The present state of european private law

American Journal of Comparative Law

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 479-512

  Zimmermann, Reinhard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649612992     PISSN: 0002919X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5131/ajcl.2008.0014     Document Type: Review

References (236)

1. Resolution of the European Parliament of May 26,1989 on action to bring into line the private law of the Member States (OJ C 158/89, 400).
2. TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE (Arthur Hartkamp et al. eds., 1994).
3. Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ L 171/99, 12); on which see the commentary by STEFAN GRUNDMANN & CESARE MASSIMO BIANCA, EU SALES DIRECTIVE: COMMENTARY (2002).
4. REINHARD ZIMMERMANN, THE NEW GERMAN LAW OF OBLIGATIONS: HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES (2005) (on liability for non-conformity in German sales law before and after the enactment of the Directive, see 79-121).
5. TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE (Arthur Hartkamp et al. eds., 3d ed. 2004).
6. Ewoud Hondius, Towards a European Civil Code, in TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE, supra note 5, at 11. Cf. also 16: "The time has now come to adopt such a Code."
7. PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, OUTLINE EDITION (Christian von Bar et al. eds., 2009). The six-volume full edition of the Draft Common Frame of Reference including comments and notes is due to appear in Autumn 2009. For the time being, an INTERIM OUTLINE EDITION (2008), is available. That INTERIM OUTLINE EDITION has been used for the preparation of this paper. (Just before this paper went to print, the OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, has become available. Changes between the two documents have been indicated, throughout this paper, in brackets.)
8. This paper is based on a lecture presented to the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science on January 12, 2009 in Amsterdam. It will also appear as part of the Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen for the year 2009.
9. RUDOLPH VON JHERING, GEIST DES RÖHTS AUF DEN VER- SCHIEDENEN STUFEN SEINER ENTWICKLUNG, PART ONE 232 (6th ed. 1907) ("Ein Zwischenhandler war der erste Vorkampfer der Kultur; er vermittelte mit dem Aus- tausch der materiellen Giïuch den der geistigen und bahnte die Strassen des Friedens").
10. The etymology is not quite clear; see A. WALDE, LATEINISCHES ETYMO- LOGISCHES WORTERBUCH (4th ed., vol. I, 1965) (referring to the terms inter and pretium); cf. also Jhering in a note to the sentence quoted in the previous footnote. But see MICHIEL DE VAAN, ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF LATIN AND THE OTHER ITALIC LANGUAGES 307 (2008) (enter-pore-t = who goes between).
11. For an overview, see HANS SCHLOSSER, GRUNDZUGE DER NEUEREN PRIVAT- RECHTSGESCHICHTE 170-77 (10th ed. 2005).
12. On the uniform laws concerning negotiable instruments, see GERHARD KEGEL & KLAUS SCHURIG, INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 75-78 (9th ed. 2004); on the unification of international sales law, see Peter Huber, Comparative Sales Law, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW 937 (Mathias Reimann & Reinhard Zim- mermann eds., 2008); on the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts, see UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS, infra note 26 and MICHAEL JOACHIM BONELL, AN INTERNATIONAL RESTATEMENT OF CONTRACT LAW (3d ed. 2005).
13. For an authoritative comparative overview, see E. Allan Farnsworth, Comparative Contract Law, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 12, at 899.
14. JAMES GORDLEY, THE PHILOSOPHICAL ORIGINS OF MODERN CONTRACT DOCTRINE (1991);
15. REINHARD ZIMMERMANN, THE LAW OF OBLIGATIONS: ROMAN FOUNDATIONS OF THE CIVILIAN TRADITION, PARTS I - VI (1996).
16. On the use of implied conditions for the development of European private law, see Reinhard Zimmermann, "Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter ⋯" Conditio tacita, implied condition und die Fortbildung des europaischen Vertrag- srechts, 193 ARCHIV FOR DIE CIVILISTISCHE PRAXIS 121 (1993).
17. HEIN KÖTZ, EUROPÄISCHES VERTRAGSRECHT, VOL. I (1996); translation into English by Tony Weir under the title EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW, VOL. I (1997).
18. PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW, PART I (Ole Lando & Hugh Beale eds., vol. I, 1995);
19. PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW, PARTS I AND II (Ole Lando & Hugh Beale eds., 2000); PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW, PART III (Ole Lando et al. eds., 2003). There are translations of both books into a number of languages; see, e.g., GEORGES ROUHETTE ET AL., PRINCIPES DU DROIT EUROPEEN DU CONTRAT (2003).
20. For details, see Reinhard Zimmermann, Ius Commune and the Principles of European Contract Law: Contemporary Renewal of an Old Idea, in EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW 1, at 33-41 (Hector MacQueen & Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2006).
21. See, most recently, Carlos Vendrell Cervantes, The Application of the Principles of European Contract Law by Spanish Courts, 16 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 534 (2008); Danny Busch, The Principles of European Contract Law before the Supreme Court of the Netherlands - On the Influence of the PECL on Dutch Legal Practice, 16 ZEITSCHRIFT FOR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 549 (2008).
22. PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW, PART III, supra note 17, at xvi.
23. Thus, for example, it appears odd to have rules on performance only for contractual obligations; see chapter 7 PECL: PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW, PARTS I AND II, supra note 17, at 329-58.
24. For details, see Reinhard Zimmermann, Restitutio in integrum: Die Rtick- abwicklung fehlgeschlagener Vertrdge nach den Principles of European Contract Law, den Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts und dem Avant-projet eines Code Europíen des Contrats, in FESTSCHRIFT FÖR ERNST A. KRAMER 735 (2004); cf. also PHILLIP HELLWEGE, DIE RÜCKABWICKLUNG GEGENSEITIGER VERTRÄGE ALS EINHEITLICHES PROBLEM § 14 (2004).
25. But see, e.g., EUROPAISCHE VERTRAGSRECHTSVEREINHEITLICHUNG UND DEUT- SCHES RECHT (Jtïrgen Basedow ed., 2000)
26. DANNY BUSCH ET AL., THE PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AND DUTCH LAW: A COMMENTARY (2002)
27. DANNY BUSCH ET AL., THE PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW (Part III) and DUTCH LAW: A COMMENTARY II (2006)
28. LUISA ANTONIOLLI & ANNA VENEZIANO, PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AND ITALIAN LAW: A COMMENTARY (2005)
29. LA TERCERA PARTE DE LOS PRINCIPIOS DE DERECHO CONTRACTUAL EUROPEO (Antoni Vaquer ed., 2005)
30. EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW, supra note 18, as well as a number of contributions to TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE, supra note 5.
31. The American Restatements, obviously, provided a source of inspiration for the draftsmen of the PECL; see PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW, PARTS I AND II, supra note 17, at xxvi. On the American Restatements, and particularly on the process of their preparation see, most recently, Joachim Zekoll, Das American Law Institute - ein Vorbild fiir Europa?, in NICHTSTAATLICHES PRIVATRECHT: GELTUNG UND GENESE 101 (Reinhard Zimmermann ed., 2008).
32. PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW, PARTS I AND II, supra note 17, at xxiv. For examples, see Zimmermann, supra note 18, at 29-33.
33. UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS (Unidroit ed., 2004). This constitutes a revised and extended version of a first edition published in 1994. At the moment, work is under way to prepare a third edition extended, once again, by a number of additional chapters.
34. Arthur Hartkamp, Principles of Contract Law, in TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE, supra note 5, at 141, 142; and see, for the topics dealt with in Part I of the PECL, Reinhard Zimmermann, Konturen eines Europaischen Vertragsrechts, 50 JURISTENZEITUNG 477 (1995); for the topics added to the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts in their second edition, see Reinhard Zimmermann, Die Unidroit-Grundregeln der internationalen Handelsverträge 2004 in ver- gleichender Perspektive, 13 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 264 (2005).
35. A good example in a central area of general contract law is the variation in approach to the circumstances in which an agent's acts bind his principal. While the PECL distinguish between direct and indirect representation (and thus adopt a taxonomy familiar from German law), the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts adopt the English distinction between disclosed and undisclosed agency. Nonetheless, effectively the approach adopted by the PECL is very close to English law and that of the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts to German law. For a comparative discussion, see DOMINIK MOSER, DIE OF- FENKUNDIGKEIT DER STELLVERTRETUNG IM DEUTSCHEN UND ENGLISCHEN RECHT SOWIE IN DEN INTERNATIONALEN REGELUNGSMODELLEN (forthcoming).
