Search results

The aims and objectives of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) have been defeated by the intrusion of domestic laws of different contracting states in the interpretation of the provisions of this Convention. One of the most abused channels of this un-uniform interpretation is through art 4 of the CISG, which excludes the matters of validity and property from the Convention’s jurisdiction. This paper, therefore, aims to critically analyze the dangers of unsystematic reliance on the domestic laws in the interpretation of art 4 of the CISG on matters involving transnational validity and property.

The paper will use doctrinal methodology with critical and analytical approaches. The paper will incisively study the doctrines, theories and principles of law associated with validity of commercial contracts and the implications of exclusion of the doctrine of “validity” under the CISG.

The findings and contribution to knowledge will be by way of canvassing for a uniform transnational validity doctrine that will streamline and position the CISG to serve as a uniform international commercial convention.

This paper adopted a conceptual approach. Even though the paper ventilated the views of many writers on the issue of application of the doctrine of validity under the CISG, the paper, however, carved its own niche by making original recommendations on how to create a uniform validity jurisprudence under the CISG.

This article seeks to take a critical look at the proposed Common European Sales Law (CESL).

The article looks at the rationales given to support the enactment of the CESL. The approach is critical in nature seeking to vet the plausibility of the rationales given for a new regulation The article also takes a critical look at the CESL's structure and trilogy of coverage – sale of goods, supply of digital content, and supply of services.

The article exposes some of the shortcomings of the CESL and the dangers to substantive private law of crafting a regulation based on political feasibility.

The CESL as proposed offers some innovative ideas in areas of the bifurcation of businesses into large and small to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as rules covering digital content and the supply of trade‐related services. In the end, the analysis suggests a more thorough review is needed to better understand the CESL's interrelationship with the Convention on Contracts for the International Sales Law (CISG) and EU consumer protection law.

Further analysis is needed and unanswered questions need to be answered prior to the enactment of the CESL into law. A practical first step would to begin with a more targeted law focused on internet trading and licensing contracts.

This article questions the rationales given for the enactment of an ambitious new regulation covering disparate areas of sale of goods, supplying (licensing) of digital content, trade‐related services, and consumer protection. It further questions the rationality and practicality of the creation of the designation of SMEs as types of businesses in need of extra protections not currently provided by contract law's general policing doctrines.

This article aims to take a critical look at the proposed Common European Sales Law (CESL) and its field of application.

The article provides a comparative analysis of the scope of application of CESL with that of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG). The approach is critical in nature in that it questions the regulation of business‐to‐business (B2B) transactions under CESL. It also takes a critical look at the CESL and its coverage of three areas of contracting – sale of goods, supply of digital content, and supply of services.

The article exposes some of the shortcomings of the CESL in relation to its field of application.

The CESL as proposed offers an optional regulation that complicates the law of transborder sales within the European Union (EU) and between EU member states and non‐EU states. The article recommends that CESL not extend its coverage to B2B transactions and leave transborder commercial transactions to the CISG. The article also suggests other changes to improve the CESL.

Further analysis is needed and more defined rules should be considered before CESL is enacted into law.

This article questions the wide scope of application of CESL. It further questions the rationality and practicality of the CESL's coverage of B2B transactions.

North Korea joined the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) as a 90th member on March 27, 2019, which will necessitate the understanding of North Korean laws, in particular, the contract law for sale. This paper aims to compare the CISG and the North Korean contract law as to the formation of a contract focusing on form and writing requirement, offer and acceptance.

This paper analyzes the provisions of the North Korean Civil Code and the CISG and reviews the previous research studies concerning the formation of a contract.

The CISG and the North Korean Civil Code are very similar in many aspects as to the formation of a contract. However, there are some discrepancies as to the formation of a contract to which the parties need to pay attention in choosing the governing law.

The parties need to pay attention to the differences concerning the formation of a contract between the North Korean Civil Code and the CISG in concluding a contract for sale with North Korea.

This paper will be the first research work, to the best of the author’s knowledge, on the comparison of the CISG and the North Korean contract law as to the formation of a contract.

This paper aims to explore the way in which informational asymmetries between the two parties to a contract for the sale of goods are dealt with under two legal regimes designed for transnational sales contracts: the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) and the proposed Common European Sales Law (CESL).

Having considered the different types of informational asymmetry that can exist in a contract of sale, the paper undertakes a doctrinal legal analysis of the relevant provisions first in the CESL and then the CISG to identify what, if anything, has been done to deal with informational asymmetries. The paper primarily exposes and analyses these rules and compares the approaches taken under both legal regimes.

The CESL has a more detailed set of rules which address informational asymmetries. This might be because the genesis and context of the CESL (being limited to the EU) might make it easier to agree on more extensive rules. However, the CESL has not yet been adopted.

A seller in a contract of sale governed by CESL will be subject to more detailed (and onerous) requirements when it comes to the disclosure of information.

