Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law 2020 pp 3–39Cite as

For an Independent Development of the CISG Beyond Article 7 (2): A Stocktake and a Proposal

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law ((BYEIL,volume 2020))

Abstract

The 40th anniversary of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is an occasion to celebrate the remarkable success of the Convention that is approaching the symbolic number of 100 Contracting States and still inspires national legislators in their private law reforms. However, the Convention also shows some signs of its age: it does not contain rules on electronic commerce, intangible assets, standard terms or the consequences of hardship. The CISG thus needs an update in order to avoid its ossification and potential obsolescence. Given that a reform, supplementation or even the adoption of a new Convention would require a new diplomatic conference involving all 94 Contracting States, it is for courts and scholars to update the CISG from within by a dynamic interpretation and further development of the Convention. It is the purpose of this paper to take stock of the instruments provided by Article 7 CISG for such a contemporaneous development and also to inquire as to what is permissible beyond the supplementation of the Convention via its general principles pursuant to Article 7 (2) CISG. The paper argues that, while the CISG does provide some tools for its dynamic interpretation and supplementation, it is necessary to recognise an independent development of the Convention beyond Article 7 (2) CISG as a distinct category for the most challenging novel questions in international commerce that the drafters of the CISG more than 40 years ago could not anticipate. It proposes a methodological framework for such independent developments that should mirror the key characteristics of the Convention as uniform private law. According to this framework, independent developments beyond Article 7 (2) CISG should not only aspire to optimize the general principles of the Convention but also rely on detailed comparative analysis to assess the potential for international acceptance. The criteria suggested in this paper are neither exhaustive nor conclusive but should be understood as a contribution to the ongoing conversation on how to make the CISG fit for the next 40 years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Tripodi (2016), p. 158.

  2. 2.

    See, for the current status of the Convention, UNCITRAL, CISG, Status, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/salegoods/conventions/sale_of_goods/cisg/status (31.12.2020).

  3. 3.

    See, for an overview, Schroeter (2017a), p. 68.

  4. 4.

    See Janssen and Ahuja (2020), p. 2; Tripodi (2016), pp. 33 ff.

  5. 5.

    For a comprehensive discussion, see Tripodi (2016), pp. 33 ff.

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention, 2001), Article 61 (3), providing for an amendment by qualified majority; see also UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore, 2018), Article 15 (2), providing for an amendment by a qualified majority as a means of last resort.

  7. 7.

    Gruber (2003), p. 107; Schroeter (2017a), pp. 32 and 69 f.

  8. 8.

    Schroeter (2017a), pp. 69 f.

  9. 9.

    Schroeter (2017a), p. 70.

  10. 10.

    See Janssen and Meyer (2009); see, for a comprehensive discussion of international uniformity, Andersen (2007).

  11. 11.

    See, for a recent example, Bundesgericht, 28.5.2019, IHR 2019, 236 ff.

  12. 12.

    See, for an overview of the different positions, Atamer in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 79, para. 83 ff.

  13. 13.

    See, for a detailed explanation and with further references, Schroeter in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Article 19, para. 80.

  14. 14.

    See, with further references, Ferrari in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 19, para. 15.

  15. 15.

    Schwenzer in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Einleitung, sub III.2.

  16. 16.

    Lookofsky (2005–2006), pp. 87 and 105.

  17. 17.

    Schroeter (2017a), p. 48.

  18. 18.

    Bundesgerichtshof, 2.3.2005, IHR 2005, 158; Oberster Gerichtshof, 23.5.2005, IHR 2005, 165; Ferrari (2013), p. 140.

  19. 19.

    See, for a comprehensive discussion, Andersen (2007).

  20. 20.

    Bundesgericht, 2.4.2015 (2015) IHR 250, 257; Andersen (2007), p. 50; Bridge (2017a), para. 10.40; Ferrari in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 22; Gruber in Säcker et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 46; Köhler (2003), p. 22; Magnus (2009), p. 40; Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 45; Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), p. 51; see for a different view: Bonell in Bianca and Bonell (1987), no. 3.1.3: “If there is already a body of international case law, it may well be accepted as a sort of binding precedent”; DiMatteo (1997), p. 93: “informal system of stare decisis”; Mazzacano (2005–2006), p. 89: “ipso facto stare decisis”.

  21. 21.

    Andersen (2007), pp. 52 ff.; Köhler (2003), p. 22; Magnus (2009), p. 42; Schroeter (2017a), pp. 32 and 49; Spagnolo (2009), p. 165.

  22. 22.

    Ferrari in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 16; Gruber (2003), p. 106; Magnus (2018), Article 7, para. 20.

  23. 23.

