The Seller's Liability for the Non-Conformity of Goods in a Contract of Sale under the OHADA Uniform Act on General Commercial Law: A Critical Analysis

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.