scholarly journals The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Guide to Research and Literature

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-70
Author(s):  
Claire M. Germain
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
International Sale Of Goods

On January 1, 1988, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the Convention) became effective in the United States. In general, the Convention (also referred to as the “Vienna Sales Convention,” the “Sales Convention,” the “CISG,” or the “UN Convention”) applies to contracts for the sale of goods between enterprises having their places of business in different countries, provided these countries have adopted the Convention. Freedom of contract, however, is a fundamental principle of the Convention, and the parties may opt out or modify the effects of its provisions.

Różne perspektywy dotyczące skutków art. 95 CISG

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Danuta Pohl-Michałek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
International Sale Of Goods ◽  
Conflict Of Law

The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) was adopted in order to provide uniform rules governing the international sale of goods. It has already been ratified by an impressive number of 92 Contracting States, with the major trading countries taking the lead. The CISG applies to contracts for the sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States, where the States are CISG Contracting States (Article 1(1)(a)). Moreover, it applies to contracts for the sale of goods when the contracting parties have their places of business in different States and when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a CISG Contracting State (Article 1(1)(b)). However, at the time of ratification, the prospective Contracting States are given the possibility of making additional reservations, including one set out in Article 95 CISG, which limits the application of Article 1(1)(b) of the Convention. Although there are some CISG Contracting States that initially applied the reservation but have since withdrawn it, there are still a few Contracting States where the reservation remains[1], including the two largest trading countries – China and the United States. The paper presents various approaches regarding the interpretation of the effects of the reservation set out in Article 95 CISG, which in fact challenge the principle of the uniform interpretation and application of the Convention’s provisions. The author argues that the Article 95 CISG reservation leads to increased confusion and problematic conflict of law issues that bring more chaos than benefits.   [1] The remaining Article 95 CISG Reservatory States are: Armenia, China, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Slovakia and the United States of America. Information is based on the official website: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=X-10&chapter=10 (accessed: 9.12.2019).

scholarly journals Freedom of Contract: Comparison Between Provisions of the CISG (Article 6) and Counterpart Provisions of the PECL

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich G. Schroeter
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
European Contract ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
International Sale Of Goods ◽  
European Contract Law ◽  
Court Practice

6 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration (2002), pp. 257-266The parties' freedom of contract ranks as one of the most important general principles embodied in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980 (CISG) as well as in a number of other sets of rules pertaining to international commercial law. The present paper analyzes if and how the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) may be used in order to interpret Article 6 CISG (the provision in the Sales Convention that deals with the freedom of contract) and discusses some pertinent problems that have arisen in court practice in this area.

scholarly journals The U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Issue Preclusion: A Traditional Collateral Estoppel Determination

2004 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina M. Sudol
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Commercial Disputes

Although the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provides for the “recognition” and “enforcement” of non-domestic arbitral awards in commercial disputes,1 this article will show that in order for an issue resolved through arbitration to be granted preclusive effect in subsequent litigation in the United States, the proponent must also satisfy the traditional requirements of collateral estoppel. In this way, the Convention’s reach is not quite as expansive as a party might expect, for the ensuing judicial analysis often involves complex questions of law and fact while maintaining respect for the favored status of international commercial arbitration. The result is far from per se preclusivity.

Interpreting merger clauses in contracts governed by the CISG: delineating the scope for the use of extrinsic evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditya Suresh
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Advisory Council ◽  
Sales Contracts ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
International Sale Of Goods ◽  
International Sales

Abstract Under Article 8(3) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), parties’ statements, prior negotiations and other external circumstances may be used to assess the presence of subjective or objective intent that can, in turn, be used to interpret contractual terms in international sales contracts governed by the CISG. However, parties to the contract can, through the adoption of an ‘entire agreement’ or ‘merger’ clause, opt out of this rule under Article 8(3) and restrict these interpretative tools in any manner as they see fit, depending on the requirements of their contract. Since the CISG does not explicitly address merger clauses and their effects, the CISG Advisory Council, in its Opinion no. 3, has provided a test to determine how the scope of a merger clause is to be determined. However, this test presents certain conceptual and practical limitations that render it inadequate for use in international commercial contracts. This article aims to analyse this test and the methods that have been used to interpret merger clauses under other uniform legal instruments and cases in common law jurisdictions. On this basis, the article proposes a test that attempts to fully capture the conceptual intent behind including merger clauses while ensuring that the parties are in the driver’s seat while determining their scope and effect.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document