International Sales Law

35-5

International Sales Law ◽

10.4324/9780203945445-99 ◽

2007 ◽

pp. 297-303

31-3

International Sales Law ◽

10.4324/9780203945445-92 ◽

2007 ◽

pp. 260-269

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

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

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

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

14-6

International Sales Law ◽

10.4324/9780203945445-69 ◽

2007 ◽

pp. 173-183

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

10-1

International Sales Law ◽

10.4324/9780203945445-61 ◽

2007 ◽

pp. 146-147

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

International Sales Law
Latest Publications

TOTAL DOCUMENTS

H-INDEX

Published By Routledge-Cavendish

35-5

31-3

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?

14-6

10-1

Export Citation Format

International Sales LawLatest Publications

TOTAL DOCUMENTS

H-INDEX

Published By Routledge-Cavendish

35-5

31-3

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?

14-6

10-1

International Sales Law
Latest Publications