The Unidroit principles and CISG - Sources of inspiration for english courts?

Uniform Law Review

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 305-318

  Bonell, Michael Joachim ^a  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84963588222     PISSN: 11243694     EISSN: 20509065     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ulr/11.2.305     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. For a comprehensive overview see U. DROBNIG, “General Report”, in U. Drobnig - S. van Erp (eds.), The Use of Comparative Law by Courts, Kluwer Law International (1999), 3-21.
2. J. Chen, “The Use of Comparative Law by Courts: Australian Courts at the Crossroads”, in U. Drobnig - S. van Erp (eds.), supra note 1, 25-57;
3. H.P. Glenn, “The Use of Comparative Law by Common Law Courts in Canada”, ibidem, 59-78.
4. M. Elvinger, “Le recours, par les juridictions luxembourgeoises, aux techniques de droit comparé dans l'interprétation et l'application du droit luxembourgeois”, ibidem, 231-234
5. Thus, literally, e.g., Art. 7 CISG. - For a critical analysis of the different approaches taken by domestic courts in interpreting and supplementing CISG, see F. Ferrari, “Gap-filling and interpretation of the CISG: overview of international case law”, in Revue de droit des affaires internationales (2003), 221-230.
6. T.H. BINGHAM, “'There is a World Elsewhere': The Changing Perspectives of English Law”, in 41 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1992), 513
7. E. ÖRÜCÜ, “Comparative Law in British Courts”, in U. Drobnig - S. van Erp (eds.), supra note 1, 252-287.
8. Rugby Group Ltd v. ProForce Ltd [2005] EWHC 70 (QB).
9. Rugby Group Ltd. v. ProForce Ltd., cit., paras. 18-22.
10. ProForce Recruit Ltd. v. The Rugby Group Ltd., cit. paras. 30, 31 and 33-35.
11. ProForce Recruit Ltd. v. The Rugby Group Ltd., cit. para. 36.
12. ProForce Recruit Ltd. v. The Rugby Group Ltd., cit., para. 41.
13. ProForce Recruit Ltd. v. The Rugby Group Ltd., cit., para. 55.
14. ProForce Recruit Ltd. v. The Rugby Group Ltd., cit., para. 57.
15. th ed., I, General Principles, Sweet & Maxwell (2004), paras. 12-096 et seq.
16. BINGHAM M.R. in Arbuthnott v. Fagan [1995] C.L.C. 1396, 1400
17. [2005] 1 Lloyd's Law Report, 461 (at 465).
18. J. STEYN, “Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men”, 113 The Law Quarterly Review (1997), 433 (at 433-434).
19. Lord Wilbeforce in Prenn v. Simmonds [1971] 3 All ER 237.
20. In Partenreedesei Karen Oltmann v. Scarsdale Shipping Co Ltd [1976] 2 Lloyd's Law Reports 708, 712.
21. D. NICHOLLS, “My Kingdom for a Horse: The Meaning of Words”, in 121 The Law Quarterly Review (2005), 577 et seq. (at 583).
22. G. MCMEEL, Prior Negotiations and Subsequent Conduct - The Next Step Forward for Contractual Interpretation, in 119 The Law Quarterly Review (2003), 272 et seq.
23. For the legislative history of Art. 8 CISG, see E.A. FARNSWORTH, in C.M. BIANCA - M. J. BONELL (eds.), Commentary on the International Sales Law. The 1980 Vienna Sales Convention, Milan (1987), 95- 97.
24. Cf. Art. 8 (3); see also CISG-AC Opinion No. 3 (Parol Evidence Rule, Plain Meaning Rule, Contract Merger Clause and the CISG), Rapporteur Professor Richard Hyland, Rutgers Law School, Camden, NJ, USA, para. 3.3.
25. With respect to CISG see, also for further references, E.A. FARNSWORTH, supra note 31, 97 et seq.;
26. rd ed., Kluwer Law International (1999), 115-123;
27. M. SCHMIDT-KESSEL, in P. Schlechtriem / I. Schwenzer (eds.), Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht (CISG), Beck (München) (2004), 163 et seq.;
28. A. BAUMANN, Regeln der Auslegung internationaler Handelsgeschäfte. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der UNIDROIT Principles, der Principles of European Contract Law, des Uniform Commercial Code und des deutschen Rechts, V.&R Unipress (2004), 58 et seq.
29. Cf. United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna 10 March - 11 April 1980), Official Records, United Nations, New York (1981), 262
30. See UNILEX at under the entry: CISG > Articles and Issues >Article 8, and the entry: UNIDROIT Principles> Articles and Issues >Articles 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
31. [2001] 1 New Zealand Law Reports, 253.
32. [2006] 1 Lloyd's Reports, 181.
33. Yoshimoto v. Canterbury Golf International Ltd. [2004] 1 New Zealand Law Reports, 1.
34. Cf. UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2004, Preamble, para. 6.
35. rd ed., Transnational Publishers Inc. (2005), 294-301.