    Bridge (2017a), para. 10.42.

  24. 24.

    Bridge (2017b), p. 115; Farnsworth (1995), p. 57; Schroeter (2017b), pp. 25 ff.; see, for a comprehensive overview of the different positions, Ferrari (2013), pp. 152 ff.

  25. 25.

    See, for controversial discussions concerning hardship, Bridge (2017b), p. 110; Flechtner (2014), pp. 200 f.

  26. 26.

    Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 23.

  27. 27.

    Magnus (2018), Article 7, para. 25, 43.

  28. 28.

    Andersen (2014), pp. 310 and 311; Zeller and Andersen (2016), pp. 1 and 3.

  29. 29.

    Bundesgerichtshof, 31.10.2001, BGHZ 149, 113, 118 f.; Thüringer Oberlandesgericht, 29.5.2015, IHR 2016, 194, 198; OLG Celle, 24.7.2009, CISG-online n° 1906; Renard Constructions v. Minister for Public Works, Court of Appeal of New South Wales, 12.3.1992, CISG-online n° 44; see also UNCITRAL, Digest, Ed. 2016, Article 7, para. 13.

  30. 30.

    Bridge (2017b), p. 115: “(T)he standard of discussion of good faith in the case law is profoundly disappointing”; but see, with a different assessment, Janssen and Ahuja (2020), p. 7: “fairly clear shape”.

  31. 31.

    Bridge (2017b), p. 115.

  32. 32.

    Gruber (2003), pp. 104 f.; see also Kropholler (1975), pp. 259 f.

  33. 33.

    Honnold and Flechtner (2009), para. 475; Schlechtriem (1986), p. 38, Fn. 111.

  34. 34.

    Ferrari in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Preamble, para. 3; Gruber (2003), p. 179; Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 43; Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Preamble, para. 3.

  35. 35.

    Honnold and Flechtner (2009), para. 475; Schroeter (2017b), p. 18.

  36. 36.

    Ferrari in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Preamble, para. 3; Gruber (2003), p. 179; Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 43; Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Preamble, para. 3.

  37. 37.

    Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 43.

  38. 38.

    Magnus (2018), Preamble, para. 7; Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Preamble, para. 3; Dörr in Dörr and Schmalenbach (2018), Art. 31, para. 49.

  39. 39.

    Eiselen (2009), p. 74; Magnus (2009), p. 40; Melis in Honsell (2010), Article 7, para. 3; Schroeter (2017a), p. 48; Witz (2001), p. 255.

  40. 40.

    Schroeter (2017a), pp. 32 and 48.

  41. 41.

    Ferrari (2013), p. 181; Gruber in Säcker et al. (2019), Article 7, para 12 f.; Magnus (2009), p. 52; see, for a similar view, Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 20.

  42. 42.

    Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 20; see also the comparison of the continental and the English methods, Vogenauer (2001), pp. 1295 ff.

  43. 43.

    See, e.g., on the unclear status of preparatory materials in the interpretation of US law, Fleischer (2013), p. 33.

  44. 44.

    Bridge (2017a), para. 10.41; Gruber in Säcker et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 14; Lookofsky (2017), p. 29; Magnus (2009), p. 53; Schwenzer (2014), p. 113.

  45. 45.

    Magnus (2009), p. 53.

  46. 46.

    Eiselen (2009), pp. 88 f.

  47. 47.

    Gruber in Säcker et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 17.

  48. 48.

    See, for a contrary view, Andersen (2007), p. 129: “important distinction (…) which we must be wary not to blur”.

  49. 49.

    Ferrari (2013), p. 186; Magnus (2009), p. 55; Torsello (2004), pp. 165 f. and 275 ff.

  50. 50.

    Ferrari (2013), p. 187: “based upon the same legislative intentions”.

  51. 51.

    Ferrari (2013), p. 187.

  52. 52.

    Ferrari (2013), pp. 183 ff.; Gruber in Säcker et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 18; Kramer (1996), p. 144; Magnus (2009), p. 56; Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 39; Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), p. 56; Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 22.

  53. 53.

    Magnus (2018), Einleitung, para. 20; Schwenzer in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Einleitung, sub. I.

  54. 54.

    Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 40; Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 22.

  55. 55.

    Meyer (2009), p. 342.

  56. 56.

    Gruber (2003), p. 198; Kadner Graziano (2017), p. 38; Köhler (2003), pp. 43 f.; Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 24.

  57. 57.

    Ferrari (2013), p. 187; Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), p. 58.

  58. 58.

    Magnus (2009), p. 56; Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 24; see also, for a supplementary function of comparative analysis, Gruber (2003), p. 224.

  59. 59.

    Schwenzer (2014), p. 114.

  60. 60.