36. But see Art. 4:110 on unfair terms not individually negotiated.
37. That has repeatedly been criticized; cf, e.g., Ralf Michaels, Privatautonomie und Privatkodifikation, 62 RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FOR AUSLANDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 580, 589 (1998)
38. ; NILS JANSEN, BINNENMARKT, PRIVATRECHT UND EUROPÄISCHE IDENTITÄT 2-6 (2004)
39. Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, Verbraucherschutz in den Grundregeln des Europd̈ischen Vertragsrechts, 103 ZEITSCHRIFT FÖR VER- GLEICHENDE RECHTSWISSENSCHAFT 88 (2004).
40. Stephen Weatherill, Do we need a European contract law?, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH EUROPEAN JURISTS' FORUM 7 (2008). Cf. also Peter Schlechtriem, Wand- lungen des Schuldrechts in Europa - wozu und wohin, 10 ZEITSCHRIFT FOR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 213 (2002); Peter-Christian MÜLLER-GRAFF, EC Directives as a Means of Private Law Unification, in TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE, supra note 5, at 77, 87
41. Thomas Wilhelmsson, The Contract Law Acquis: Towards More Coherence Through Generalisation?, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH EUROPEAN JURISTS' FORUM 111 (2008). On the concept of acquis communautaire see, most recently, Chris- tiane Wendehorst, The CFR and the Review of the Acquis Communautaire, in DER GEMEINSAME REFERENZRAHMEN: ENTSTEHUNG, INHALTE, ANWENDUNG 323 (Martin Schmidt-Kessel ed., 2009).
42. Cf, e.g., the communication entitled "A More Coherent European Contract Law: An Action Plan," COM (2003) 68 final; and see the further communication "European Contract Law and the Revision of the Acquis: The Way Forward," COM (2004) 651 final, as well as the "Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis," COM (2006) 744 final.
43. RESEARCH GROUP ON THE EXISTING EC PRIVATE LAW (ACQUIS GROUP), PRINCIPLES OF THE EXISTING EC CONTRACT LAW (ACQUIS PRINCIPLES), CONTRACT I (2007).
44. Cf. also KARL RIESENHUBER, EUROPÄ ISCHES VERTRAGSRECHT (2d ed. 2006).
45. For details, see Nils Jansen & Reinhard Zimmermann, Restating the Acquis Communautaire? A Critical Examination of the "Principles of the Existing EC Contract Law," 71 MOD. L. REV. 505 (2008)
46. cf. also Wilhelmsson, supra note 31, at 144- 50, pointing out that making generalizations from the acquis necessarily implies difficult policy decisions; Stefan Grundmann, The Structure of the DCFR - Which Approach for Today's Contract Law?, 4 EUROPEAN REVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW, at 238 (2008). The approach adopted by the Acquis Group is defended by Fryderyk Zoll, Die Grundregeln der Acquis-Gruppe im Spannungsverhaltnis zwischen acquis commun und acquis communautaire, 5 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GEMEINSCHAFTSPRIVATRECHT 106 (2008).
47. See Reiner Schulze, Gemeinsamer Referenzrahmen und acquis communautaire, 15 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 130 (2007)
48. Norbert Reich, Der Common Frame of Reference und Sonderprivatrechte im "Europäischen Vertragsrecht," 15 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 161 (2007)
49. Weather- ill, supra note 31, at 12-27; Michael Joachim Bonell, European Contract Law and the Development of Contract Law Worldwide, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH EUROPEAN JURISTS' FORUM 93-99 (2008)
50. Reinhard Zimmermann, European Contract Law: General Report, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH EUROPEAN JURISTS' FORUM 195-96 (2008)
51. Thomas Pfeiffer, Methodik der Privatrechtsangleichung in der EU, 208 ARCHIV FUR DIE CIVILIS- TISCHE PRAXIS 227 (2008)
52. Wolfgang Ernst, Der "Common Frame of Reference" aus juristischer Sicht, 208 ARCHIV FUR DIE CIVILISTISCHE PRAXIS 248 (2008); and see the contributions under I. in DER GEMEINSAME REFERENZRAHMEN: ENTSTEHUNG, INHALTE, ANWENDUNG, supra note 31, at 9-51. On the so-called "stakeholder meetings," see Gerhard Wagner, Die soziale Frage und der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen, 15 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPAISCHES PRFVATRECHT at 189 (2007).
53. For critical comment, see Grundmann, supra note 35, at 225, 246, 247. - Part of that network, incidentally, is also a "Project Group Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law"; that body is expected to publish a set of Principles of European Insurance Contract Law in the course of 2009 (the black letter rules have already appeared in 13 CONTRATTO E IMPRESA EUROPA 477-505 (2008)). These Principles do not form part of the DCFR.
54. Christian von Bar, Die Study Group on a European Civil Code, in FESTSCHRIFT FÜR DIETER HENRICH 1 (2000).
55. Supra note 7.
56. PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 7, at 48.
57. That this can, and should, be done under the auspices of a "materialized" notion of freedom of contract, emphasizing the right to self-determination of both parties to the contract, is explicated by JOSEF DREXL, DIE WIRTSCHAFTLICHE SELBSTBESTIM- MUNG DES VERBRAUCHERS (1998)
58. Claus-Wilhelm Canaris, Wandlungen des Schuldvertragsrechts -Tendenzen zu seiner Materialisierung, 200 ARCHRV FÜR DIE CIVILISTISCHE PRAXIS 273 (2000)
59. ZIMMERMANN, supra note 4, at 205-28.
60. PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 7, at 24-26 (OUTLINE EDITION 2009, 30-34)
61. cf. also Horst Eidenmuller et al., The Common Frame of Reference for European Private Law - Policy Choices and Codification Problems, 28 OXFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES 659, 665-68 (2008)
62. Brigitta Jud, Die Principles of European Contract Law als Basis des Draft Common Frame of Reference, in DER GEMEINSAME REFEREN- ZRAHMEN: ENTSTEHUNG, INHALTE, ANWENDUNG, supra note 31, at 71.
63. See, from the point of view of the Acquis-Group, the contributions by Christian Twigg-Flesner et al., in COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE AND EXISTING EC CONTRACT LAW 97-185 (Reiner Schulze ed., 2008).
64. PRINCIPES CONTRACTUELS COMMUNS - PROJET DE CADRE COMMUN DE RÉFÉRENCE (Association Henri Capitant des Amis de la Culture Juridique Francaise & Société de Législation Comparé eds., 2008). This volume contains two parts, the second one of which (pp. 211 et seq.) concerns the revision of the PECL (including commentary and comparative observations). Part I provides "Principes directeurs du droit europeén du contrat." Another volume, also published in 2008, deals with the problem of a common terminology; it is entitled TERMINOLOGIE CONTRACTUELLE COMMUNE (2008). In the meantime an English version has appeared: EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW - MATERIALS FOR A COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE: TERMINOLOGY, GUIDING PRINCIPLES, MODEL RULES (Bénédicte Fauvarque-Cosson & Denis Mazeaud eds., 2008). It contains the study on terminology, the guiding principles of European contract law and the revised PECL (though of the latter document, unfortunately, only the black- letter rules).
65. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Consumer Rights, COM (2008) 614 final.
66. These are: the Doorstep Selling, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Distance Contracts, and Consumer Sales Directives. They are to be repealed (Art. 47 of the proposal). Originally, the proposal had been intended to replace eight of the existing Directives (including also the Package Travel, Timeshare, Price Indications, and Injunctions Directives).
67. See the Explanatory Memorandum concerning the proposed Consumer Rights Directive, 3.
68. Supra note 32.
69. COM (2006) 744 final.
70. BÉNÉDICTE FAUVARQUE-COSSON & SARA PATRIS-GODECHOT, LE CODE CIVIL FACE Á SON DESTIN 141 (2006).
71. That was corroborated by a corresponding shift of attention in the "stakeholder meetings" in the course of 2006. Significantly, also, reference to European contract law in general was dropped from the title of the Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis; supra note 32.
