Forestal Guarani, S.A., is an Argentinian company that manufactures and sells lumber products. Its principal place of business is Argentina. Daros International, Inc. is a New Jersey-based importexport company. In 1999, Daros ordered wooden finger joints from Forestal. The agreement was oral; there was no written documentation of the order. Forestal claims that the invoiced amount due was $1.85 million. Daros paid $1.45 million. The difference was $400,000 for which Forestal sued. 

Daros claimed that the difference in price could not be proven with credible evidence since there was no documentary evidence of the actual price agreed upon. The CISG does not generally require that a contract’s enforceability is negated if there is a lack of documentation. However, Daros claims that Argentina opted out of the “no-writing requirement” for CISG contracts. The United States has not. So, does the CISG as applied by the United States control or does the CISG of Argentina control? If the US version controls, the no-documentation provision is applicable and Daros’s argument is weakened. If Argentina’s “writing is required” provision is applicable, then Forestal’s argument is weakened.