Now in effect in more than 75 States, the Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG) provides the contractual gap-filling regime for countless cross-border transactions each year. But prevalence is not necessarily a compelling success standard, and the Convention has been subjected to considerable criticism, not only because key treaty rules are susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, but also because courts and academics have adopted inconsistent positions on the very scope of the treaty: (e.g.) does the CISG regulate "hardship"? To illustrate the nature and complexity of such problems and the range of possible solutions, and to counter the positions taken by academics who adopt an "expansionist" approach, the author explores recent CISG decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Israel and the Cour de cassion of Belgium.