    Gruber (2003), pp. 199 and 224; Schwenzer (2014), p. 114.

  61. 61.

    Meyer (2009), p. 342; see, for a nuanced view, Janssen and Ahuja (2020), p. 4.

  62. 62.

    Himmen (2007), pp. 61 ff.; Schwenzer (2014), p. 115.

  63. 63.

    Djordjevic in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 4, para. 6; Ferrari in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Article 4 para. 8; Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), p. 60.

  64. 64.

    Frigge (1994), p. 71; Köhler (2003), p. 46; see, also for a similar position, Magnus (1995), p. 475.

  65. 65.

    Frigge (1994), p. 71; Köhler (2003), p. 47.

  66. 66.

    See, generally, Canaris (1983), pp. 56 f. and 72 ff.

  67. 67.

    See, for comprehensive discussion of the problem, Himmen (2007), p. 63; Schmid (1996), p. 54.

  68. 68.

    Himmen (2007), p. 63; Schmid (1996), p. 54.

  69. 69.

    Bundesgerichtshof, 24.9.2014, BGHZ 202, 258, 278 ff.

  70. 70.

    Ferrari in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Article 4, para. 39, with further references.

  71. 71.

    Bundesgerichtshof, 24.9.2014, BGHZ 202, 258, 279.

  72. 72.

    Schmid (1996), p. 54.

  73. 73.

    Schroeter (2013), p. 564; Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), pp. 64 ff.

  74. 74.

    Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), pp. 65 ff.

  75. 75.

    Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), pp. 64 ff.

  76. 76.

    Schroeter (2013), p. 564; Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), pp. 67 f.

  77. 77.

    Himmen (2007), p. 80; see, for the primacy of interpretation over supplementation, Gruber (2003), p. 134; Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 29.

  78. 78.

    Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 30; Van Alstine (1998), p. 768.

  79. 79.

    Hartmann (2009), pp. 189 and 190; Paal (2011), p. 71.

  80. 80.

    Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), pp. 70 f.

  81. 81.

    Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), pp. 70 f.; see also Gruber (2003), p. 280.

  82. 82.

    Van Alstine (1998), pp. 694 and 777; see also Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 28, 30.

  83. 83.

    Bonell (1986), p. 234; Gruber (2003), pp. 286 ff.; Schmid (1996), pp. 66 f.; Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 31; see, for a more reluctant position, Himmen (2007), p. 215.

  84. 84.

    Gruber (2003), p. 287; Paal (2011), p. 86.

  85. 85.

    Himmen (2007), p. 163.

  86. 86.

    Gruber (2003), pp. 290 ff.; see, for a discussion of English law, Langenbucher (1998), pp. 491 ff.

  87. 87.

    Larenz (1991), p. 381; Koch and Rüßmann (1982), p. 260; Kropholler (1975), pp. 293 f.

  88. 88.

    Gruber (2003), p. 292.

  89. 89.

    See, for example, Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention, 2001), Article 5 (2), which is a verbatim transposition of Article 7 (2) CISG.

  90. 90.

    Andersen (2007), p. 127; Bridge (2017a), para. 10.47; Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 62.

  91. 91.

    Magnus (1995), pp. 477 f.

  92. 92.

    Flechtner (2014), p. 205; Gruber (2003), pp. 304 ff.; Michaels (1998), p. 606; Schroeter (2017a), pp. 32 and 65; Schwenzer (2014), pp. 117 f.; Witz (2001), p. 272; but see, for a different view, Magnus (2009), pp. 45 f.

  93. 93.

    Schwenzer (2014), p. 118; Veneziano (2010), p. 142; Witz (2001), p. 272.

  94. 94.

    Karollus (1991), p. 17.

  95. 95.

    Schroeter (2017a), p. 65; see, for an overview of recognised principles, Magnus (2018), Article 7, para. 41 ff.

  96. 96.

    BGHZ 202, 258, 278 ff.

  97. 97.

    Förster (2015), p. 833; Huber (2017), p. 272.

  98. 98.

    Bundesgerichtshof, 24.9.2014, BGHZ 202, 258, 278 ff.

  99. 99.

    See, however, for a detailed discussion of different set-off regimes, CISG AC, Opinion no. 18, Set-off under the CISG, Rapporteur: Fountoulakis, 0.1 ff.

  100. 100.

    Gruber in Säcker et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 41; see also Bock (2011), p. 185: “uniform evolution”; Karollus (1991), p. 15: “rechtsfortbildende Umdeutung”.

  101. 101.

    Gruber in Säcker et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 41 ff.; see, for a comprehensive discussion, Gruber (2003), pp. 276 ff., 313 ff., 326 ff.

  102. 102.