72. Art. 2 (1) proposed Consumer Rights Directive as opposed to the definition provided in Annex I in PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 7, at 329 (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, 549). Both definitions, incidentally, presuppose that the person in question is engaged in a trade, business or profession (Art. 2 (1) Proposed Directive also adds "craft") even if, in the present instance, he is acting for purposes not related to that trade, business or profession (or craft). Of course, that cannot be intended, since, for example, students and pensioners are also consumers. The point has already been made by Werner Flume, Vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung, ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR WIRTSCHAFTSRECHT 1427, 1428 (2000) concerning earlier definitions of the term "consumer" in the EC consumer protection directives.
73. Art. 2 (3) proposed Consumer Rights Directive as opposed to the definition provided for "sale, contract for" in Annex I in PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 7, at 341 (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, 565, 566).
74. Art. 2 (10) proposed Consumer Rights Directive as opposed to the definition provided in Annex I in PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 7, at 332 (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, 553).
75. Art. 2 (17) proposed Consumer Rights Directive as opposed to the definition provided in Annex I in PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 7, at 339 (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, 563).
76. The Commission has repeatedly stated that it intends to use the DCFR as a "toolbox" providing model rules to be used "to improve the quality and coherence of the existing acquis and future legal instruments in the area of contract law": COM (2004) 651 final ("The Way Forward"), sub 2.1.1. For comment, see Hugh Beale, The Draft Common Frame of Reference: Mistake and Duties of Disclosure, 4 EUROPEAN REVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW 317 (2008).
77. Art. 2 (2) proposed Consumer Rights Directive as opposed to the definition provided in Annex I in PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 7, at 328 (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, 547).
78. Art. 2 (8) proposed Consumer Rights Directive as opposed to Art. 11.-5:201 DCFR.
79. On the main devices for protecting consumers, see ZIMMERMANN, supra note 4, at 210-24 with further references.
80. Art. 9 proposed Consumer Rights Directive.
81. For comment, see Eidenmuller et al., supra note 42, at 696, 697.
82. Art. 11.-3:107 (1) (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, 11.-3:109(1)) DCFR.
83. Art. 13 proposed Consumer Rights Directive.
84. Arts. 34, 35 and Annex II and III proposed Consumer Rights Directive.
85. For comment, see Weatherill, supra note 31, at 27, 28 ("It is an aggressively homogenising agenda ⋯ [which] involves a sufficiently radical re-distribution of regulatory competence to call into question the very legitimacy of the EC's lawmaking pretensions" (27, 36); Reich, supra note 36; Norbert Reich, Wie "vollstandig" ist die geplante "Vollstandige Harmonisierung" im Verbraucherrecht?, 19 EUROPAISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR WIRTSCHAFTSRECHT V (2008)
86. Thomas Wilhelmsson, Full Harmonisation of Consumer Contract Law?, 16 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 225 (2008)
87. ; Michael Faure, Towards a Maximum Harmonization of Consumer Contract Law?!?, 15 MAASTRICHT JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AND COMPARATIVE LAW 433 (2008)
88. Maria Berger, Zu europäischen Entwicklungen im Internationalen Privatrecht und im Verbraucherschutz, 17 ZEITSCHRIFT FÖR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT (forthcoming 2009).
89. Art. 4 proposed Consumer Rights Directive. The logic behind this move does indeed, as Weatherill, supra note 31, at 27 observes, press for EC action by way of regulation rather than directive.
90. Supra note 56.
91. See recital (2) of the proposed Consumer Rights Directive.
92. Cf. Eidenmuller et al., supra note 42, at 693-701 Wendehorst, supra note 31, at 351-57.
93. Arts. 8, 12-20 proposed Consumer Rights Directive.
94. For distance contracts, recital (22) merely reiterates the unconvincing rationale that the consumer should have a right of withdrawal because he is not able to see the good before concluding the contract; see ZIMMERMANN, supra note 4, at 217 with further references. For off-premises contracts no specific rationale is set out in the proposed Directive. Usually it is justified on the basis that the consumer has been caught "off-guard" (see id. at 213, 214 with further references). However, that does not apply in cases where the consumer has solicited the trader's visit. Yet, recital (14) of the proposed Directive specifically states that this situation is to be included in the definition of an off-premises contract.
95. See Eidenmüller et al., supra note 42, at 673, 694 with references; cf. also Florian Faust, Informationspflichten, in DER AKADEMISCHE ENTWURF FÜR EINEN GEMEINSAMEN REFERENZRAHMEN: KONTROVERSEN UND PERSPEKTIVEN 115 (Reiner Schulze et al. eds., 2008).
96. Completely unrelated to all the activities mentioned so far is the Avant-projet of a European Contract Code, drafted under the auspices of a private initiative known as Accademia dei Giusprivatisti Europe: CODE EUROPÉEN DES CONTRATS: AVANT-PROJET (Giuseppe Gandolfi ed., 2000). In contrast to other projects such as the PECL, it takes its cue from two models, i.e., the Italian Civil Code and a Contract Code drawn up on behalf of the Scottish and English Law Commissions at the end of the 1960s. A notable feature of the Avant-projet is that it has been published in French as opposed to English. The Avant-projet does not, at present, play a prominent role in the political debates surrounding European contract law; it appears to have been reduced to a back-stage existence by the DCFR project (which, in turn, does not appear to have taken any note of it). For an assessment, see Reinhard Zimmermann, Der 'Codice Gandolfi' als Modell eines einheitlichen Vertragsrechts für Europa?, in FESTSCHRIFT FUR ERIK JAYME 1401 (2004).
97. See, e.g., Arts. II.-9:301-303 DCFR as compared to Art. 6:110 PECL (stipulatio alteri), or the change in system in Arts. III.-3:511-515 (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, III.- 3:510-514) DCFR as compared with Arts. 9:305-309 PECL (restitution following termination of contract).
98. Eidenmuller et al., supra note 42, at 687-93 (In the OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, the provisions on assignment and mandate [now called mandate contracts] have been revised.)
99. For an example, see Eidenmuller et al. supra note 42, at, 699-701.
100. See, e.g., FRANZ BYDLINSKI, SYSTEM UND PRINZIPIEN DES PRIVATRECHTS 718-35 (1996)
101. Thomas Pfeiffer, Die Integration von "Nebengesetzen" in das BGB, in ZIVILRECHTSWISSENSCHAFT UND SCHULDRECHTSREFORM 481 (Wolfgang Ernst & Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2001)
102. ; Wulf-Henning Roth, Europdischer Verbraucherschutz und das BGB, JURISTENZEITUNG 475, at 484-90 (2001)
103. Thomas Duve, in HISTORISCH- KRITISCHER KOMMENTAR ZUM BGB, VOL. I §§ 1 - 14, nn. 84-89 (Mathias Schmoeckel et al. eds., 2003)
104. ; Grundmann, supra note 35, at 225, 237, 238; and see supra note 41.
