No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Recent Developments in International Sales Law*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
Extract
The title of my address promises more than I can keep. As a precaution, I should at least add a question mark to this title, because I want to discuss whether there are any noteworthy recent developments in international sales law at all, and whether or not they are desirable. By “international sales law”, I understand Uniform Sales Law which is international for three reasons: first, because it applies to international sales; second, because it is in force in several countries; and finally, because it has been worked out “internationally”, i.e. by lawyers from diverse legal backgrounds. What I am talking about, therefore, is Uniform Sales Law within the meaning of the Hague Uniform Laws on International Sales—which are in operation also in Israel—as well as the Sales Convention which was passed at a diplomatic conference in Vienna in 1980. As to developments I would like to give a short overview of the reception the Hague Uniform Sales Law has received in Germany.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1983
References
1 Hellner, , “The UN Convention on International Sales of Goods—an Outsider's View,” in Festschrift für Stephan Riesenfeld (1983) S. 72.Google Scholar
2 For details see Hellner, , Köprätt (1982)Google Scholar: The first drafts of a uniform sales law were published in 1894; the Swedish version of the SGA was put into force in 1905, the Danish one in 1906 and the Norwegian one in 1907.
3 1st and 2nd Hague Conference of the Law of Bills of Exchange.
4 Even in that case, I don't think the old Hague Convention on the Law Applying to the International Sale of Movable Goods from June 15, 1955, which the Federal Republic never ratified, should be revived; rather, the approach to unify the conflicts rules for contractual relationships in general, as pursued in the EEC-Convention on the Law Applying to Contractual Relationships from June 19, 1980, should be taken up on an international level.
5 See the reviews by Ole Lando in (1983) 31 Am.J.Com.L. 731 ff., 732.
6 See The Unification of the Law of International Trade, 1965, and “Das neue Recht des Welthandels,” (1964) 28 RabelsZ 47 ff.
7 Sandrock, , Handbuch des internationalen Vertragsrechts, vol. 1, p. 399.Google Scholar
8 BGH 2.6.82, NJW 82, 2730.
9 Ibid.
10 See BGH 24.10.79, WM 80, 36 = IPRax. 81, 96, comment Weitnauer IPRax 81, 83; see also LG Essen v.10.6.80, MDR 81, 148 as to “Inkassokosten” as losses (yes).
11 BGH 22.10.1980, IPRax.81, 129 comment Schlechtriem, IPRax.81, 113.
12 LG Braunschweig 16.11.1982, RIW 1983, 371 f.
13 OLG Hamm 18.10.1982, NJW 83, 523 ff.
14 OLG Saarbrücken 4.7.79, RIW 81, 702 = NJW 80, 2648.
15 OLG Hamburg 9.7.1980, RIW 81, 262 f.
16 See Magnus, , “Europäische Kaufrechtsvereinheitlichung” (1981) 45 RabelsZ 151.Google Scholar
17 BGH 28.3.1979, BGHZ 74, 193 = NJW 79, 1779.
18 As a typical example, take Caemmerer's, Ernst v. influential article “Falschlieferung” in Festschrift für Martin Wolf (1952) 3 ff.Google Scholar, which rendered possible, once and for all, the breakthrough of the so-called subjective concept of defect and thus the incorporation of the seller's liability for defective goods into the general category of breach of contract.
19 See Larenz, , Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, vol. 2, (12th ed., 1981) § 45a, p. 144 ff.Google Scholar
20 Bill of May 6, 1976, BTDrs. 8/736; for the legislative history of this Act see Bartel, NJW 1979, 1384.
21 Huber, Ulrich, “Vertragsbruch,” in Gutachten und Vorschläge zur Reform des deutschen Schuldrechts, vol. 1, p. 647 ff.Google Scholar
22 Hellner, op. cit. supra n. 1 at 76.
23 See Hamm 18.10.82, IPRax 83, 231 = NJW 83, 523 = WM 82, 1445; BGH 23.9.1979, NJW 1979, 1779.
24 Cf. Honnold, , “The Uniform Law for the International Sale of Goods, The Hague Convention of 1964” (1965) 30 L. & Contemp. Prob. 326CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nadelmann, , “The Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods: A Conflict of Laws Imbroglio,” (1964–1965) 74 Yale L. J. 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Cf. Herber, RIW 1974, 578 f.
26 For the drafts see (1976) 7 UNCITRAL Yrbk. 89 ff.; (1977) 9 UNCITRAL Yrbk. 15 ff.
27 Cf. (1980) II UNCITRAL Yrbk. 37, 149 ff.
28 In ULIS, the Federal Republic had made use of the reservation of art. 3 of the basic convention and enacted a different text which also made the application dependent on “places of business in contracting states”; as far as I know, Israel ratified ULIS without this reservation.
29 Cf. BGH 2.6.82, NJW 82, 2730.
30 Cf. Hellner, op. cit. supra n. 1, according to whom the relationship between delivery at the right place and delivery at the right time, respectively the breach of these obligations, lacked clarity.
31 For the advantages of this concentration, see Huber, , “Der Uncitral—Entwurf cines Übereinkommens über internationale Warenkaufverträge,” (1979) 43 RabelsZ 416.Google Scholar
32 Hellner, op. cit. supra n. 1 at 86 ff.
33 Art. 61 ULIS has a different solution for the case where the seller demands full payment even though the goods would have been easy to resell: The seller cannot claim payment of the purchase price if it is in conformity with usage and reasonably possible for the seller to resell the goods—in that case there is ipso facto avoidance of the contract (art. 61 sub. 2).
34 Hellner, op. cit. supra n. 1 at 90.
35 At 91.
36 Cf. arts. 25, 26 (1) cl. 2 (2), 30 (1) cl. 2 (2).
37 Cf. Hellner, , “Ipso facto Avoidance,” in Festschrift für Weitnauer (1980) 85 ff.Google Scholar
38 Cf. Schlechtriem, , Einheitliches UN-Kauf recht (J.C.B. Mohr (Siebeck), Tübingen 1981) 92.Google Scholar
39 See art. 16 (2) (b).