Why and how does CISG (United Nation Convention on the International Sales of Goods) favour exporters?

Résumé du document

The CISG (United Nation Convention on the International Sales of goods) is a very useful law that facilitates transactions of goods between countries. With the increasing world trade exchanges, it seems useful to have a set of procedures that allow both parties in different countries to agree on common rules that regulate their transaction, and not to refer to the domestic law of each one. However not all countries have accepted this convention, and also not all "traders" have to agree on the use of this convention. What could explain the fact that this convention is not accepted by everybody? Does it favor one or the other party? In this paper, we will briefly explain what the CISG is and what has been said about it, and then analyze how this treaty could be in favor of exporters through its rules, firstly about formation of the contract, and then the duties and obligations of the seller and buyers with respect to the performance of the contract and its breach. This paper will be selective and not show all aspects of the CISG. Moreover, the sources are for the most part written by American authors, and this explains why the CISG is often compared to the UCC which is the domestic law of the United States. An attempt will be made to compare

Extraits

[...] He explains a case: a Canadian company sells a machine to an American buyer. The Canadian seller has changed the contract and added a clause excluding any consequential damage. However, the machine had later a problem. The buyer wanted the seller to pay for the damages occurred. The author explains that the seller would have to pay under the UCC, but with the CISG, seller's acknowledgement would be reviewed as a counter offer because it contained these different or additional terms. [...]

[...] However, the contract is not permanent. Performance is suspended only for a duration of the impediment. And prompt notice to the other party must be given.” The other domestic laws as the French one for instance are more flexible and the breach of the contract is definitive in case of external situation changes. Concerning the buyer, as we have seen, if the seller breaches a contract, the buyer should give him time to cure the defects or deliver the goods in case they are not delivered. [...]

[...] Winship (2000, p.241-242), the French law and the CISG are different concerning the suspension of performance. Indeed, with the French law one can suspend its performance (not pay) if the other party has suspended its performance (non-delivery of goods). With the CISG, much more steps have to be set before doing that, and it can be interpreted as a breach of a contract In case the contract is breached R.H. Folsom et all (2004, p.68-69) explain that the seller is very well protected when the buyer breaks the contract. [...]

[...] France, September 2005, More conventional wisdom, Export New Zealand, Ebsco publishing P.F.Mc Intosh, October 2001, Selected legal aspects of international sales transactions: The united convention on Contracts for the international sales of goods, Business credit, p.36-39, Ebsco publishing. J.E.Murray,June Quiz: local versus international, Purchasing buylines Ebsco publishing. J. Murray 08/12/99, Problems with CISG-part Purchasing Vol Issue Business source premier J. Murray, October CISG-Part2, Purchasing Ebsco publishing J. Murray, December United Nations CISG-Part3, Purchasing Ebsco publishing December 2001, Don't let CISG's differences from UCC trip up your international supplier agreements, purchasing law report Ebsco publishing. [...]

[...] Indeed, there is no written requirement and one can agree on a contract only with an oral agreement. J. E. Murray (1998) explains that there is no obligation to have a written contract and all what is said by oral can be used later before courts, contrary to the UCC. By comparing the CISG and the French law, we can also see several differences. According to J.A.Spanogle and P. Winship (2000, p.15), There is no special law for the transaction of goods. [...]