105. For details, see Eidenmuller et al., supra note 42, at 669-77. Our criticism, of course, relates to the INTERIM OUTLINE EDITION, 2008, but much of it remains valid for the OUTLINE EDITION, 2009. Hans Schulte-Nölke, one of the editors of the DCFR, attempts to deflect some of our criticism by the odd argument that the DCFR is neither a draft codification nor intended to be one, Hans-Schulte-Nolke, Die Acquis-Principles (ACQP) und der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen: Zu den Voraussetzungen einer er- tragreichen Diskussion des DCFR, in DER AKADEMISCHE ENTWURF FUR EINEN GEMEINSAMEN REFERENZRAHMEN: KONTROVERSEN UND PERSPEKTIVEN, supra note 72, at 67, 68. But does he really want to make his readers believe that an enormous network of international working teams, designated "Study Group on a European Civil Code," produces a document, which looks like a codification of core areas of patrimonial law, merely for the sake of academic gratification? Christian von Bar, Schulte- Nolke's co-editor, is decidedly more candid when he states that there is "no reason against.⋯ calling the Common Frame of Reference a 'Code'" (even if not a legislative instrument such as the Code Napoleon or the BGB): Christian von Bar, A Common Frame of Reference for European Private Law - Academic Efforts and Political Realities, 23 TULANE EUROPEAN AND CIVIL LAW FORUM 37, 40 (2008). And he acknowledges that the choice of the nebulous term Common Frame of Reference serves as a camouflage. That had, of course, been realized by many commentators (see, e.g., Martijn W. Hesselink, The European Commission's Action Plan: Towards a More Coherent European Contract Law?, 12 EUROPEAN REVIEW OF PRIVATE LAW 397, 402 [". clever trick"] (2004)
106. Wagner, supra note 36, at 180,182,183. Of course, the draftsmen of the DCFR see their work as a model for the (political) Common Frame of Reference (PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 7, at 6) whatever legal status such document will have. MARTIJN HESSELINK, CFR and Social Justice 9 (2008), regards an inter-insti tutional agreement between Commission, Parliament and Council as likely; and according to Christian von Bar, there is much to suggest that such an "official" CFR will in fact be adopted, Christian von Bar, Die Struktur des Draft Common Frame of Reference, in DER GEMEINSAME REFERENZRAHMEN: ENTSTEHUNG, INHALTE, ANWENDUNG, supra note 31, at 24
107. cf. also Christian von Bar, A Common Frame of Reference for European Private Law - Academic Efforts and Political Realities, 23 TULANE EUROPEAN AND CIVIL LAW FORUM 37, 48 (2008), where he refers to the "involvement in a political process" on the part of the network that has produced the DCFR. Apart from that, of course, there is the idea of an optional code for which the DCFR might form the basis, particularly forcefully propagated by Hans Schulte- Nölke (see, e.g., Hans Schulte-Nolke, EC Law on the Formation of Contract - from the Common Frame of Reference to the "Blue Button," 3 EUROPEAN REVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW 332 (2007)
108. cf. also Dirk Staudenmayer, European Contract Law - What Does It Mean and What Does It Not Mean, in THE HARMONIZATION OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW 235 (Stefan Vogenauer & Stephen Weatherill eds., 2006). All in all, I think, one can endorse the statement by Martijn Hesselink (member of the "Co-ordinating Group" of the Study Group on a European Civil Code and co-editor of the Study Group's volume on commercial agency, franchising and distribution contracts): "In practical terms this [i.e., taking the notion of the CFR in a very broad sense with a view to the wide range of possible applications] is very similar to regarding the DCFR as a draft European Civil Code" (HESSELINK, supra, at 11) (with a long footnote citing other authors who take the same view), 18
109. cf. also Jan Smits, The Draft-Common Frame of Reference, Methodological Nationalism and the Way Forward, 4 EUROPEAN REVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW 270 (2008) ("the idea of comprehensive codification").
110. Cf. also Jürgen Basedow, Kodifikationsrausch und kollidierende Konzepte, 16 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES PRFVATRECHT 673 (2008) and, concerning Book IV A. of the DCFR, Ulrich Huber, Modellregeln für ein Europaisches Kaufrecht, 16 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EUROPAISCHES PRIVATRECHT 708, 711 (2008) (the DCFR is significantly more restrictive, in its approach to private autonomy, than German law); and see, concerning the regulation of pre-contractual duties in the DCFR, Bertrand Fages, Pre-contractual Duties in the Draft Common Frame of Reference - What Relevance for the Negotiation of Commercial Contracts?, 4 EUROPEAN REVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW 304 (2008) (pointing to the strong emphasis on duties, rather than freedom of negotiation, unsuitable for the relationship between businesses); Horst Eidenmiiller, Privatautonomie, Verteilungsgerechtigkeit und das Recht des Vertragsschlusses im DCFR, in DER AKADEMISCHE ENTWURF FUR EINEN GEMEINSAMEN REFERENZRAHMEN: KONTROVERSEN UND PERSPEKTIVEN, supra note 72, at 73 (concerning the rules on formation of contract). But see Hesselink, supra note 78, at 13-22, 29-42, 43-47 (who, while agreeing that the DCFR is less autonomy-oriented than most classical Civil Codes, regards this as a welcome development that should have been taken further).
111. Cf. also Grundmann, supra note 35, at 225, 227 ("⋯ general clauses also constitute a failure to decide core issues and to find solutions for demanding questions of modern contract law"); but see HESSELINK, supra note 78, at 49-58.
112. Cf. also U. Huber, supra note 79, at 708, 742.
113. The three types of plurality of debtors are labeled solidary, divided, and joint obligations in Art. III.-4:102 DCFR rather than solidary, separate, and communal obligations as they are in Art. 10:101 PECL. In the Unidroit PICC, the first two categories are to be labeled joint and several, and separate obligations, whereas the third one is to be dropped. For a critical look at this third category, which originates in German law, see Sonja Meier, in HISTORISCH-KRITISCHER KOMMENTAR ZUM BGB, VOL. II, 72, §§ 420-432/I, nn. 93, 98 (Mathias Schmoeckel et al. eds., 2007).
114. See the title to Book II of the DCFR ("Contracts and other juridical acts"), and the definition provided in Annex I, PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 7, at 336 (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, 557). According to KONRAD ZWEIGERT & HEIN KOTZ, AN INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE LAW 146 (trans, by Tony Weir, 3d ed., 1998) "[t]he idea of 'legal act' is ⋯ far too abstract a notion."
115. Books I - III DCFR. The subdivision of material between Books II and III is premised upon the concepts of "contracts and other juridical acts" and "obligations and corresponding rights"; for criticism of this system, and of the fact that the DCFR has "in this respect, become something else than a European contract law," see Reiner Schulze, The Academic Draft of the CFR and the EC Contract Law, in COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE AND EXISTING EC CONTRACT LAW, in supra note 43, at 14; Grundmann, supra note 35, at 225, 229-32; and see Ole Lando, The Structure and the Legal Values of the Common Frame of Reference (CFR), 3 EUROPEAN REVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW 245, 250 (2007) ("⋯ stringent and incomprehensible logic... borrowed from German law"). In the Introduction to the DCFR one finds, indeed, remarkably dogmatic statements such as: "Similarly, a contract is not terminated. It is the contractual relationship, or particular rights and obligations arising from it, which will be terminated"; PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND MODEL RULES OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW: DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 7, at 24 (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, 31).
116. Particularly among French academics; see Yves Lequette, Quelques re- marques à propos du projet de code civil européen de M von Bar, DALLOZ CHRONIQUE 2202 (2002); Philippe Malinvaud, Réponse - hors delai - à la Commission européenne: à propos d'un code europèen de contrats, DALLOZ CHRONIQUE 2542 (2002); Bénédicte Fauvarque-Cosson, Faut-il un code civil europeen?, REVUE TRIMESTRIELLE DE DROIT CRVIL 463 (2002)
117. FRANCOIS TERRÉ ET AL., DROIT CIVIL: LES OBLIGATIONS 53, 54 (9th ed. 2005); as far as the mood of the fourth European Jurists' Forum in Vienna in 2007 was concerned, see Zimmermann, supra note 36, at 200, 204. The large-scale reform of the French law of obligations can be seen as an attempt to fortify the national castle against unwelcome European onslaughts; cf. Benedicte Fauvarque-Cosson, Towards a New French Law of Obligations and Prescription? About the "Avant-projet de reforme du droit des obligations et de la prescription," 15 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 428, 429 (2007) On the state of the French reform project see, most recently, FRANÇOIS TERRÉ, POUR UNE RÉFORME DU DROIT DES CONTRATS (2009)
118. REFORMING THE FRENCH LAW OF OBLIGATIONS (John Cartwright et al. eds., 2009).
119. That exception, of course, is the contract of sale. See infra W.A.
120. CHRISTIAN VON BAR, THE COMMON EUROPEAN LAW OF TORTS, VOL. I (1998); vol. II (2000). The German original appeared under the title GEMEINEUROPAISCHES DELIKTSRECHT in 1996 (vol. I) and 1999 (vol. II).
121. CEES VAN DAM, EUROPEAN TORT LAW (2006).
122. PETER SCHLECHTRIEM, RESTITUTION UND BEREICHERUNGSAUSGLEICH IN EU- ROPA: EINE RECHTSVERGLEICHENDE DARSTELLUNG, VOL. I, 2000; VOL. II, 2001. Cf. also, UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT: KEY ISSUES IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE (David Johnston & Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2002).
