LAW OF SALES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT
Section 2
NAME ID Number
[Link] Kassa……………………………………………UGR/2665/14
Submitted to: Dr. Biruk H
Submission date: December 15,2025
INTRODUCTION
One of the seller's biggest obligations under a selling agreement is to deliver goods that
are free of defects and adhere to the terms of the contract. This responsibility is crucial
for protecting buyers and preserving trust in commercial transactions. The law
specifically governs the seller's obligation in these situations because items that are
defective or do not meet the terms of the contract may cause buyers to suffer financial
loss and disruption. Both national laws and international legal instruments address this
issue, though they may do so in different ways. In compliance with Ethiopian law,
particularly the Civil Code, the seller must guarantee the buyer against defects and non-
conformity of the goods sold.
Guidelines for the seller's obligation to deliver goods that meet the terms of the contract
in international transactions are established by the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Products (CISG). The requirements for the seller's
warranty against defects and non-conformity under Ethiopian law and the CISG are
compared and contrasted in this assignment. It focuses on the definition and scope of the
obligation, the buyer's remedies, and the circumstances in which the seller is liable. This
comparison aims to draw attention to the similarities and differences between the two
legal systems that control the same business issue.
comparison on seller’s obligation to warrant against defects and non
conformity under the Ethiopian law and under CISG.
Legal limitations
One of the biggest variations that exist between the civil code and the CISG is the legal limit
As we can see under article 2283(1) if the buyer knows the risk of dispossession by third party
the seller has no obligation to do [Link] on the CISG we don’t have any article that
complement [Link] we have an article that discuss this issue on the CISG which is article
42,it only talks about the seller responsibility to deliver claim free object to the [Link] doesn’t
tell the legal limitations of this right.
Restriction clause
The other legal limitations is the warranty restriction provision. Article 2284 of the civil code
hold a very bold provision which enshrines freedom of contract. Parties can agree to not have
warranty right in the contract .the CISG also implies this on article (6),parties may exclude the
application of the convention. The difference is in the civil code the restriction right is not
absolute .the seller is still be liable if he /she intentionally concealed facts. The CISG doesn’t
have alike provision. Over all under the civil code there is exhaustive legal limitations in which
warranty is not effective. The CISG doesn’t constitute such provision. The Ethiopian system is
more or less fault based liability . Fault is relevant and increase in bad faith. Strict liability
irrespective of fault is the base on CISG.
Period of limitation
The other difference is on period of limitations. The CISG as stated under article 33 mostly lead
with the object of reasonable time unlike the civil code which fall on short period of time to
quote “as soon as possible “article [Link] regard to warranty right also the CISG as we can
observe on article 39 buyer right is relays on reasonable time notification to the seller. On sub
article two of the same article the drafters try to put maximum threshold on the time with two
years .on the contrary the civil code put time barrier maximum to one year from giving notice as
articulated under article 2298(2).these provision shows the flexibility of the CISG than the civil
code with regard to time.
Carriage Warranty
The other issue is the civil code is more or less silent on warranty for good transportation via
carriage. The CISG on the other hand put explicitly regulations on carriage transportation under
article 31(a).this maybe occur because of there different on the scope as we know CISG tries to
regulate smooth transaction between state which mostly yields carriage .on the contrary the civil
code scope is only on local matters unless parties agreed to regulate by this.
we can also mention on the civil code there exist both defect and non conformity the code
tries to regulate both on separate legislation however there is no such thing on the CISG.
Major similarity on the civil code and CISG
The Civil Code and the CISG both regulate warranties against defects in a way that
is essentially similar, with the seller bearing the primary responsibility for
delivering goods that meet the terms of the contract and are suitable for their
intended or regular use. Both systems hold the seller accountable for flaws that
were present at the time of delivery, even if they don't show up right away. This is
particularly true for latent or hidden flaws. In order to retain the right to pursue
remedies, the buyer must inspect the goods within a reasonable or legally
mandated time frame and notify the seller of any defects found. Furthermore, in
cases where the buyer knew or should have known about the defect, neither
system offers warranty protection.
Conclusion
Over all, both Ethiopian law and the CISG recognize the importance of the seller's obligation to
deliver goods that are free of defects and adhere to the terms of the agreement. Although they
share the same general objective of protecting the buyer and ensuring equity in sales
transactions, they approach this obligation in different ways. Ethiopian law places a strong
emphasis on the seller's warranty against defects, with specific rules on liability and time limits,
whereas the CISG employs a more expansive and flexible concept of conformance, taking into
account the parties' agreement and international commercial norms. The comparison shows that
the CISG provides a more modern and uniform framework suitable for international trade, while
Ethiopian law represents a more traditional approach focused on domestic matters.
Despite these distinctions, by outlining duties and remedies precisely, both legal systems aim to
balance the interests of buyers and sellers. In an increasingly globalized trading world, it is
crucial to comprehend these similarities and differences because doing so enables parties to
select the best legal framework and more effectively manage their contractual rights and duties.
Reference material
1. Ethiopian sales law in the light of international laws and principles of contract by
Zena abera vol 3
2. A Critical Analysis of Ethiopian Civil Code Governing Sale of Goods in the Light of
International Convention and Principle by Mamenie Endale Messelu vol 7
3. Latent defects warranty and buyer protection by GTG legal
4. 1960 civil code of Ethiopia article 2287-2300
5. United nation convention on contract for the international sale of goods article 35-49