od pogodbe. Bistvenost kršitve se presoja od primera do primera, zato imajo ključno vlogo pri razlagi tega pojma sodišča, ki z odločanjem v konkretnih primerih postavljajo merila in standarde razlage. Če se kršitev šteje za bistveno, ima kupec pod določenimi pogoji na voljo vsa pravna sredstva. To so poleg odškodnine, ki se prizna v vsakem primeru, še izpolnitveni zahtevek, znižanje kupnine in odstop od pogodbe. V nasprotnem primeru, ko kršitev ni bistvena, lahko kupec uveljavlja zgolj popravilo ali znižanje kupnine. CISG tako sledi ureditvi kršitve pogodbe, ki je bližje common law sistemu. OZ na drugi strani loči med vrstami kršitev pogodbe in v skladu s tradicionalnimi kontinentalnimi pravnimi redi kršitve pogodbe ne obravnava enotno. Sankcije so odvisne od tega ali gre v konkretnem primeru za neizpolnitev ali izpolnitev z napako. OZ prav tako ne pozna samega pojma »istovetnosti blaga«, zato se po OZ dejanski stan ne-istovetnosti, kot ga predvideva CISG, pokriva z ureditvijo stvarnih napak, količinskih napak in dobavo druge vrste blaga (aliud). V primeru stvarnih napak OZ določa, da lahko kupec izbira med jamčevalnimi sankcijami to so izpolnitveni zahtevek (popravilo in zamenjava), znižanje kupnine in odstop od pogodbe. Jamčevalni zahtevki sami po sebi predstavljajo dodaten problem, saj se za njihovo uveljavljanje zahteva izpolnitev strogih predpostavk. To so predvsem kratki roki za pregled in grajanje. Strogost jamčevalnih zahtevkov pa je omiljena z institutom prodajalčeve odgovornosti za brezhibno delovanje stvari – garancije. Primer količinskih napak in aliuda ni podrejen pravilom o jamčevanju, pač pa se za te primere uporabljajo pravila o neizpolnitvi. Tako so kupcu na voljo izpolnitveni zahtevek ter odškodnina za zamudo, ali odstop od pogodbe in odškodnina za neizpolnitev. Čeprav se morda najprej zdi, da oba akta urejata sankcije na enak način, je že po kratki analizi možno med njima ugotoviti bistvene razlike. CISG, v skladu z naravo mednarodne prodaje, stremi k čim manj kompleksni ureditvi opredeljene problematike. Slednje je popolnoma jasno, če si lahko predstavljamo koliko problemov predstavlja že sama mednarodna prodaja brez dodatnih pravnih nejasnosti. Na drugi strani se za OZ zdi, čeprav sledi tradicionalni kontinentalno pravni ureditvi, da nepotrebno komplicira že tako samo po sebi kompleksno problematiko. V skladu z modernimi mednarodno pravnimi trendi bi bilo morda bolje, če bi v prihodnosti slovenski zakonodajalec razmišljal v smeri sprememb po vzoru Konvencije Združenih narodov o mednarodni prodaji blaga. CSIG defines conformity of goods as a duty of seller, to deliver the goods, which conforms with quantity, quality, kind and packaging as required by the contract. In absence of special agreement, the standards of conformity are defined by the convention. Breach of any of the above mentioned requirements is defined as a breach of contract. CISG thus unilaterally defines a breach of contract and specifies sanctions for it. However, that does not mean, that a buyer can just freely decide which action he will take against the seller. The rights of the buyer depend on the severity of the breach. Convention divides breaches of contract into fundamental and non-fundamental breaches. The breach is fundamental, if it results in such detriment to the buyer, that he is substantially deprived of what he is entitled to expect under the contract. The question whether the breach is fundamental, is determined on case-to-case basis, therefore it is the role of courts, which is imperative in deciding, whether the breach is fundamental or not. If the breach is found to be fundamental, the buyer has, under the specific conditions, the right to elect which sanction to pursue. He is entitled to choose among the right to specific performance, reduction of the price and avoidance of the contract. In any case, the buyer has the right to claim damages. CISG thus follows the principles of breach of contract which are closer to common law system. OZ on the other hand differentiates between different types of breaches of contract in accordance with the doctrine of classic continental legal systems. The sanctions will depend on whether the seller fails to perform his contractual obligation or whether his performance has errors. Conformity of goods is a term which is not known to the OZ. However, the situation which CISG defines as non-conformity is covered in OZ by the cases of defective goods, quantity deficiency and when delivered goods are different than required (aliud). If the goods are defective, the OZ gives a buyer the right to elect between warranty based claims, namely repair or substitution of the goods, price reduction and avoidance. Warranty based claims are a problem in its own merit, for they are governed by very strict rules, namely the time periods in which the buyer must examine the goods and give the seller a notification. Strict warranty rules are mitigated by rights flowing from express warranty. Cases of quantity deficiencies and aliud are governed by rules regarding non-performance, which give rise to claims of specific performance and damages for late delivery or avoidance of contract and damages for non-performance. Even though it may seem, that the sanctions under OZ and CSIG are regulated similarly, a brief overview shows substantial differences. Therefore, CISG strives for a very non-complex regulation, which is understandable since international sales of goods is already challenging enough without complex law rules regulating its flow. On the other hand, OZ seems to unnecessarily complicate already complex legal problem. In accordance with modern international law trends, it might be better, if in the future, Slovenian legislature shifts in the direction of United Nations Convention on the International Sales of Goods.