123. ZIMMERMANN, supra note 14, 1017-1030; NILS JANSEN, DIE STRUKTUR DES HAFTUNGSRECHTS 271-360 (2003).
124. David Ibbetson, Harmonization of the Law of Tort and Delict: A Comparative and Historical Perspective, in GRUNDSTRUKTUREN DES EUROPÄISCHEN DELIKTSRECHTS 83 (Reinhard Zimmermann ed., 2003).
125. The point is made, and substantiated, by JANSEN, supra note 90, at 181-84.
126. JANSEN, supra note 30, at 33-35.
127. For a comparative overview concerning this point and the following ones, see Gerhard Wagner, Comparative Tort Law, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 12, at 1003.
128. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the European Court of Justice did not feel in a position to base its concept of member state liability for breach of Community law on a generally recognized concept of fault, EC J 5 March 1996, Joined Cases C-46/ 93 and C-48/93, ECR 1996,1, 1029, nn.75-80 (Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame); WALTER VAN GERVEN ET AL., CASES, MATERIALS AND TEXT ON NATIONAL, SUPRANATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL TORT LAW 911-924 (2000); WOLFGANG WURMNEST, GRUNDZOGE EINES EUROPÄISCHEN HAFTUNGSRECHTS 154 -57 (2003).
129. PURE ECONOMIC LOSS IN EUROPE (Mauro Bussani & Vernon Valentine Palmer eds., 2003); WILLEM H. VAN BOOM ET AL., PURE ECONOMIC LOSS ( 2004).
130. Comparative overview in THE UNIFICATION OF TORT LAW: STRICT LIABILITY (Bernhard A. Koch & Helmut Koziol eds., 2002). For an attempt to reconceptualize the relationship between fault-based and strict liability (and thus to overcome the prevailing two-track model of liability law), see JANSEN, supra note 90, at 545-640.
131. See, as far as German law is concerned, Reinhard Zimmermann, Wege zu einem europäischen Haftungsrecht, in GRUNDSTRUKTUREN DES EUROPÄISCHEN DELIKT- SRECHTS 19, at 23-30 (Reinhard Zimmermann, ed., 2003).
132. For details, see Eidenmüller et al., supra note 42, at 682-87; Gerhard Wagner, Deliktsrecht, in DER AKADEMISCHE ENTWURF FUR EINEN GEMEINSAMEN REFERENZRAHMEN, supra note 72, at 161.
133. PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN TORT LAW: TEXT AND COMMENTARY (Group on European Tort Law ed., 2005); and see Helmut Koziol, Die "Principles of European Tort Law" der "European Group on Tort Law," 12 ZEITSCHRIFT FÖR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 234 (2004); REINHARD ZIMMERMANN, Principles of European Contract Law and Principles of European Tort Law: Comparison and Points of Contact, in EUROPEAN TORT LAW 2003 2 (Helmut Koziol & Barbara Steininger eds., 2004).
134. For a critical analysis, see Nils Jansen, Principles of European Tort Law? Grundwertungen und Systembildung im europaischen Haftungsrecht, 70 RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 732 (2006).
135. WALTER WILBURG, ENTWICKLUNG EINES BEWEGLICHEN SYSTEMS IM BÖRGER- LICHEN RECHT (1950); for an overview in English, see Bernhard A. Koch, Wilburg's Flexible System in a Nutshell, in EUROPEAN TORT LAW 2001 545 (Helmut Koziol & Barbara C. Steininger eds., 2002); Helmut Koziol, Aufiervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse im CFR, in DER GEMEINSAME REFERENZRAHMEN: ENTSTEHUNG, IN- HALTE, ANWENDUNG, supra note 31, at 94-96, regards this as a fundamental difference between the Principles of European Tort Law and the respective book of the DCFR.
136. GRUNDSTRUKTUREN EINES EUROPAISCHEN BEREICHERUNGSRECHTS (Reinhard Zimmermann ed., 2005).
137. See JANSEN, supra note 30, at 40-47 with further references. For a legal system requiring both enrichment and impoverishment see, most recently, DANIEL VISSER, UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT 156-220 (2008). For a discussion of similarities and differences cf. also Jan Smits, A European Law of Unjustified Enrichment, in EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW BEYOND THE COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE 153, at 155-57 (Antoni Vaquer ed., 2008).
138. Reinhard Zimmermann, Bereicherungsrecht in Europa: Eine Einfiihrung, in GRUNDSTRUKTUREN EINES EUROPAISCHEN BEREICHERUNGSRECHTS, supra note 103, at 17, 22-25; Nils Jansen, Die Korrektur grundloser Vermögensverschiebungen als Restitution? Zur Lehre von der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung bei Savigny, 120 ZEITSCHRIFT DER SAVIGNY-STIFTUNG FÜR RECHTSGESCHICHTE (ROMANISTISCHE ABTEILUNG) 106 (2003).
139. PETER BIRKS, UNJUST ENRICHMENT (2d ed. 2005). Of crucial importance was Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd. [1991] 2 AC 548; on which decision, see Sonja Meier, Bereicherungsanspruch, Dreipersonenverhältnis und Wegfall der Bereicherung im englischen Recht, 1 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 365 (1993); ROBERT GOFF & GARETH JONES, THE LAW OF RESTITUTION 12-52 (7th ed. 2007).
140. See Peter Birks, Definition and Division: A Meditation on Institutes 3.13, in THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF OBLIGATIONS 1 (Peter Birks ed., 1997).
141. SONJA MEIER, IRRTUM UND Z WECKVERFEHLUNG (1999); BIRKS, supra note 106, at 101-28.
142. For critical assessments, see Smits, supra note 104, at 157-62; Koziol, supra note 102, at 108-12; Christiane Wendehorst, Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung, in DER AKADEMISCHE ENTWURF FÜR EINEN GEMEINSAMEN REFERENZRAHMEN: KONTROVERSEN UND PERSPEKTIVEN, supra note 72, at 215.
143. Cf. Koziol, supra note 102, at 109, who also finds this "startling."
144. Cf. also Wendehorst, supra note 109, at 224.
145. See, e.g., Stefan Lorenz, in STAUDINGERS KOMMENTAR ZUM BÜRGERLICHEN GESETZBUCH, REVISED VERSION 2007, § 812, n. 1; Christiane Wendehorst, in KOMMENTAR ZUM BÜRGERLICHEN GESETZBUCH, VOL. II § 812, nn. 17-31 (Heinz Georg Bamberger & Herbert Roth eds., 2d ed. 2008); Koziol, supra note 102, at 109, 110. Of course, at a very abstract level a uniform "enrichment principle" can be formulated; Pomponius D. 12, 6,14 provides the classic example. But it is hardly accidental that it had never been regarded as a legal rule of immediate applicability. It has always been, and it remains, necessary to specify types of cases according to the event triggering the enrichment.
146. Consciously so, see Stephen Swann, The Structure of Liability for Unjustified Enrichment: First Proposals of the Study Group on a European Civil Code, in GRUND- STRUKTUREN EINES EUROPAISCHEN BEREICHERUNGSRECHTS, supra note 103, at 275, 276.
147. Wendehorst, supra note 109, at 230-32 ("inadequate"), 233-35 ("simply intolerable").
148. Id. at 244-47.
149. Arts. 111.-3:511-515 (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, 111.-3:510-514) DCFR (restitution following termination of contract) as opposed to Art. 11.-7:212 (2) DCFR (referring to the rules on unjustified enrichment, as far as restitution following avoidance is concerned).
150. It remains entrenched even after the "modernization" of the German law of obligations. On the new §§ 346-359 BGB (i.e., the contractual restitution regime as opposed to the rules on unjustified enrichment), see Reinhard Zimmermann, Restitution after Termination for Breach of Contract: German Law after the Reform of 2002, in ANDREW BURROWS, LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY, MAPPING THE LAW: ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF PETER BIRKS 323 (2006).