This is a first attempt to compare the treatment of informational asymmetries under the CISG and CESL, and will be of interest to scholars of both transnational and EU private law.

The purpose of this article is to compare the methods of interpretation and gap filling in the United Nations Sales Convention (CISG) and in the Draft Common European Sales Law (CESL). In particular, it aims to examine whether the established interpretation and gap filling method of the CISG can and should be used for the CESL.

The article looks at the method by which international case law and doctrine interpret the CISG and fill its gaps. The article compares this method with the method that is provided for in the CESL instrument but has to be implemented.

It is suggested that despite its nature as European community law, CESL should be interpreted in a broad international way since it does not only cover internal EU sales, but also transactions involving parties from outside the EU. For this reason its interpretation and gap filling should follow the method of the CISG so as to interpret similar provisions in a similar way in order to harmonize law within and outside the EU.

Both the CISG and CESL intend to unify legal traditions or different legal systems; the CISG tries to harmonize globally what CESL tries to harmonize regionally. It is important that these two instruments complement one another by the avoidance of divergent interpretations of similar provisions. It would helpful for further research to assess whether and how two decades of experience with the CISG can be used in the interpretation and application of CESL.

CESL's interpretation provision, if it is enacted, is unlikely to change from the current version. The way CESL is interpreted and how its gaps filled will determine its practical significance as a viable opt‐in national law. It is therefore necessary to develop in advance the right interpretive methodology if CESL is to become a meaningful alternative instrument.

The article suggests that the CESL should not be interpreted in the traditional way European community law is interpreted, but, instead, be interpreted under a broad international perspective. It also advances the idea of interconventional interpretation by which the CISG would guide the interpretation of similar provisions found in CESL.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze the rules on the formation of contracts under Korean law and the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) in a comparative way and introduce the relevant proposed rules under the Amendment Draft of the Korean Civil Code (KCC). In addition, it attempts to compare and evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law.

In order to achieve the purposes of the study, it executes a comparative study of the rules as to the formation of contracts of the CISG, Korean law and the Amendment Draft of the KCC. The basic question for this comparative study is placed on whether a solution from one jurisdiction is more logical than the others and to what extent each jurisdiction has responded to protect the reasonable expectations of the parties in the rules as to the formation of contracts.

The comparative study finds that most of the rules under the CISG are quite plausible and logical and they are more or less well reflected in the proposals advanced by the KCC amendment committee. On the other hand, the other rules under the CISG which have brought criticisms in terms of their complexity and inconsistent case law invite us their revision or consistent interpretation. The drawbacks of the CISG have also been well responded in the Amendment Draft of the KCC. Nevertheless, it is quite unfortunate that the Amendment Draft of the KCC still has a rule that regards any purported performance with non-material alteration of the terms of an offer as an acceptance.

This study may provide legal and practical advice to both the seller and the buyer when they enter into a contract for international sales of goods. In addition, it may render us an insight into newly developed or developing rules in this area and show us how they interact with each other. Furthermore, it may be particularly useful in Korea where there is an ongoing discussion for revision of the KCC.

Precontractual liability may be imposed when a party acts in bad faith to damage the other party, when a party negotiates in order to discover business secrets with no intention of reaching a final agreement, or when a party to a non‐binding letter of intent terminates negotiations during a later phase of negotiations without legitimate reason. The purpose of this article is to clarify the concept of the duty to negotiate in good faith, either for Civil Law or Common Law system practitioners.

The paper describes the concept of good faith and fair dealing and its effects on the negotiation process. After establishing this description, we will analyze the differences in the interpretation and the application of the concept of good faith in the pre‐contractual procedure. The article explores the Civil Law approach for this matter, followed by the Common Law approach. In order to illustrate the Common Law System, we will focus on English and American Law, while we will look mainly at German, Brazilian and French Law to illustrate the Civil Law. In the conclusion, we will compare the approaches of the two systems.

The obligation of good faith in negotiation is found practically in all civil law system countries and generally provides a remedy for a wrongful conduct produced by a bad faith act. However, there is no general rule in Common Law requiring the parties to negotiate in good faith. We are in favor of applying a more expansive view of good faith obligations for international business transactions involving two or more different countries from these two different legal systems (civil law and common law), so as to apply them to the duty to negotiate arising from preliminary agreements and negotiations.Although there is no general rule about pre‐contractual liability in the common law system, we strongly believe that the existing body of case law and statutes may punish a party which engages in unfair conduct at the pre‐contract stage if the parties had signed a letter of intent or a memorandum of understanding, requiring them expressly and clearly to “act in good faith” and/or “to use their best efforts to reach an agreement”.

This article has discussed a relatively unexplored area related to the obligation of good faith in negotiation either for civil law and common law's practitioners. Our research has highlighted the complexity of this matter between these two legal systems, and has helped to the identification of the concept of good faith in a relation between two or more parties.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.