No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 November 2016
This article assesses the seller's duty of conformity in a contract of sale under the OHADA Uniform Act on General Commercial Law. It posits that conformity is not an independent legal concept and so argues that a thorough assessment cannot be made without recognizing and taking into consideration a number of issues, irrespective of the contractual stipulations agreed by the contracting parties. Arguably, the notion of conformity falls within the meaning of the subjective understanding of a “defect”. This can raise confusion and uncertainty in determining the seller's liability for non-conforming goods. Thus, from a cursory reading of the Uniform Act, the question of the seller's duty regarding the conformity of goods can conveniently be addressed from a number of different angles: the nature of the defect; local and international standards; contract law; and the principles of caveat venditor and caveat emptor. Adopting an in-depth content analysis and critical evaluation of primary and secondary data, the article concludes that a balance should be struck between these variables and, where no guidance is given in article 255 of the Uniform Act, the prevailing norm in member states should form the basis for determining the concept of conformity of goods.
1 It is known in French as the Acte Uniforme Portant sur le Droit Commercial Général and is found in the OHADA Official Gazette no 21 of 15 February 2011. It is also available at: < http://www.ohada.com/actes-uniformes.html> (last accessed 13 September 2016). This Uniform Act was adopted in Lomé, Togo on 15 December 2010 and replaces the former act of 1997. Uniform acts dealing with the following issues are also applicable in member states: commercial companies and economic interest groupings, securities law, simplified recovery procedures and measures of execution, collective proceedings for wiping-off debts, arbitration law, accounting law, law of co-operatives, and carriage of goods by road. Uniform acts relating to consumer law and contract law have also been enacted and adopted by the Council of Ministers but do not yet apply.
2 This acronym derives from the French Organisation pour l'Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires. The treaty establishing OHADA (OHADA Treaty) was signed at Port-Louis, Mauritius on 17 October 1993 and revised at Québec, Canada on 17 October 2008. The revisions became effective on 21 March 2010. As of September 2016, the west African members of OHADA are Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo, and the central African members are Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon. See: < http://www.ohada.org> (last accessed 13 September 2016).
3 Marley, K “The limits to the conformity of goods in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)” (2009) 12 International Trade & Business Law Review 82 at 83Google Scholar.
4 Schwenzer, I (ed) Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (3rd ed, 2010, Oxford University Press) at 570 Google Scholar.
5 Cameroon Civil Code, art 1641; Côte d'Ivoire Civil Code, art 1641.
6 Uniform Act, art 231.
7 SGA, sec 11(3) provides that a condition is a major term of a contract, breach of which is considered to go to the root of the contract so as to entitle the innocent party to treat the contract as discharged.
8 Id, secs 14–15.
9 The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64; Lister v Romford Ice Co Ltd [1957] AC 555.
10 Compare with Lord Tomlin in Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos [1932] ALL ER 494 at 499: “The problem for a court of construction must always be so to balance matters that, without violation of essential principle, the dealings of men may so far as possible be treated as effective, and that the law may not incur the reproach of being the destroyer of bargains.”
11 Pougoué, PG, James, JC and Kalieu, YR et al. Encyclopédie du Droit OHADA [Encyclopaedia of OHADA law] (2011, Lamy) at 55 Google Scholar. See SGA, secs 12–15 and CISG, arts 35–44.
12 This is the author's translation.
13 WH Hamilton “The ancient maxim caveat emptor” (1928) 40 Yale Law Journal 1133 at 1186.
14 CISG, art 35.
15 PH Collin Dictionary of Law (3rd ed, 2000, Peter Collin Publishing) at 77; C Mba-Owono “Non-conformité et vices cachés dans la vente commerciale en Droit Uniform Africain” [Non-conformity and hidden defects in commercial sales under the African Uniform Law] (2002) 41 Juridis Périodique 107 at 108.
16 SK Tameghe “La vente commercial dans l'Acte Uniforme OHADA Portant sur le Droit Commercial Général” [Commercial sales under the Uniform Act] (unpublished DEA dissertation, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Dschang, 1999) at 54 (copy on file with the author).