151. See Zimmermann, supra note 22, at 746-48; HELLWEGE, supra note 22, at §§ 2 and 7; Christiane Wendehorst, Die Leistungskondiktion und ihre Binnenstruktur in rechtsvergleichender Perspektive, in GRUNDSTRUKTUREN EINES EUROPAISCHEN BEREICHERUNGSRECHTS, supra note 103, 47, at 80-84; Wendehorst, supra note 109, at 236-41; cf. also the criticism by Grundmann, supra note 35, at 234; Pietro Sirena, The DCFR - Restitution, unjust enrichment and related issues, 4 EUROPEAN REVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW 445, 447 (2008). The new Unidroit working group on international commercial contracts (supra note 26) is, at present, busy devising a uniform regime.
152. Swann, supra note 113, at 268, a member of the relevant working team, acknowledges that the body of rules on unjustified enrichment "certainly conveys the impression of constructing a castle in the air"; cf. also Smits, supra note 104, at 157, 158.
153. BENEVOLENT INTERVENTION IN ANOTHER'S AFFAIRS (Study Group on a European Civil Code/Christian von Bar ed., 2006).
154. Nils Jansen, Negotiorum Gestio and Benevolent Intervention in Another's Affairs: Principles of European Law?, 15 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EUROPAISCHES PRIVATRECHT 958 (2007). For a critical evaluation of the DCFR's rules on benevolent intervention in another's affairs, cf. also Koziol, supra note 102, at 104-08.
155. For a comprehensive historical analysis, see Nils Jansen, in HISTORISCH- KRITISCHER KOMMENTAR ZUM BGB, VOL. Ill §§ 677-687 I (Mathias Schmoeckel et al. eds., forthcoming).
156. See supra note 78.
157. ERNST RABEL, DAS RECHT DES WARENKAUFS, VOL. I (1936); VOL. II (1958).
158. P. Huber, supra note 12, at 937-67 with further references.
159. P. Huber, supra note 12, at 944; Stefan Grundmann, in GRUNDMANN & BI- ANCA, supra note 3, at Introduction, nn. 19-25.
160. P. Huber, supra note 12, at 944; GRUNDMANN & BIANCA, supra note 3, at Introduction, n.6; Ulrich Magnus, The CISG's Impact on European Legislation, in THE 1980 UNIFORM SALES LAW: OLD ISSUES REVISITED IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT EXPERIENCES 129 (Franco Ferrari ed., 2003); Stefano Troiano, The CISG's Impact on EU Legislation, 8 INTERNATIONALES HANDELSRECHT 221 (2008).
161. As has, however, happened in Germany; see ZIMMERMANN, supra note 4, at 96- 99. On the transformation of the Directive in other Member States, see the contributions to VERBRAUCHERKAUF IN EUROPA (Martin Schermaier ed., 2003).
162. Significantly, no less than 52 of the 132 articles contained in the first two parts of the Principles of European Contract Law are modeled on a provision contained in the CISG: see the table in Harry M. Flechtner, The CISG's Impact on International Unification Efforts: The Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the Principles of European Contract Law, in THE 1980 UNIFORM SALES LAW: OLD ISSUES REVISITED IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT EXPERIENCES, supra note 127, 169, at 181-87; for a detailed comparison between the CISG, PECL, and the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts, see now AN INTERNATIONAL APPROACH TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS (1980) as UNIFORM SALES LAW (John Felemegas ed., 2007). It is hardly surprising, therefore, that according to Christiane Wendehorst, Das Vertragsrecht der Dienstleistungen im deutschen und künftigen europaischen Recht, 206 ARCHIV FÜR DIE CIVILISTISCHE PRAXIS 205, 284-90 (2006), the system of remedies does not fit service contracts very well. The dominance of the sales law thinking pattern has often been criticized; cf., e.g., Hans Hermann Seiler & Frank Peters, Das geplante Werkvertragsrecht, in ZIVILRECHTSWISSENSCHAFT UND SCHULDRECHTSREFORM 263 (Wolfgang Ernst & Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2001) (referring to the "Babylonian captivity of the contract for work").
163. SALES (Study Group on a European Civil Code/Ewoud Hondius et al. eds., 2008).
164. For background and overview, see VIOLA HEUTGER, EIN GEMEINEUROPÄISCHES KAUFRECHT: VISION ODER NAHE ZUKUNFT? 171-75 (2007); Viola Heutger & Christoph Jeloschek, Towards Principles of European Sales Law, in TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE, supra note 5, at 533; Ewoud Hondius, CISG and a European Civil Code, 71 RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 99 (2007); Anna Veneziano, A Common Europan Law on Sales?, in EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW BEYOND THE COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 104, at 43; Troiano, supra note 127, at 238-40. (2008).
165. Art. A.A.-4:102 (OUTLINE EDITION, 2009, A.A.-4:101) DCFR; see U. HUBER, supra note 79, at 710; Barbara Dauner-Lieb & Moritz Quecke, Das Kaufrecht im Entwurf eines Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens, in DER AKADEMISCHE ENTWURF FUR EINEN GEMEINSAMEN REFERENZRAHMEN: KONTROVERSEN UND PERSPEKTIVEN, supra note 72, at 137.
166. Art. III.-3:701 (3) DCFR.
167. U. Huber, supra note 79, at 711.
168. Supra II.C and E.
169. Cf. also Dauner-Lieb & Quecke, supra note 132, at 141, 160.
170. ZIMMERMANN, supra note 4, at 221 with references; and see U. Huber, supra note 79, at 712.
171. U. Huber, supra note 79, at 718.
172. See recital 10 Consumer Sales Directive. German law has followed the Directive (§ 439 I BGB), even though this solution is widely regarded as unconvincing, and even though the matter is decided differently as far as contracts for work are concerned; see ZIMMERMANN, supra note 4, at 100.
173. See the references in ZIMMERMANN, supra note 4, at 100, n.141.
174. For comment, see SALES, supra note 130, at 280, 281.
175. Cf. also Dauner-Lieb & Quecke, supra note 132, at 159, 160.
176. SERVICE CONTRACTS (Study Group on a European Civil Code/Maurits Baren- drecht ed., 2007). For background information, see also Marco B. M. Loos, Service Contracts, in TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CrviL Code, supra note 5, at 571-82.
177. Part C has individual chapters relating to the following "basic types of services": construction, processing, storage, design, information and advice, and treatment. Apart from that, there is a lengthy chapter containing rules applying to service contracts in general which, in turn, is preceded by a chapter with "general provisions."
178. Hannes Unberath, Der Dienstleistungsvertrag im Entwurf des Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens, 16 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄ ISCHES PRIVATRECHT 745 (quotation on p. 764) (2008). One is reminded here of the standard criticism leveled at the Prussian Code of 1794, which had close to 20,000 sections. For a much more positive evaluation, see Wendehorst, supra note 129, at 290-97 (celebrating the DCFR's basic-types- of-services model as a "brilliant coup").
179. That is also the impression of Unberath, supra note 145, at 759. FOR LEASE OF GOODS (Study Group on a European Civil Code/Kåre Lilleholt et al. eds., 2008) (and consequently Book IV B. of the DCFR that is based on it), this is explicitly stated by Kare Lilleholt, A European Law of Lease?, in EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW BEYOND THE COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 104, at 59 ("⋯ the principles are not some sort of restatement of European lease law").
180. CASES, MATERIALS AND TEXT ON NATIONAL, SUPRANATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY LAW (J.H.M. van Erp & B. Akkermans eds., forthcoming). Cf. further CHRISTIAN VON BAR, SACHENRECHT IN EUROPA VOL. I (2000); VOL. II (2000); VOL. III (1999); VOL. IV (2001); WILLEM ZWALVE, HOOFDSTUKKEN UIT DE GESCHIEDENIS VAN HET EUROPESE PRIVAATRECHT, VOL. I: INLEIDING EN ZAKENRECHT (2d ed. 2003).
181. PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN FAMILY LAW REGARDING DIVORCE AND MAINTENANCE BETWEEN FORMER SPOUSES (Commission on European Family Law/Katharina Boele- Woelki et al. eds., 2004); PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN FAMILY LAW REGARDING PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES (Commission on European Family Law/Katharina Boele-Woelki et al. eds., 2007). Cf. also EUROPEAN FAMILY LAW IN ACTION, VOL. I: GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE (Katharina Boele-Woelki et al. eds., 2003); VOL. II: MAINTENANCE BETWEEN FORMER SPOUSES (Katharina Boele-Woelki et al. eds., 2003); MASHA ANTOKOLSKAIA, HARMONISATION OF FAMILY LAW IN EUROPE (2006).
