Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Law
  4. International Trade Law
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

12383 results in International Trade Law

Page 559 of 620

  • 4 - FORMATION: OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE RULES

  • Larry A. DiMatteo, University of Florida, Lucien Dhooge, University of the Pacific, California, Stephanie Greene, Boston College, Massachusetts, Virginia Maurer, University of Florida, Marisa Pagnattaro, University of Georgia
  • Book:
    International Sales Law
    Published online:
    06 August 2009
    Print publication:
    05 September 2005, pp 51-75

  • Summary

    Despite its general informality and incorporation of flexible, open-ended rules, the CISG provides specific rules of offer and acceptance to determine whether a valid contract has been concluded. The rules of offer and acceptance, concerning the necessary content, timing, and revocation of offers, are contained in Articles 14 through 24. A valid offer must “be addressed to one or more specific persons,” be “sufficiently definite,” and indicate the offeror's intention “to be bound in case of acceptance.” If the offer is not addressed to “one or more specific persons, it is merely an invitation to offer, unless the contrary is clearly indicated by the person making the proposal. Identification of the goods, quantity, and price are the essential elements that determine whether the offer fulfills the “sufficiently definite” requirement. An offer does not fail for lack of definiteness, however, if these terms are not expressly fixed. Article 14(1) allows such terms to be “implicitly” fixed or provided for in some other way.

    There are numerous, highly specific rules that control the effectiveness of offers and revocation of offers. An offer becomes effective when it reaches the offeree. Article 24 interprets “reaches” to mean that the offer has been communicated orally, delivered personally, or delivered to the offeree's place of business, mailing address, or habitual residence. If the offer is revoked before it reaches the offeree, it becomes ineffective even if the offer stated that it was irrevocable.

  • 3 - FORMATION: WRITING REQUIREMENTS

  • Larry A. DiMatteo, University of Florida, Lucien Dhooge, University of the Pacific, California, Stephanie Greene, Boston College, Massachusetts, Virginia Maurer, University of Florida, Marisa Pagnattaro, University of Georgia
  • Book:
    International Sales Law
    Published online:
    06 August 2009
    Print publication:
    05 September 2005, pp 32-50

  • Summary

    The CISG embodies a modern approach to contract formation, recognizing that contracts are often concluded quickly and without a formal writing. The CISG provisions dealing with contract formation are found in Part II of the convention, which contains the rules of formality and offer-acceptance. The rules of formality refer to the writing requirements, definiteness of terms, and types of admissible evidence. Offer-acceptance rules include issues dealing with the mechanics of formation, the battle of the forms scenario, and the firm offer rule. Article 29, found in Part III of the CISG, is concurrently analyzed for contract modification requirements. Before discussing the specific contract formation rules of the CISG, the first section of this chapter will briefly focus on the issue of precontractual liability. The CISG does not expressly cover the issue of precontractual liability. Nonetheless, the possibility for such liability is an important issue and will be examined first.

    PRECONTRACTUAL LIABILITY

    The subject of precontractual liability can be divided into two areas: first, the liability for the bad faith breaking off of negotiations; second, the enforceability of representations or informal writings given during the precontract or negotiation stage. According to American and English common law, a negotiating party owes no duty of good faith to the other party. One may terminate negotiations in bad faith without liability for the other parties' expenses. One major exception to this freedom of negotiation without liability is promissory estoppel or reliance theory.

  • 8 - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY SELLER

  • Larry A. DiMatteo, University of Florida, Lucien Dhooge, University of the Pacific, California, Stephanie Greene, Boston College, Massachusetts, Virginia Maurer, University of Florida, Marisa Pagnattaro, University of Georgia
  • Book:
    International Sales Law
    Published online:
    06 August 2009
    Print publication:
    05 September 2005, pp 132-139

  • Summary

    The remedies for breach of a contract by the seller are addressed in CISG Articles 45 through 52. Article 45 outlines the basic remedies of the buyer for the seller's breach. Article 45's remedial framework does not distinguish between material and nonmaterial breaches. Therefore, Article 45 must be read in conjunction with the notion of a fundamental breach described in Article 25. Enforcing its rights to substituted goods, extension of time, and avoidance found in Articles 46 through 52 does not prevent the buyer from subsequently seeking damages under Articles 74–6 (reviewed in Chapter 10). To this end, the following sections will review the range of buyer remedies outlined in Article 45.