17 Under French law, the hidden defect element is dealt with under sales law. This is actually effectively the purport of the text: Pougoué et al Encyclopédie, above at note 11 at 55; F Fourment “Défauts cachés de la chose vendue que reste-t-il de l'action en garantie des vices cachés?” [Hidden defects in sold goods: What action to take for hidden defects?] (1997) 3 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Commercial et de Droit Economique 416 at 419; J Ghestin Conformité et Garanties dans la Vente (Produits Mobiliers) [Conformity and guarantee in sales (Moveable goods)] (1993, LGDJ); SP Levoa Awona “Défaut de conformité et défaut caché dans la vente commerciale OHADA: Retour à la case départ?” [Defects of conformity and hidden defects in the OHADA commercial sale: Coming back to the starting point?] in Recueil d’Études sur l'OHADA et les Normes Juridiques Africaines vol VI (2013, Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille) 317 at 317–20. Mba-Owono “Non-conformité”, above at note 15 at 110.
18 Uniform Act, art 255(1).
19 Mba-Owono “Non-conformité”, above at note 15 at 110–16.
20 Uniform Act, art 255(1); also CISG, art 35(1).
21 Uniform Act, art 262; CISG, art 52(2).
22 Ibid.
23 SGA, sec 30(1).The leading case observed here is Shipton v Casson (1876) 5 B&C 378 at 382–83.
24 Id, sec 30(2).
25 Id, sec 30(3). This position was observed in the following cases applied as precedents in courts in Africa: Hart v Mills (1846) 15 M&W 85; Levy v Green (1857) 8 E&B 575 at 587.
26 SGA, sec 30(4).
27 Guest, AG Benjamin's Sale of Goods (7th ed, 2006, Sweet & Maxwell) at 432 Google Scholar.
28 SGA, sec 13.
29 Schwenzer (ed) Commentary, above at note 4 at 571. Giuliano, AM “Nonconformity in the sale of goods between the United States and China: The new Chinese contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code, and the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods” (2006) 18 Florida Journal of International Law 331 at 337Google Scholar.
30 SGA, sec 62. According to this article, the term “quality” refers to the state and condition of the goods.
31 Id, sec 14.
32 AP Santos and JY Toé OHADA Droit Commercial Général [OHADA general commercial law] (2002, Bruylant) at 394.
33 Uniform Act, art 255.
34 Civ 4 December 1871, DP 1873, 5, 201.
35 Cornu, G Vocabulaire Juridique [Legal vocabulary] (8th ed, 1987, Presses Universitaires de France) at 756Google Scholar ; Santos and Toé OHADA Droit Commercial, above at note 32 at 394.
36 Uniform Act, art 255(2).
37 Ibid.
38 Giuliano “Nonconformity in the sale of goods”, above at note 29 at 7.
39 Atiyah, PS et al. The Sale of Goods (11th ed, 2005, Pitman) at 162.Google Scholar
40 See the case of Brasseries du Cameroun v Ambe John, appeal no BCA/8/93, 24 March 1994 (unreported) in ES Andy “Brewed drinks unfit for human consumption can warrant an action for product liability” (1997) Juridis Périodique 29.
41 Atiyah et al The Sale of Goods, above at note 39 at 162.
42 Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, secs 14(2) and 15(2).
43 Goode, R Commercial Law (3rd ed, 2004, Penguin Books) at 304–05Google Scholar.
44 Uniform Act, art 255(1).
45 Silvia, F “Remarks concerning the implementation of the CISG by the courts (The seller's performance and article 35)” (2005–06) 25 Journal of Law and Commerce 223 at 232Google Scholar.
46 Issa-Sayegh, J et al. OHADA Traité et Actes Uniformes Commentés et Annotés [Annotated commentaries on the OHADA Treaty and uniform acts] (3rd ed, 2008, Juriscope) at 291 Google Scholar, discussing the former art 224. The position is the same under CISG, article 35.
