Defective Goods and Notice Requirements Under the CISG

In CISG sales disputes, a buyer who receives defective goods must usually examine the goods and notify the seller of the non-conformity within the required time. Failure to give proper notice may cause the buyer to lose remedies even where the goods were genuinely defective.

Non-conformity means the goods do not meet the contract requirements, including quality, quantity, description, packaging or fitness for purpose. The CISG links buyer remedies to timely examination and notice.

CISG Articles 35 to 44 are central. Article 35 defines conformity. Article 38 requires examination within as short a period as practicable. Article 39 requires notice specifying the nature of non-conformity within a reasonable time. Turkish procedural law may govern evidence and litigation in Turkish courts.

Courts and tribunals examine timing, content and proof of notice. A complaint that merely says 'goods are bad' may be insufficient. The buyer should specify the defect, quantity affected, inspection result and remedy sought. This section deliberately avoids invented case numbers. Where a case-specific filing relies on precedent, the relevant Court of Cassation, regional appellate court or Constitutional Court materials should be checked against the current file and date of publication.

The practical debate concerns what counts as a reasonable time. This depends on the goods, industry, defect type, transport, inspection possibility and communications between the parties. Perishable goods and obvious defects usually require faster action.

The buyer must show that the goods were non-conforming and that notice was given properly and timely. The seller may argue late notice, vague notice, misuse, transport damage or acceptance.

There is no single universal number of days for every CISG notice. Article 39 uses a reasonable-time standard, with a two-year long-stop rule unless inconsistent with a contractual guarantee. Contractual inspection clauses may add stricter requirements.

The dispute may be heard by the chosen court or arbitral tribunal. If Turkish courts hear the matter, evidence rules and expert examination under Turkish procedure may be decisive.

Key evidence includes inspection reports, photos, samples, laboratory analysis, transport records, warehouse records, notices, e-mails, expert reports and records showing when the buyer discovered or should have discovered the defect.

The buyer should preserve the goods and evidence. The seller should ask immediately for inspection details, samples and proof of timing. Both sides should avoid informal statements that later weaken their position.

Common mistakes include late complaint, vague complaint, destroying or reselling defective goods without evidence, failing to separate transport damage from manufacturing defect and ignoring contractual notice clauses.

Does the buyer always lose rights if notice is late?

Late notice can seriously limit remedies, but the facts and CISG exceptions must be assessed.

Is oral notice enough?

It may create proof problems. Written notice is safer.

Can Turkish law replace CISG notice rules?

Not where the CISG governs the issue, unless the Convention is excluded or a gap exists.

Many CISG defect cases are won or lost on notice. The factual defect matters, but timing and specificity often matter just as much.

The correct legal route in these matters must be determined by reference to the date of the events, the legal position of the parties, the available evidence and the applicable statutory deadlines. Missing a deadline, applying to the wrong authority or presenting evidence in the wrong procedural form may cause loss of rights. You may contact Günser + Partners for an assessment of your matter under current Turkish legislation and court practice.