182. See the overview by Marius J. de Waal, A European Law of Trusts?, in EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW BEYOND THE COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE, supra note 104, at 167.
183. Id. at 179 ("⋯ perhaps we have already crossed that boundary without realising it"). Of considerable importance, in that respect, have been the PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN TRUST LAW (D.J. Hayton et al. eds., 1999).
184. Dieter Leipold, Europa und das Erbrecht, in FESTSCHRIFT FÜR ALFRED SÖLLNER 647 (2000); Walter Pintens, Die Europaisierung des Erbrechts, 9 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 628 (2001); Walter Pintens, Grundgedanken und Perspektiven einer Europäisierung des Familien- und Erbrechts, ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR DAS GESAMTE FAMILIENRECHT 329 (part I), 417 (part II) (2003); Alain Verbeke & Yves- Henri Leleu, Harmonisation of the Law of Succession, in TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL Code, supra note 5, at 335-50. An international harmonization in succession law reaching beyond the EU is regarded as having "never been more important than it is now" by Ronald J. Scalise, Undue Influence and the Law of Wills: A Comparative Analysis, 19 DUKE J. COMP. & INT'L L. 41 (106) (2008).
185. See, for example, Erik Jayme, Grundfragen des internationalen Erbrechts - dargestellt an deutsch-österreichischen Nachlassfallen, 24 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR RECHTS- VERGLEICHUNG 162 (1983); Dieter Schwab, Einfuhrung, in FAMILIENERBRECHT UND TESTIERFREIHEIT IM EUROPÄISCHEN VERGLEICH 2 (Dieter Henrich & Dieter Schwab eds., 2001); Sjef van Erp, New Developments in Succession Law, in GENERAL REPORTS OF THE XVIIth CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF COMPARATIVE LAW 74 (Katharina Boele-Woelki & Sjef van Erp eds., 2007); Paul Terner, Perspectives of a European Law on Succession, 14 MAASTRICHT JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AND COMPARATIVE LAW 158 (2007).
186. Ernst A. Kramer, Der Stil der schweizerischen Privatrechtskodifikation - ein Modell fu ̈r Europa?, 72 RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 788 (2008).
187. CONGREF̀S INTERNATIONAL DE DROIT COMPARÉ, TENU Á PARIS DU 31 JUILLET AU 4 AOǓT 1900: PROCÈS-VERBAUX DES SÉANCES ET DOCUMENTS, vol. I, 1905, 25-60 (reprinted in RECHTSVERGLEICHUNG 30-51 (Konrad Zweigert & Hans-Jürgen Puttfarken eds., 1978)). That congress is usually taken to have been the birth of comparative law as a specific branch of legal scholarship.
188. On this concept in modern comparative studies, see ZWEIGERT & KÖTZ, supra note 83, at 46, 47; Ralf Michaels, The Functional Method of Comparative Law, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 12, 339.
189. Reinhard Zimmermann, Erbunwilrdigkeit: Die Entwicklung eines Rechtsin- stituts im Spiegel europäischer Kodifikationen, due to appear in a Festschrift early in 2010; manuscript available from the author. The codifications covered are those of Prussia, France, Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Greece, and Catalonia.
190. On that topic, cf. Reinhard Zimmermann, De bloedige hand en neemt geen erffenis: Erbunwilrdigkeit aufgrund Tötung des Erblassers: Römisches und römisch- holländisches Recht, in FESTSCHRIFT FÜR ROLF KNÜTEL (forthcoming Dec. 2009); for comparative references, see Zimmermann, supra note 156, under II. - IV.
191. Cf, e.g., § 2339 nos. 2 and 3 BGB ("⋯ if he has ⋯ wilfully and unlawfully prevented the deceased from making or revoking a disposition mortis causa; [or] has, by fraud or unlawful threats, induced the deceased to make or revoke a disposition mortis causa"); and see § 542 ABGB; Art. 885 no. 3 Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW) of 1838; Art. 725 nos. 3 and 4 Codice civile of 1865; Art. 756 nos. 5 and 6 Spanish Codigo civil; Art. 1782 Portugese Código civil of 1867; Art. 540 no. 3 Swiss ZGB; Art. 1860 nos. 3 and 4 Astikos Kodikas; Art. 463 no. 4 Codice civile of 1942; Art. 2034 c) and d) Por tugese Codigo civil of 1966; Art. 11 no. 4 Catalonian Cddigo de sucesiones; Art. 4:3 (1) d) BW of 2003.
192. Art. 427 Code civil of 1803; Art. 726 Code civil of 2007; Art. 756 no. 2 Spanish Codigo civil; Art. 1782 Portugese Código civil of 1867; Art. 2034 Portugese Codigo civil of 1966; Art. 11 no. 1 Catalonian Código de sucesiones; Art. 4:3 (1) b) BW of 2003.
193. § 540 ABGB of 1811, of 1916, and of 1989; § 2339 no. 2 BGB; Art. 540 no. 1 Swiss ZGB; Art. 1860 no. 1 Astikos Kodikas; Art. 725 Codice civile of 1865; Art. 463 Codice civile of 1942.
194. Art. 427 Code civil of 1803; Art. 726 Code civil of 2007; § 540 ABGB (of 1916 and 1989); § 2339 no. 2 BGB; Art. 885 BW of 1838; Art. 4:3(1) a) BW of 2003; Art. 540 no. 1 Swiss ZGB.
195. Art. 756 no. 2 Spanish Código civil; Art. 1860 no. 1 Astikos Kodikas; Art. 725 Codice civile of 1865; Art. 463 Codice civile of 1942; Art. 1782 Portugese Código civil of 1867; Art. 2034 Portugese Código civil of 1966; Art. 11 no. 1 Catalonian Codigo de sucesiones.
196. § 540 ABGB of 1811, of 1916, and of 1989. Art. 4:3 (1) b) BW of 2003.
197. § 2339 no. 1 BGB; Art. 540 no. 2 Swiss ZGB.
198. The matter is specified in very different ways: see § 540 ABGB; Art. 463 no. 3- bis Codice civile of 1942 (as amended in 2005); Art. 11 no. 5 Catalonian Codigo de sucesiones.
199. Art. 756 no. 7 Spanish Codigo civil.
200. § 543 ABGB of 1811, of 1916, and of 1989.
201. Art. 11 no. 4 Catalonian Codigo de sucesiones.
202. § 540 ABGB of 1811, of 1916, and of 1989; § 2343 BGB; Art. 540 II Swiss ZGB.
203. See Art. 757 Spanish Código civil; Art. 1861 Astikos Kodikas; Art. 466 Codice civile of 1942; Art. 2038 Portugese Código civil of 1966; Art. 14 Catalonian Código de sucesiones; Art. 4:3 (3) BW of 2003; Art. 729-1 Code civil of 2007. Originally, French law did not attribute any effect to the declaration, on the part of the deceased, that he had forgiven the crime.
204. § 540 ABGB; Art. 540 Swiss ZGB; Art. 4:3 BW of 2003.
205. Art. 758 Spanish Código civil; §2342 BGB; Art. 1862 Astikos Kodikas; Art. 2036 Portugese Código civil of 1966; Art. 12 Catalonian Código de sucesiones.
206. "Sont indignes de succéder ⋯": Art. 726; "Peuvent ětre déclarés indignes de succéder ⋯": Art. 727 Code civil of 2007.
207. See, e.g., the discussion in Riccardo Omodei Salè, Indegnità a succedere, in DLGESTO DELLE dISCIPLINE pPJVATISTICHE, sEZIONE CIVILE, AGGIORNAMENTO III, VOL. II, nos. 4-7 (2007).
208. On which, see H. Patrick Glenn, Comparative Legal Families and Comparative Legal Traditions, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 12, at 421; Hein Kötz, Rechtskreislehre, in HANDWÖRTERBUCH ZUM EUROPÄISCHEN PRIVATRECHT (Jürgen Basedow et al. eds., forthcoming).