47 Issa-Sayegh et al, ibid.
48 Uniform Act, arts 282, 288 and 283.
49 Appeal no BCA/58/98-99 of 12 October 2000 in the North West Court of Appeal, Bamenda, Cameroon. This case is culled from “Cameroon common law report” 1 CCLR (Quarterly Law) Liberty Publications (2001) part 7 at 107–12.
50 London, C and Llamas, M “Packaging laws in France and Germany” (1994) 6/1 Journal of Environmental Law 1 at 1–3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elliot, C and Quinn, F Contract Law (4th ed, 2003, Longman) at 360 Google Scholar; as per the SGA definition of goods: SGA, sec 62(1).
51 As opposed to manufacturers.
52 Santos and Toé OHADA Droit Commercial, above at note 32 at 395.
53 Uniform Act, art 238(2).
54 Id, art 255(1).
55 Littoral Court of Appeal, judgment no 88/C, 15 May 1995.
56 A similar measure has also been addressed within the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) to regulate the export-trade of goods within the sub-region. Goods are commonly labelled in French as: “Fabriqué au [made in] … [country of origin] - vente en CEMAC [sold in CEMAC]”: Tonnang, EG “Le nouveau régime juridique des exportations entre les états d'Afrique centrale: Entre reformes laborieuses et influences Européennes” [The new legal framework for exports among states of central Africa: Between strenuous reforms and European influence] (2006) 857 Penant 443 at 445Google Scholar.
57 Uniform Act, art 235(a).
58 Id, art 255(1) and (2).
59 Mba-Owono “Non-conformité”, above at note 15 at 110–16.
60 Uniform Act, art 255(1) and (2).
61 Nsana, R Mevoungou “Les obligations du vendeur de marchandises dans l'Acte Uniforme OHADA” [The obligations of the seller of goods under the OHADA Uniform Act] (2000) 1/2 Revue Africaine des Sciences Juridiques 6 at 8–12 Google Scholar.
62 [1972] AC 441 at 503–04.
63 Uniform Act, art 255(2).
64 Id, arts 238(1) and 239.
65 Id, art 255(2).
66 Ibid.
67 Id, art 238(2).
68 Id, art 238(1).
69 Id, art 255(2).
70 Kendall v Lillico (1969) 2 AC 31 at 123 per Lord Wilberforce; Ijomo v Mid Motors Nigeria Ltd 2002 GWD 12-382 (Sherriff G Evans); Onutu v Adeleke and Another [1975] NLR 130.
71 2002 GWD 12-382.
72 Stoljar, S “Conditions, warranties and description of quality in sale of goods” (1952) 15 Modern Law Review 425 at 443–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
73 Uniform Act, art 255.
74 Id, arts 256–59.
75 Id, art 260(1).
76 SGA, sec 15.
77 See id, sec 15(2)(6).
78 See also similarly the American Uniform Commercial Code, art 2-313.
79 Atiyah et al The Sale of Goods, above at note 39 at 212–13.
80 Ginner v King (1890) 7 TLR 140.
81 [1967] LLR 115.
82 Uniform Act, art 255(2).
83 Ibid. See also Guide des Mesures Institutionnelles à Apprendre et de l'Assistance Technique [Guide to institutional measures for learning and technical assistance], vol I (1975, Centre du Commerce International sur La Promotion de l'Emballage pour l'Exportation).
84 Uniform Act, arts 256 (upon delivery), 275 (taking delivery shifts title) and 277(1).
85 Id, art 255.
86 Id, arts 238(2) and 239.
87 Boshali v Allied Commercial Exporters Ltd [1961] All NLR 946. This case was about “Quality AS 1,000 grey cloth”.
88 Santos and Toé OHADA Droit Commercial, above at note 32 at 392–93; Schwenzer (ed) Commentary, above at note 4 at 569.
89 Uniform Act, art 259(1).
90 Under art 1641 of the French Civil Code, for the purpose of an implied or legal guarantee, the defects must be hidden defects (vices cachés), unknown to the buyer.