    See, for an explanation of this term in the context of the common law, Lord Hodge (2020), pp. 211 f.

  103. 103.

    Larenz and Canaris (1995), pp. 232 ff.; see for the use of the term in the Swiss discussion Kramer (2013), pp. 239 ff.

  104. 104.

    Schmid (1996), p. 27.

  105. 105.

    Unger in: Jansen and Zimmermann (2018), Article 1:106 (2), para. 1; Zimmermann (2019), p. 268.

  106. 106.

    Unger in: Jansen and Zimmermann (2018), Article 1:106 (2), para. 1; Vogenauer (2001), pp. 289 ff.; Zimmermann (2019), p. 268.

  107. 107.

    Zimmermann (2019), p. 268.

  108. 108.

    Kropholler (1975), p. 301; Schmid (1996), p. 27.

  109. 109.

    Gruber (2003), p. 107; Schroeter (2017a), pp. 69 f.

  110. 110.

    Tripodi (2016), p. 158, arguing for the adoption of a new CISG that includes service contracts.

  111. 111.

    Schroeter (2017a), p. 70.

  112. 112.

    Schlechtriem (2001), p. 18; see for the German reform of the law of obligations, Magnus (2008), p. 158.

  113. 113.

    See also Janssen and Ahuja (2020), p. 7.

  114. 114.

    Meyer (2009), p. 342; Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 40; Schroeter (2017a), pp. 32 and 69 f.; Schwenzer and Hachem in Schlechtriem and Schwenzer (2016), Article 7, para. 28, 30; see, with a detailed explanation of the dynamic interpretation, Van Alstine (1998), p. 687.

  115. 115.

    Meyer (2009), p. 342.

  116. 116.

    See, tentatively, Gruber in Säcker et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 41 ff.

  117. 117.

    See, generally for the optimization of principles in German law, Rüßmann (1990), pp. 55 f.; see generally Koch and Rüßmann (1982), pp. 244 and 262.

  118. 118.

    BGHZ 202, 258, 278 ff.

  119. 119.

    See, for a comprehensive justification of the inclusion of set-off, CISG Advisory Council, Opinion no. 18, Set-off under the CISG, Rapporteur: Fountoulakis.

  120. 120.

    See, for a history of Article 17 ULIS and Article 7 (2) CISG, Bergsten (2009), pp. 5 and 27 ff.; Magnus (1995), pp. 469 and 474 f.

  121. 121.

    Kropholler (1975), p. 301; Schmid (1996), p. 27.

  122. 122.

    Lookofsky (2005–2006), pp. 87 and 105.

  123. 123.

    Hof van Cassatie, 19.6.2009, CISG-online 1963; see also for the application of Article 6.2.2 UPICC in the Convention, Cass. com., 17.2.2015, n° 13-20.230, CISG-France n° 238; see for a critical discussion, Witz and Köhler (2017), p. 623.

  124. 124.

    Lookofsky (2011), pp. 141 and 165.

  125. 125.

    Veneziano (2010), pp. 137 and 144 ff.; Witz and Köhler (2017), p. 623.

  126. 126.

    Schwenzer (2009), pp. 721 ff.; Schwenzer and Muñoz (2019), pp. 164 f.

  127. 127.

    See, for example, Schwenzer (2009), pp. 721 ff.; Schwenzer and Muñoz (2019), p. 153; Witz and Köhler (2017), p. 623.

  128. 128.

    Gruber in Säcker et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 43.

  129. 129.

    Behrens (1986), p. 27; Meyer (2009), pp. 321 f.

  130. 130.

    Gruber (2003), pp. 326 ff.

  131. 131.

    See, for example for the case of set-off, CISG AC, Opinion no. 18, Set-off under the CISG, Rapporteur: Fountoulakis, Comments 0.4, 1.2. ff.

  132. 132.

    See, for German law, Bruns (2014), pp. 162 and 163; Koch and Rüßmann (1982), pp. 253 ff.

  133. 133.

    Zeller (2002), pp. 251 and 253: “trap of ‘manufacturing’ laws”; see also Bridge (2017b), p. 111: “A legal instrument that blows in the discretionary winds cannot provide the uniformity and certainty that prompted the quest for legal uniformity”.

  134. 134.

    Van Alstine (1998), pp. 721 ff. and 746.

  135. 135.

    Van Alstine (1998), p. 722.

  136. 136.

    Dörr in Dörr and Schmalenbach (2018), Article 31, para. 24 ff.

  137. 137.

    Dörr in Dörr and Schmalenbach (2018), Article 31, para. 24 ff.

  138. 138.

    Schlechtriem and Schroeter (2016), p. 52.

  139. 139.