    RIGHT TO SUBSTITUTED OR REPAIRED GOODS

    Article 46 gives the buyer the right to demand performance of the unperformed elements of a contract, which is a concept that draws from the civil law system but is considered an extraordinary remedy in the common law system. Under Article 46, the buyer may demand delivery of substitute goods if the lack of conformity of the goods constitutes a fundamental breach if he gives notice under article 39 or within a reasonable time thereafter. However, this right may be limited in some countries by Article 28, which relieves a court of the obligation to order specific performance if such a remedy would not be granted under domestic law. Finally, unless it is unreasonable under the circumstances, the buyer may require the seller to remedy the lack of conformity by repair.

  • 11 - SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS

  • Larry A. DiMatteo, University of Florida, Lucien Dhooge, University of the Pacific, California, Stephanie Greene, Boston College, Massachusetts, Virginia Maurer, University of Florida, Marisa Pagnattaro, University of Georgia
  • Book:
    International Sales Law
    Published online:
    06 August 2009
    Print publication:
    05 September 2005, pp 163-178

  • Summary

    CISG jurisprudence has done more good than harm in removing legal obstacles to international trade. It has helped to overcome what Franco Ferrari has called the problem of “nationality of law.” Although it has not yet attained critical mass, CISG jurisprudence has grown significantly. As it has grown, greater uniformity of application has been evidenced. One commentator predicts that “[a]s more case law and commentary on the Convention develops, courts will apply the Convention with more regularity. … This will bring more predictability in international sales law.”

    This Chapter will make observations taken from the analysis presented in the earlier Chapters of this book. These observations show that existing jurisprudence has already witnessed the coalescence or regularity of opinion pertaining to the development of specific default rules to fill in gaps in the CISG. These gaps are a result of both the vagueness in wording of many express CISG provisions and lack of express provisions in areas arguably within the scope of the CISG. The section on “Developing an International Jurisprudence” specifically discusses the importance of notice, trade usage, and particularized consent in CISG jurisprudence. This section also examines how courts have had to develop rules due to the CISG's failure to expressly allocate the burden of proof. This Chapter concludes with a note of caution represented by the persistence of homeward trend analysis found in too many CISG decisions.

  • 9 - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY BUYER

  • Larry A. DiMatteo, University of Florida, Lucien Dhooge, University of the Pacific, California, Stephanie Greene, Boston College, Massachusetts, Virginia Maurer, University of Florida, Marisa Pagnattaro, University of Georgia
  • Book:
    International Sales Law
    Published online:
    06 August 2009
    Print publication:
    05 September 2005, pp 140-150

  • Summary

    The CISG provides for numerous procedures and remedies in the event of late performance by the seller or default by the buyer. These procedures and remedies are set forth in Articles 47, 48 and 61 through 65. The initial procedure established by these articles relates to late performance by the seller. In such circumstances, the buyer may set an additional period of time of “reasonable length” for the seller's performance. The buyer may not resort to any remedy for breach of contract during this period of time unless the buyer receives notice from the seller that it will not perform the contract regardless of any such extension. However, the buyer may claim damages resulting from the seller's delay in performance. In addition, the seller may, after the date of delivery, remedy, at its own expense, its failure to perform. Despite this provision, the seller must be able to remedy its failure without “unreasonable delay and without causing the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or uncertainty of reimbursement of expenses advanced by it.” The seller may request the buyer to make known whether it will accept such performance, and the buyer is required to respond to this request within a reasonable time. Such request is in fact assumed to be contained in any notice by the seller that it will perform within a specified time. If the buyer does not respond, the seller may perform the contract within the time set forth in the request.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
  • Volume 3, Pages 963-1265
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers, and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2003: III reports on anti-dumping duties on imports of cotton-type bed linen from India (EC), definitive safeguard measures on imports of preserved peaches (Argentina), the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (US), export credits and loan guarantees for regional aircraft (Canada), the price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products (Chile), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
  • Volume 1, Pages 1-485
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers, and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2003: I reports on countervailing measures concerning certain products from the European Communities (US), measures affecting the importation of milk and the exportation of dairy products (Canada), the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (US), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
  • Volume 2, Pages 487-961
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers, and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2003: II reports on the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (US), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

  • United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WT/DS212): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 5-72

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities with respect to countervailing duties imposed or maintained by the United States on certain steel products originating in various Member States of the European Communities.

