The section 15A of the SGA 1979, which

The analysis made above on the CISG and English sales law
approaches to the remedy of termination/avoidance of contract has exposed some
of the similarities and differences between the two systems in respect of the
remedy. Firstly, it became clear that both under the English sales law and the
CISG, a buyer cannot terminate a contract for a “slim” breach, being this well-established
in Article 25 of the CISG 1980 and section 15A of the SGA 1979, which create
such limitation. Also, the
systems rationales as to the circumstances that entitle a buyer to obtain the
remedy are very similar, with both systems requiring a buyer to suffer considerable
detriment from a seller’s breach of contractual obligations, in order for it to
be granted the remedy. Secondly, it must be noted that there are ways in which
the two systems differ. For example, when triggering the remedy under the CISG,
the main consideration is whether a fundamental or non-fundamental breach has
occurred, being the emphasis placed on the nature of the breach, whilst under
the English sales law, the emphasis is placed on the classification of the
contractual terms breached, as
conditions, innominate terms or warranties. Lastly, having established the
above, it appears to be better to pursue this remedy at an English law level,
rather than under the CISG, not only because it is harder to successfully
obtain the remedy under the CISG, but also, due to the system’s pro-contractual
attitude, which would work against a buyer seeking such remedy.