    Meyer (2009), p. 342.

  140. 140.

    Schwenzer in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Einleitung, sub. III.2.

  141. 141.

    Bundesgerichtshof, 24.9.2014, BGHZ 202, 258, 278 ff.

  142. 142.

    Djordjevic in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 4, para. 41; Magnus (2018), para. 47.

  143. 143.

    Förster (2015), p. 833; Huber (2017), p. 272; Mankowski in Schmidt (2018), Article 4, para. 21 ff.

  144. 144.

    Gruber in Säcker et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 42.

  145. 145.

    Schwenzer in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Article 79, para. 30; see also Atamer in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 79, para. 81: “by way of analogy”.

  146. 146.

    Schwenzer and Muñoz (2019), pp. 149 and 153.

  147. 147.

    Schwenzer and Muñoz (2019), pp. 149 and 153.

  148. 148.

    But see, for a nuanced position on the applicable law, CISG Advisory Council, Opinion no. 14, Interest Under Article 78 CISG, Rapporteur: Atamer, Rule 9.

  149. 149.

    Gruber (2003), pp. 315 ff.

  150. 150.

    See Article 1 (2) Swiss Civil Code: ‘In the absence of a provision, the court shall decide in accordance with customary law and, in the absence of customary law, in accordance with the rule that it would make as legislator.’

  151. 151.

    Honsell in Geiser and Fountoulakis (2018), Article 1, para. 36.

  152. 152.

    See, for such a hierarchy, Ferrari (2013), p. 190, arguing for party autonomy as supreme principle; see also Himmen (2007), pp. 152 ff.

  153. 153.

    Magnus (2018), Einleitung, para. 8; Schroeter (2017b), p. 21: “equal balance”; Schwenzer (2016), p. 91.

  154. 154.

    Magnus (2018), Einleitung, para. 8; Schwenzer and Hachem (2009), pp. 476 f., pointing to the genesis of Article 44 CISG.

  155. 155.

    Schroeter (2017b), p. 21.

  156. 156.

    See, generally for a bilateral justification of private law rules, Bydlinski (2004), p. 395.

  157. 157.

    Schroeter (2017b), pp. 24 and 27; but also see the criticism of Micklitz and Diez Sanchez (2016), p. 277.

  158. 158.

    Menon (2015), p. 16; Micklitz and Diez Sanchez (2016), p. 286.

  159. 159.

    Article 2 lit. a CISG.

  160. 160.

    Article 4 S. 2 lit. a CISG.

  161. 161.

    Schroeter (2017b), p. 38.

  162. 162.

    See, for the validity of contract, UNCITRAL Yearbook VIII (1977), p. 93, nr. 25: “(T)he validity of contracts is (…) an important vehicle by which the political, social and economic philosophy of the particular society is made effective in respect of contracts.”

  163. 163.

    Schroeter (2017b), pp. 24 and 39.

  164. 164.

    Schroeter (2017b), pp. 24 and 39.

  165. 165.

    Micklitz and Diez Sanchez (2016), pp. 277 ff.

  166. 166.

    See, with respect to Articles 35 (2) (b), 44 CISG, Schroeter (2017b), pp. 43 ff.; Schwenzer (2016), pp. 83 ff.

  167. 167.

    Schroeter (2017b), p. 21.

  168. 168.

    See, for the consideration of human rights and customary international law, Butler (2016), pp. 299 ff.; see also Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 23.

  169. 169.

    Butler (2016), pp. 299 ff., pointing to Article 31 (3) (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

  170. 170.

    Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 23.

  171. 171.

    Schwenzer (2017a), pp. 124 and 126 ff.

  172. 172.

    Schwenzer (2017a), p. 130; Schwenzer and Leisinger (2007), pp. 270 f.

  173. 173.

    Schwenzer and Leisinger (2007), pp. 264 ff.

  174. 174.

    Schwenzer (2016), p. 82; Schwenzer and Leisinger (2007), p. 267.

  175. 175.

    Schlechtriem (2007), pp. 97 ff.

  176. 176.

    UNCITRAL Yearbook VIII (1977), S. 93, Nr. 25: “(T)he validity of contracts is (…) an important vehicle by which the political, social and economic philosophy of the particular society is made effective in respect of contracts.”

  177. 177.

    Schlechtriem (2007), p. 99.

  178. 178.

    See, for a contrary view, Butler (2016), p. 301; Perales Viscasillas in Kröll et al. (2018), Article 7, para. 23.

  179. 179.

    See, for the interpretation of the Convention, Ferrari in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 16; Magnus (2018), Article 7, para. 20.

  180. 180.

    Gruber (2003), p. 300.

  181. 181.

