Author
Listed:
- Schroeter, Ulrich G.
(University of Basel)
Abstract
in: Ingeborg Schwenzer and Lisa Spagnolo (eds.), Boundaries and Intersections: The 5th Annual MAA Schlechtriem CISG Conference, The Hague: Eleven International Publishing (2014), pp. 95-117 Throughout the history of uniform law for international sales, the rules governing the validity of cross-border sales contracts have proven particularly difficult to harmonize because they differ greatly between the various domestic laws. This dilemma inter alia resulted in the "validity exception" in Article 4 sentence 2(a) of the United Nations Convention for Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980 (CISG) being adopted as compromise, a provision that supposedly excludes such matters from the scope of the uniform sales law. The present article attempts to demonstrate that this provision in fact provides little assistance in deciding which validity-related matters are governed by the Convention and which are not, and that the "validity exception" is therefore in truth irrelevant. It continues by outlining a novel two-step approach to determining the CISG's scope with respect to validity issues. According to this approach, a domestic law rule (pertaining to validity matters or other issues) is displaced by the Convention if (1) it is triggered by a factual situation which the Convention also applies to (the "factual" criterion), and (2) it pertains to a matter that is also regulated by the Convention (the "legal" criterion). Only if both criteria are cumulatively fulfilled, the domestic law rule concerned overlaps with the Convention’s sphere of application in a way that will generally result in its preemption. In the last part of the article, three issues that may be viewed as concerning the "validity" of international sales contracts are discussed, each in turn being viewed through the traditional lenses of Article 4 CISG and the alternative two-step approach. These issues are: Mistakes and their effect upon CISG contracts; Consumer rights of withdrawal; The so-called "button solution" under recent e-commerce laws.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:lawarx:vtbpm. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/lawarxiv/discover .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.