ScienceGate
Advanced Search
Author Search
Journal Finder
Blog
Sign in / Sign up
ScienceGate
Search
Author Search
Journal Finder
Blog
Sign in / Sign up
International Sales Law
Latest Publications
TOTAL DOCUMENTS
211
(FIVE YEARS 0)
H-INDEX
0
(FIVE YEARS 0)
Published By Routledge-Cavendish
9780203945445
Latest Documents
Most Cited Documents
Contributed Authors
Related Sources
Related Keywords
Latest Documents
Most Cited Documents
Contributed Authors
Related Sources
Related Keywords
35-5
International Sales Law
◽
10.4324/9780203945445-99
◽
2007
◽
pp. 297-303
Download Full-text
31-3
International Sales Law
◽
10.4324/9780203945445-92
◽
2007
◽
pp. 260-269
Download Full-text
b) What could these be? Q 27-4 a) What does the party relying on Art. 27 CISG have to prove? b) How is proof to be provided? Q 27-5 a) What are the ‘means appropriate’ in the circumstances? b) What about from a language perspective? Q 27-6 Does the issue of ‘appropriate means’ even fall within the ambit of Art. 27 CISG? CISG-Advisory Council Opinion No. 1, Electronic Communications under CISG:
International Sales Law
◽
10.4324/9780203945445-86
◽
2007
◽
pp. 229-231
Keyword(s):
Advisory Council
◽
Electronic Communications
Download Full-text
ULIS as what the parties would have regarded as fundamental had they put their minds to it. Although this arguably advocates an objective standard of determination, even at this stage, dispute prevailed as to whether a subjective or an objective standard should be applied in determining the ‘fundamental’ nature of a breach. Ultimately it was decided that the seriousness of the breach should not be defined by reference to the (objective) extent of the damage, but rather to the (subjective) interests of the promisee as actually set out by the contract. Questions Q 25-1 Is the question of the existence of a substantial detriment relevant? Q 25-2 a) How does foreseeability come into play? b) Who bears the burden of proof?
International Sales Law
◽
10.4324/9780203945445-84
◽
2007
◽
pp. 224-227
Keyword(s):
Burden Of Proof
◽
Fundamental Nature
◽
Objective Standard
Download Full-text
Drafting history Art. 24 CISG can be traced back to the definition of the expression ‘to be communicated’ in Art. 12(1) ULF and was repeatedly amended in the Working Group. Particular con-sideration was given to oral declarations and the addressee’s place of habitual residence. Art. 24 CISG and the age of electronic communication
International Sales Law
◽
10.4324/9780203945445-83
◽
2007
◽
pp. 222-223
Keyword(s):
Working Group
◽
Electronic Communication
◽
Habitual Residence
◽
Definition Of
Download Full-text
b) Could the holding of the OGH (C 14–8) be applied to a battle of the forms situation? Q 19-12 a) What role does the language of the negotiations play? b) What about where the language of the negotiations and the language of the contract itself differ?
International Sales Law
◽
10.4324/9780203945445-82
◽
2007
◽
pp. 211-221
Download Full-text
14-6
International Sales Law
◽
10.4324/9780203945445-69
◽
2007
◽
pp. 173-183
Download Full-text
Q 14-2 a) What other instances can be held as being ‘sufficiently definite’ to constitute an offer under the CISG? b) What about under § 2–204 UCC? Q 14-3 An offer will not be valid simply by virtue of Art. 14 CISG alone. What matters under domestic law will also need to be taken into consideration in determining whether or not a valid offer has been made? 2. Intention to be bound For a proposal to constitute an offer for the purposes of the CISG, it must not only be sufficiently definite, but also exhibit an intention on behalf of the offeror to be bound. Whether an intention to be bound exists is to be interpreted on the facts of the individual cases by recourse to the provisions of Art. 8 CISG. 14-2
International Sales Law
◽
10.4324/9780203945445-67
◽
2007
◽
pp. 166-168
Keyword(s):
The Individual
◽
Q 14
◽
Domestic Law
◽
What Matters
Download Full-text
10-1
International Sales Law
◽
10.4324/9780203945445-61
◽
2007
◽
pp. 146-147
Download Full-text
Q8-2a) How are Art. 8(1) and (2) CISG to be distinguished from each other? b) Do the UP 2004 and the PECL make the same differentiation? Cf. Arts 4.1, 4.2 UP 2004, Art. 5:101 PECL. Q8-3a) What is the interaction between Art. 8(2) and (3) CISG? b) Do you find a similar mechanism in the UP 2004 and the PECL? c) Which respective provisions in the UP 2004 and the PECL correspond to Art. 8(3) CISG? Q8-4a) Match the interpretation rules of the UP 2004 to the corresponding provisions of the PECL. b) Does either of these two sets of rules have a greater scope than the other? c) Which general principle do Art. 4.5 UP 2004, Art. 5:106 PECL reflect? d) Which questions left open by Art. 8 CISG are explicitly addressed by the UP 2004 and the PECL? Q8-5 Which facts did the Bezirksgericht St. Gallen (C 8–1) rely on in holding that the buyer had shown that it considered itself bound? Q8-6 Whether it makes a difference that the standard terms are written in a language different to the one in which the rest of the contract is held is open to debate. Discuss this, taking into consideration Art. 4.7 UP 2004, Art. 5:107 PECL. Q8-7a) Why are the provisions governing the conclusion of the contract (arts 14 et seq. CISG) apparently inadequate to conclusively deal with the inclusion of standard terms? b) What differences do you see between the UP 2004 and the PECL, on the one hand, and the CISG, on the other hand, regarding the interpretation of standard terms? Applicability of other rules of interpretation and evidence?
International Sales Law
◽
10.4324/9780203945445-53
◽
2007
◽
pp. 123-123
Keyword(s):
General Principle
◽
The Other
◽
Other Hand
◽
The One
◽
Standard Terms
Download Full-text
Load More ...
Sign in / Sign up
Close
Export Citation Format
Close
Share Document
Close