    See, on the interpretation of the Convention, Ferrari in Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Article 7, para. 40; Magnus (2018), Article 7, para. 37.

  182. 182.

    Magnus (2018), Article 7, para. 37.

  183. 183.

    Gruber (2003), p. 301.

  184. 184.

    See, for instance, Reimann and Zimmermann (2019) and Smits (2012).

  185. 185.

    Schwenzer et al. (2012).

  186. 186.

    Jansen and Zimmermann (2018).

  187. 187.

    Bridge (2017a), para. 10.40.

  188. 188.

    Schwenzer (2017b), p. 12.

  189. 189.

    CISG, Preamble, paragraph 3.

  190. 190.

    Meyer (2009), p. 324; Müller-Chen in: Schlechtriem et al. (2019), Article 46, para. 23.

  191. 191.

    Schroeter (2017a), p. 48; see, generally on economic analysis in the CISG, Cenini and Parisi (2009), p. 151.

References

  • Andersen CB (2007) Uniform application of the international sales law. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen CB (2014) Good faith? Good grief! Int Trade Bus Law Rev 17:310–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens P (1986) Voraussetzungen und Grenzen der Rechtsfortbildung durch Rechtsvereinheitlichung. RabelsZ 50:19–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergsten E (2009) Methodological problems in the drafting of the CISG. In: Janssen A, Meyer O (eds) CISG, methodology. Sellier, Munich, pp 5–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianca CM, Bonell MJ (eds) (1987) Commentary on the international sales law, the 1980 Vienna Convention. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock A-F (2011) Gewinnherausgabe gemäß CISG. In: Büchler A, Müller-Chen M (eds) Festschrift für Ingeborg Schwenzer zum 60. Geburtstag. Stämpfli, Bern, pp 175–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonell MJ (1986) L’Interpretazione del Diritto Uniforme alla Luce dell’Art. 7 della Convenzione di Vienna sulla Vendita Internazionale. Riv Dir Civ, pp 221–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridge M (2017a) The International Sale of Goods, 4th edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridge M (2017b) Good faith, common law, and the CISG. Uniform Law Rev 22:98–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns A (2014) Zivilrichterliche Rechtsschöpfung und Gewaltenteilung. JZ:162–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler P (2016) The CISG – a secret weapon in the fight for a fairer world? In: Schwenzer I (ed) 35 years CISG and beyond. Eleven, The Hague, pp 295, 299 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bydlinski F (2004) Die Suche nach der Mitte als Daueraufgabe der Privatrechtswissenschaft. Archiv für civilistische Praxis (AcP) 204:309, 395

    Google Scholar 

  • Canaris CW (1983) Die Feststellung von Lücken im Gesetz, 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cenini M, Parisi F (2009) An economic analysis of the CISG. In: Janssen A, Meyer O (eds) CISG, methodology. Sellier, Munich, pp 151–170

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMatteo L (1997) An international contract law formula: the informality of international business transactions plus the internationalization of contract law equals unexpected contractual liability. Syracuse J Int Law Commerce 23:67–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörr O, Schmalenbach K (eds) (2018) Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a commentary, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiselen S (2009) Literal interpretation: the meaning of words. In: Janssen A, Meyer O (eds) CISG, methodology. Sellier, Munich, pp 61–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Farnsworth EA (1995) Duties of good faith and fair dealing under the UNIDROIT principles, relevant international conventions, and national laws. Tul J Int Comp Law 3:47–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari F (2013) The CISG’s interpretative goals, its interpretative method and its general principles in case law. Zeitschrift für internationales Handelsrecht (IHR), pp 137–155 and 181–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Flechtner HM (2014) Uniformity and politics: interpreting and filling gaps in the CISG. In: Mankowski P, Wurmnest W (eds) Festschrift für Ulrich Magnus zum 70. Geburtstag. Sellier, Munich, pp 193–207

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer H (2013) Gesetzesmaterialien im Spiegel der Rechtsvergleichung. In: Fleischer H (ed) Mysterium “Gesetzesmaterialien”. MohrSiebeck, Tübingen, pp 1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Förster C (2015) Wesentliche Vertragsverletzung und Aufrechnung von Forderungen nach UN-Kaufrecht Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), pp 830–833

    Google Scholar 

  • Frigge B (1994) Externe Lücken und internationales Privatrecht im UN-Kaufrecht (Art. 7 Abs. 2). Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiser T, Fountoulakis C (eds) (2018) Basler Kommentar, ZGB I, 6th edn. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber UP (2003) Methoden des Einheitsrechts. MohrSiebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann F (2009) Ersatzherausgabe und Gewinnhaftung beim internationalen Warenkauf - Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Einfluss des UN-Kaufrechts auf die Entwicklung eines künftigen europäischen Vertragsrechts. Zeitschrift für internationales Handelsrecht (IHR), pp 189–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Himmen T (2007) Die Lückenfüllung anhand allgemeiner Grundsätze im UN-Kaufrecht (Art. 7 Abs. 2 CISG). JWV, Jena