209. See Glenn, supra note 175, Zimmermann, supra note 156, under II.
210. On which, see Robert Joseph Pothier, Traité des Successions, in OEUVRES POS- THUMES DE M. POTHIER, VOL. II, Paris, 2 (Article Préliminaire) (1778); HELMUT COING, EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT, VOL. II, 600, 609 (1989).
211. Cf., in particular, Gottfried von Schmitt, in DIE VORLAGEN DER REDAKTOREN FOR DIE ERSTE KOMMISSION ZUR AUSARBEITUNG DES ENTWURFS EINES BÜRGERLICHEN GESETZBUCHES, ERBRECHT, PART 2, 101-13 (Werner Schubert ed., 1984).
212. See Zimmermann, supra note 156, under III.
213. This is the French approach; see HENRI ET LEON MAZEAUD, JEAN MAZEAUD, FRANCOIS CHABAS, LECONS DE DROIT CIVIL, VOL. IV, Successions - Liberalites, no. 717 (Laurent Leveneur & Sabine Mazeaud-Leveneur eds., 5th ed. 1999).
214. This is the Austrian approach; see FRANZ XAVER NIPPEL, ERLÄUTERUNG DES ALLGEMEINEN BÜRGERLICHEN GESETZBOCHES, VOL. IV 41 (1832); for the situation today, see HELMUT KOZIOL & RUDOLF WELSER, GRUNDRISS DES BÜRGERLICHEN RECHTS, VOL. II 422 (12th ed. 2001).
215. Motive, in DIE GESAMMTEN MATERIALIEN ZUM BÜRGERLICHEN GESETZBUCH FÜR DAS DEUTSCHE REICH, VOL. V 276 (B. Mugdan ed., 1899); cf. also Protokolle, in the same volume, 817, 818; FRIEDRICH MOMMSEN, ENTWURF EINES DEUTSCHEN REICHS- GESETZES OBER DAS ERBRECHT NEBST MOTIVEN 140-43 (1876).
216. See Zimmermann, supra note 156, under V.
217. Art. 728 Code civil.
218. These criteria are mentioned as relevant also for the field of the law of succession by Leipold, supra note 151, at 656, 657.
219. See Zimmermann, supra note 156, under VI. and VII.
220. Along the same lines, see Marius J. de Waal, Comparative Succession Law, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 12, at 1071; Inge Krop- penberg, Erbrecht, in HANDWORTERBUCH ZUM EUROPÄ ISCHEN PRIVATRECHT, supra note 175, under 4; cf. also Leipold, supra note 151, at 650 (who maintains that the notion of the law of succession being specifically embedded in a people's culture often sounds like an empty slogan) and, of course, the other authors mentioned supra note 151. For a first reconnaissance, see EXPLORING THE LAW OF SUCCESSION: STUDIES NATIONAL, HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE (Kenneth G.C. Reid et al. eds., 2007).
221. The history of the executorship can be told in this light: Reinhard Zimmermann, Heres Fiduciarius? Rise and Fall of the Testamentary Executor, in ITINERA FIDUCIAE: TRUST AND TREUHAND IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE 267 (Richard Helmholz & Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 1998); cf. also De Waal, supra note 187, at 1095, 1096 and, more generally, Leipold, supra note 151, at 650.
222. See Tobias Helms, Erbenhaftung, in HANDWORTERBUCH ZUM EUROPÄISCHEN PRIVATRECHT, supra note 175, concerning the liability of the heir; De Waal, supra note 187, at 1085, 1086, concerning the legitimate portion; cf. also Scalise, supra note 151 at 102, 105.
223. See Sebastian Herrler, Testament, in HANDWÖ RTERBUCH ZUM EUROPÄISCHEN PRIVATRECHT, supra note 175, under 3) c) (relating to the question of how wills are interpreted).
224. See Inge Kroppenberg, Universalsukzession, in HANDWÖRTERBUCH ZUM EUROPÄISCHEN PRIVATRECHT, supra note 175, under 3. The difference in approach to the validity of pacta successoria between the "Romanistic" and the "Germanic" legal families is well-known; see, e.g., Walter Pintens, Die Europäisierung des Erbrechts, 9 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜOPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 644 (2001) (but, again, the position is not quite so clear-cut, see Tobias Helms, Erbvertrag und gemeinschaftliches Testament, in HANDWÖUCH ZUM EUROPAISCHEN PRIVATRECHT, supra note 175, under 2). Also, for example, Dutch law (contrary to all other Western European legal systems) does not recognize the private will, while Austria stands out for having retained a system of comprehensive and obligatory official estate supervision.
225. Joint wills are recognized among spouses, or even more generally, in Austria, Germany, England, and the Nordic countries but are frowned upon in many other countries (e.g., Switzerland, France, Italy, and the Netherlands); see Helms, supra note 191, under 3.
226. For an example, see Reinhard Zimmermann, Cy-prèin IURIS PROFESSIO: FESTGABE FÜ; KASER 395 (1986).
227. See, as far as trust law is concerned, Marius J. de Waal, The Core Elements of the Trust: Aspects of the English, Scottish and South African Trusts Compared, 117 SOUTH AFRICAN LAW JOURNAL 548 (2000)
228. George L. Gretton, Trusts without Equity, 49 INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 599 (2000). Scots and South African law have been an important source of inspiration for the PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN TRUST LAW, supra note 150.
229. For instance, the question whether a testator may delegate his testamentary power; see REINHARD ZIMMERMANN, "QUOS TITIUS VOLUERIT" - HOCHSTPERSONLICHE WILLENSENTSCHEIDUNG DES ERBLASSERS ODER "POWER OF APPOINTMENT"? (1991).
230. Kroppenberg, supra note 191, under 5 (concerning how best to effect an orderly transfer of a deceased's estate).
231. For example: freedom of testation and family solidarity; or: freedom of testation and freedom of contract. As to the former, see Inge Kroppenberg, Pflichtteilsrecht, in HANDWORTERBUCH ZUM EUROPAISCHEN PRIVATRECHT, supra note 175; as to the latter, Helms, supra note 191.
232. On the strengthening of the position of spouses (and partners more generally) vis-à-vis descendants, culminating in the new Dutch law of succession, see Pintens, supra note 191, at 638-43; Inge Kroppenberg, Erbfolge, in HANDWÖRTERBUCH ZUM EUROPÄISCHEN PRIVATRECHT, supra note 175, under 1, 3 b) and 4; she refers to a "change of paradigm from a Vertical' ⋯ to a 'horizontal' law of succession." Specifically for the new Dutch law, see Sjef van Erp, The New Dutch Law of Succession, in EXPLORING THE LAW OF SUCCESSION: STUDIES NATIONAL, HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE, supra note 187, at 193. - Generally, on social and economic factors influencing the law of succession, see De Waal, supra note 187, at 1077; Kroppenberg, supra note 187, under 3.
233. See, e.g., Pintens, supra note 191, at 628; Kroppenberg, supra note 197, concerning the legitimate portion and, particularly, the move away in the continental legal systems from the notion of (materielles) Noterbrecht (the relatives are granted a share in the estate itself) to the relatives merely being granted a monetary claim against the estate.
234. Marius J. de Waal, Comparative Succession Law, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 12, at 1097.
235. Ole Lando refers to a "troika" of contract rules on which a future world contract law should be based: Ole Lando, CISG and its Followers: A Proposal to Adopt Some International Principles of Contract Law, 53 AM. J. COMP.L. 379 (2005).
236. Cf. also Reinhard Zimmermann, Savigny's Legacy: Legal History, Comparative Law and the Emergence of a European Legal Science, 42 L. Q. REV. 576 (1996); REINHARD ZIMMERMANN, Comparative Law and the Europeanization of Private Law, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 12, at 539; Nils Jansen, Dogmatik, Erkenntnis und Theorie im europäischen Privatrecht, 13 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 750 (2005); Nils Jansen, Traditionsbegründung im europäischen Privatrecht, 61 JURISTENZEITUNG 536 (2006); Jan Smits, Contract Law in the European Union: Convergence or Not?, in 4th EUROPEAN JURISTS' FORUM 45 (2008); Smits, supra note 104, at 162.