91 Uniform Act, art 257.
92 Id, art 259. Under CISG, art 39, the time frame is two years: Huet, J Contrats Civils et Commerciaux, Responsabilité du Vendeur et Garantie Contre les Vices Cachés [Civil and commercial contracts: Responsibility of the seller and guarantee against hidden defects] (1987, Litec) at 42 Google Scholar.
93 Brown, RC “The liability of retail dealers for defective food products” (1939) 23 Minnesota Law Review 585 Google Scholar.
94 Uniform Act, art 255(2).
95 Ibid. As per the position in the civil codes of Cameroon (art 1641), Côte d'Ivoire (art 1641) and France (art 1641).
96 Uniform Act, art 281; CISG, art 45.
97 Uniform Act, art 281.
98 Id, arts 283–84.
99 Id, art 283.
100 G Giuliano “Nonconformity in the sale of goods”, above at note 29 at 7.
101 Uniform Act, art 257.
102 Ibid. See Leisinger, KB Fundamental Breach: Considering Non-Conformity of the Goods (2007, European Law Publishers) at 62 Google Scholar.
103 Ouagadougou Court of Appeal, Commercial Chamber (Burkina Faso), judgment no 25 of 15 May 2009, culled from Ohadata ref no J-10-211.
104 Philippe, M et al. Droit Civil, Les Contrats Spéciaux [Civil law: Special contracts] (3rd ed, LGDJ) at 182–83Google Scholar.
105 Uniform Act, art 257.
106 CISG, art 25; UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (2004), art 7.3.1.
107 This was the position under arts 246–48 of the old act, under which fundamental breach was known as “essential breach” [manquement essential]; see Nsie, E “La sanction de l'inexécution de la vente commerciale en Droit Uniforme Africain” [Remedies for non-performance in a sale of goods under the African Uniform Sales Law] (2003) 2/1 Revue Afrique et Politique 1 at 3Google Scholar.
108 Uniform Act, art 281.
109 Martor, B et al. Business Law in Africa, OHADA and the Harmonization Process (2nd ed, 2002, GMB Publishing) at 64 Google Scholar; Pougoué, PG and Elongo, YR Kalieu Introduction Critique à l'OHADA [Critical introduction to OHADA] (2008, Presses Universitaires d'Afrique) at 153 Google Scholar.
110 Uniform Act, art 281.
111 Id, art 282.
112 Ouagadougou Tribunal of Grande Instance (Burkina Faso), judgment no 067/2007 of 23 May 2007, culled from Ohadata ref no J-09-385.
113 Fundamental breach refers to a breach which goes to “the root of the contract” or which results in performance “totally different from that which the contract contemplates” with the effect of depriving the aggrieved party from achieving the main purpose for which he contracted and entitling the aggrieved party to sue for damages: Yakubu, J Ademola Law of Contract in Nigeria (2003, Malthouse Press Limited) at 259 Google Scholar.
114 Court of Appeal of Abidjan, judgment no 177 of 18 February 2003, culled from Ohadata ref no J-03-234.
115 Uniform Act, art 255(1).
116 Tribunal de Grande Instance, Mfoundi, civil judgment no 246 of 4 May 2002, culled from Ohadata ref no J-04-216.
117 Priest, GL “Breach and remedy for the tender of nonconforming goods under the Uniform Commercial Code: An economic approach” (1978) 91 Harvard Law Review 960 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
118 Goode Commercial Law, above at note 43 at 334 and 344.
119 Bradgate, R Commercial Law (3rd ed, 2005, Oxford University Press) at 312 Google Scholar.
120 Uniform Act, art 257; Santos and Toé OHADA Droit Commercial, above at note 32 at 392.
121 Leisinger Fundamental Breach, above at note 102 at 26.
122 Djieufack, R “The concept and importance of usage and practices established between the parties under the OHADA Uniform Act” (2013) 95 Juridis Périodique 114 Google Scholar.