    Countervailing duties were imposed or maintained by the United States Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) in the course of 12 investigations: six original investigations, two administrative reviews, and four sunset reviews. Certain analyses in these investigations were undertaken pursuant to a United States statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)(F) (“Section 1677(5)(F)”), which reads as follows:

    Change of ownership. A change in ownership of all or part of a foreign enterprise or the productive assets of a foreign enterprise does not by itself require a determination by the administering authority that a past countervailable subsidy received by the enterprise no longer continues to be countervailable, even if the change in ownership is accomplished through an arm's length transaction.

    The subject products in the 12 original investigations and reviews in issue were produced by formerly state-owned enterprises that had been privatized at the time of the 12 underlying administrative determinations. The European Communities alleges that the privatizations in all 12 cases took place at arm's length and for fair market value. The United States did not rebut these allegations. Both participants agree that the changes in ownership relevant to this dispute concern only privatizations, that is, the change in ownership from government to private hands. All the privatizations concerned in this dispute involved a full change in ownership in the sense that in all 12 cases, governments had sold all, or substantially all, their ownership interests and, clearly, no longer had any controlling interests in the privatized producers.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217, WT/DS234): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 375-476

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 2000 (the “Panel Report”).

    On 12 July 2001, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand requested the establishment of a panel to examine the WTO-consistency of the United States Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the “CDSOA”). At its meeting of 23 August 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) established the Panel.

    On 10 August 2001, Canada and Mexico separately requested the establishment of a panel with respect to the same matter. At its meeting of 10 September 2001, the DSB agreed to those requests and, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), referred the matter to the Panel established on 23 August 2001.

    Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Thailand (the “Complaining Parties”) argued before the Panel that the CDSOA is inconsistent with Articles 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”), in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”), in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 4.10, 7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement; Article 5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”), Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement. In addition, with the exception of Australia, the Complaining Parties contended that the CDSOA is in violation of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994, Article 8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement. Furthermore, in a separate claim, Mexico argued that the CDSOA is in violation of Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement, and India and Indonesia asserted that the CDSOA undermines Article 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

  • Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft (WT/DS222): Decision by the Arbitrator under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 1187-1236

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 19 February 2002, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute. The DSB recommended, in particular, that Canada withdraw the subsidies found to be incompatible with its obligations under Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) within 90 days. The 90-day period expired on 20 May 2002.

    On 24 May 2002, Brazil stated that Canada had not followed the recommendation of the DSB within the time-period specified by the Panel and, pursuant to Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Brazil requested the DSB to authorize it to take appropriate countermeasures in the amount of US$3.36 billion.

    In its communication, Brazil specified, inter alia, that it intended to implement this authorization to take appropriate countermeasures in the form of some or all of the following:

  • (a) suspension of the application of the obligation under paragraph 6(a) of Article VI of GATT 1994 to determine that the effect of subsidization under EDC Canada Account and EDC Corporate Account programmes is to cause or threaten material injury to an established domestic industry, or is to retard materially the establishment of a domestic industry;

  • (b) suspension of the application of obligations under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures relative to licensing requirements on imports from Canada; and

  • (c) suspension of tariff concessions and related obligations under the GATT 1994 concerning a list of products to be drawn from the list attached to its request.

    • Request for Arbitration and Selection of the Arbitrator

    On 21 June, Canada submitted a communication to the DSB objecting to the recourse by Brazil to Article 22.2 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement. Canada stated that the countermeasures proposed by Brazil were not appropriate.

Page 559 of 620