    Google Scholar 

  • Honnold JO, Flechtner HM (2009) Uniform law for international sales under the 1980 United Nations Convention, 4th edn. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Honsell H (ed) (2010) UN-Kaufrecht, Kommentar, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber P (2017) UN-Kaufrecht: Bewährtes zu den Leistungsstörungen und Neues zur Aufrechnung. IPrax:268–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen N, Zimmermann R (eds) (2018) Commentaries on European contract laws. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen A, Ahuja NG (2020) The imperfect sales law: revamp, supplement or leave it alone? Zeitschrift für Internationales Handelsrecht (IHR):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen A, Meyer O (eds) (2009) CISG methodology. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadner Graziano T (2017) Autonome Auslegung und Rechtsvergleichung – (k)ein Widerspruch? Zu Legitimität und Nutzen richterlicher Rechtsvergleichung im Allgemeinen und im Einheitlichen Kaufrecht im Besonderen. In: Blaurock U, Maultzsch F (eds) Einheitliches Kaufrecht und Vereinheitlichung der Rechtsanwendung. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 13–41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Karollus M (1991) UN-Kaufrecht, Eine systematische Darstellung für Studium und Praxis. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch H-J, Rüßmann H (1982) Juristische Begründungslehre, Eine Einführung in die Grundprobleme der Rechtswissenschaft. CH Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler M (2003) Die Haftung nach UN-Kaufrecht im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Vertrag und Delikt. MohrSiebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer EA (1996) Uniforme Interpretation von Einheitsprivatrecht – mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Art 7 UNKR. Juristische Blätter 137:144

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer EA (2013) Juristische Methodenlehre, 4th edn. Stämpfli, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Kröll S, Mistelis L, Perales Viscasillas P (eds) (2018) UN-Convention on the International Sale of Goods, CISG, commentary, 2nd edn. CH Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropholler J (1975) Internationales Einheitsrecht. MohrSiebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Langenbucher K (1998) Argument by analogy in European law. CLJ 57:481–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K (1991) Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, 6th edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K, Canaris CW (1995) Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lookofsky J (2005–2006) Walking the Art. 7 (2) tightrope between CISG and domestic law. J Law Commerce 25:87–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Lookofsky J (2011) Not running wild with the CISG. J Law Commerce 29:141–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Lookofsky J (2017) Understanding the CISG, 5th edn. Kluwer, Alphen van den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Hodge P (2020) The scope of judicial law-making in the common law tradition. RabelsZ 84:211–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (1995) Die allgemeinen Grundsätze im UN Kaufrecht. RabelsZ 59:469–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (2008) Germany. In: Ferrari F (ed) The CISG and its impact on national legal systems. Sellier, München, pp 143–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (2009) Tracing methodology in the CISG: dogmatic foundations. In: Janssen A, Meyer O (eds) CISG, methodology. Sellier, Munich, pp 33–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (2018) Wiener UN-Kaufrecht - J. von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen. DeGruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzacano P (2005–2006) Canadian jurisprudence and uniform application of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Rev CISG, pp. 85–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon S (2015) Roadmaps for the transnational convergence of commercial law: lessons learnt from the CISG. https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/news/speeches/. Accessed 1 July 2020

  • Meyer O (2009) Constructive interpretation – applying the CISG in the 21st century. In: Janssen A, Meyer O (eds) CISG methodology. Sellier, Munich, pp 319–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (1998) Privatautonomie und Privatkodifikation, Zu Anwendbarkeit und Geltung allgemeiner Vertragsrechtsprinzipien. RabelsZ 62:580–626

