A large part of the agricultural products that are sold in Sweden are imported because Sweden cannot meet the consumers agriculture products demand all year around. One problem that can occur and become problematic when trading across boarders is if there are errors in the delivered agricultural products. What must the Swedish buyer do, for example, make for it to be considered complained fault in the goods against the seller? Another problem in international trade is that the buyer may need to apply complaint rules they have not previously been in contact with since their domestic law is not always applicable to the contract. To avoid getting into this situation, the buyer should try to negotiate with the seller that the contracting parties shall use compensation claim rules that the buyer is familiar with, or which is even more advantageous than to the seller. This so that the buyer is not likely to neglect their right to sanctions against the seller. Since there are many different compensations claim rules to choose from for a buyer, it will be investigated in this paper which of the complaint rules of KöpL, CISG and the DCFR that is most advantageous complaint claims for the buyer regarding complaints of agricultural products. The paper will discuss and compare the complaint rules in KöpL, CISG and the DCFR about the risk of agriculture products, the buyer's duty, the buyer’s complaint period and the content and form of a message. With the help of discussion, it will appear that the KöpL has the most advantageous compensation claim rules for the buyer when the buyer is complaining about the delivered agricultural products to the seller. This because KöpL is most beneficial for the buyer regarding when the risk of agricultural products shall be deemed to pass to the buyer and the criterion concerning the content of the buyer’s complaint.