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz HW, Diez Sanchez L (2016) The politics of fairness in CISG. In: Schwenzer I (ed) 35 Years CISG and beyond. Eleven, The Hague, pp 269–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Paal B (2011) Methoden der Lückenfüllung: UN-Kaufrecht und BGB im Vergleich. ZvglRWiss 110:64–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) (2019) The Oxford handbook of comparative law, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüßmann H (1990) Möglichkeit und Grenzen der Gesetzesbindung. In: Behrends O, Dießelhorst M, Dreier R (eds) Rechtsdogmatik und praktische Vernunft. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, pp 35–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Säcker FJ, Rixecker R, Oetker H, Limperg B (eds) (2019) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 4, 8th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P (1986) Uniform sales law: the UN-Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P (2001) 10 Jahre CISG – Der Einfluß des UN-Kaufrechts auf die Entwicklung des deutschen und des internationalen Schuldrechts. Zeitschrift für das internationale Handelsrecht (IHR):12–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P (2007) Non-material damages – recovery under the CISG? Pace Int Law Rev 19:89–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P, Schroeter UG (2016) Internationales UN-Kaufrecht, 6th edn. MohrSiebeck, Tübingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P, Schwenzer I (eds) (2016) Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG), 4th edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P, Schwenzer I, Schroeter UG (eds) (2019) Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht – CISG, 7th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid C (1996) Das Zusammenspiel von Einheitlichem UN-Kaufrecht und nationalem Recht: Lückenfüllung und Normenkonkurrenz. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt K (ed) (2018) Münchener Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch, Band 5, 4th edn. C. H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeter UG (2013) Defining the borders of uniform international contract law: the CISG and remedies for innocent, negligent, or fraudulent misrepresentation. Villanova Law Rev 58:553–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeter UG (2017a) Gegenwart und Zukunft des Einheitskaufrechts. RabelsZ 81:32–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeter UG (2017b) Does the 1980 Vienna sales convention reflect universal values? The use of the CISG as a model for law reform and regional specificities. Loyola of Los Angeles Int Comp Law Rev 41:1–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I (2009) Force majeure and hardship in international sales contracts. Victoria Univ Wellington Law Rev 39:709–725

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I (2014) Interpretation and gap-filling under the CISG. In: Schwenzer I, Atamer Y, Butler P (eds) Current issues in the CISG and arbitration, pp 109–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I (2016) The CISG – a fair balance of the interests of the seller and the buyer. In: Schwenzer I, Pereira C, Tripodi L (eds) CISG and Latin America, regional and global perspectives. Eleven, The Hague, pp 79–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I (2017a) Ethical standards in CISG contracts. Uniform Law Rev 22:122–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I (2017b) The CISG Advisory Council. In: Schwenzer I (ed) The CISG Advisory Council opinions. Eleven, The Hague, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I, Hachem P (2009) CISG – successes and pitfalls. Am J Comp Law 57:457–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I, Leisinger B (2007) Ethical values and international sales contract. In: Cranston R, Ramberg J, Ziegel J (eds) Commercial law challenges in the 21st century, Jan Hellner in Memoriam. Iustus, Stockholm, pp 249–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I, Muñoz E (2019) Duty to renegotiate and contract adaptation in case of hardship. Uniform Law Rev 24:149–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I, Hachem P, Kee C (2012) Global sales and contract law

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits J (ed) (2012) Elgar encyclopedia of comparative law, 2nd edn. Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Spagnolo L (2009) The last outpost: automatic CISG outs, misapplications and the costs of ignoring the Vienna Sales Convention for Australian Lawyers. Melb J Int Law 10:141–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Torsello M (2004) Common features of uniform commercial law conventions: a comparative study beyond the 1980 uniform sales law. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripodi L (2016) Towards a new CISG, the prospective Convention on the International Sale of Goods and Services. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Alstine MP (1998) Dynamic Treaty Interpretation. Univ Pa Law Rev 146:687–793

    Google Scholar 

  • Veneziano A (2010) UNIDROIT principles and CISG: change of circumstances and duty to renegotiate according to the Belgian Supreme Court. Uniform Law Rev 15:137–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogenauer S (2001) Die Auslegung von Gesetzen in England und auf dem Kontinent, Band II. MohrSiebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Witz C (2001) CVIM: Interpretation et Questions Non Couvertes. Int Bus Law J, pp 253–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Witz C, Köhler B (2017) Panorama Droit de la vente internationale de marchandises. Recueil Dalloz, pp 613–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeller B (2002) The Black Hole: where are the four corners of the CISG? Int Trade Bus Law Ann 7:251–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeller B, Andersen CB (2016) Good faith – the Gordian know of international commerce. Pace Int Law Rev 28:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann R (2019) Juristische Methodenlehre in Deutschland. RabelsZ 83:241–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Ben Köhler

Authors
  1. Ben Köhler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Köhler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Law, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Zlatan Meškić

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Ivana Kunda

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade, Belgrad, Serbia

    Dušan V. Popović

  4. Faculty of Law, University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Enis Omerović

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Köhler, B. (2021). For an Independent Development of the CISG Beyond Article 7 (2): A Stocktake and a Proposal. In: Meškić, Z., Kunda, I., Popović, D.V., Omerović, E. (eds) Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law 2020. Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law, vol 2020. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/16247_2020_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/16247_2020_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-65294-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-65295-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation