Is CISG Applicable and Suitable in Service Contracts?

IF 0.4 4区 经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS
Kyujin Kim
{"title":"Is CISG Applicable and Suitable in Service Contracts?","authors":"Kyujin Kim","doi":"10.35611/jkt.2023.27.3.43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose – This paper studies whether CISG can be a suitable governing law for pure service contracts. When CISG was first drafted, there was little disagreement on the fact that contracts for the sale of goods and those for the provision of services were two different types of contract. Based on this understanding, CISG explicitly provides that the Convention will apply to contracts where the preponderant part of the contractual obligation is on the sale of goods, not services. However, as more sales transactions have come to include more elements of services, mainly due to the advancement of the IoT industry, the distinction between goods and services became more blurred. Based on the observation of recent changes, some scholars even argue that such a change supports the applicability and suitability of CISG to even pure service contracts. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze and evaluate their argument. Design/methodology – This paper focuses on two separate but related issues: CISG’s ‘applicability’ and ‘suitability’ to service contracts. For the first issue, this paper will examine the rules of interpretation of international treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, and will apply its rules to find the proper answer. For the second issue, this paper will perform logical and empirical analyses on the reasoning employed by scholars claiming the suitability of CISG to service contracts. Findings – This paper concludes that CISG does not, and should not, apply to pure service contracts. The argument that CISG applies to pure service contracts directly contravenes Article 3(2) of the Convention, which expressly states that it does not apply to a contract wherein the preponderant part of its obligation is about services rather than sales. Similarly, CISG is not a suitable governing law for pure service contracts because it aims provide rules specifically tailored to the needs of transactions of sales of goods, not services. Servitization of sales of goods transaction does not change this conclusion. Originality/value – This paper presents different views from those offered by some eminent scholars on the issue of applicability and suitability of CISG to service contracts. By doing so, it is hoped that the confusion caused in discussions so far are clarified. Hopefully, this paper can also provide practical guidance to practitioners engaged in the fields of international sales, services, and IoT industries.","PeriodicalId":37797,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korea Trade","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Korea Trade","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35611/jkt.2023.27.3.43","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose – This paper studies whether CISG can be a suitable governing law for pure service contracts. When CISG was first drafted, there was little disagreement on the fact that contracts for the sale of goods and those for the provision of services were two different types of contract. Based on this understanding, CISG explicitly provides that the Convention will apply to contracts where the preponderant part of the contractual obligation is on the sale of goods, not services. However, as more sales transactions have come to include more elements of services, mainly due to the advancement of the IoT industry, the distinction between goods and services became more blurred. Based on the observation of recent changes, some scholars even argue that such a change supports the applicability and suitability of CISG to even pure service contracts. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze and evaluate their argument. Design/methodology – This paper focuses on two separate but related issues: CISG’s ‘applicability’ and ‘suitability’ to service contracts. For the first issue, this paper will examine the rules of interpretation of international treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, and will apply its rules to find the proper answer. For the second issue, this paper will perform logical and empirical analyses on the reasoning employed by scholars claiming the suitability of CISG to service contracts. Findings – This paper concludes that CISG does not, and should not, apply to pure service contracts. The argument that CISG applies to pure service contracts directly contravenes Article 3(2) of the Convention, which expressly states that it does not apply to a contract wherein the preponderant part of its obligation is about services rather than sales. Similarly, CISG is not a suitable governing law for pure service contracts because it aims provide rules specifically tailored to the needs of transactions of sales of goods, not services. Servitization of sales of goods transaction does not change this conclusion. Originality/value – This paper presents different views from those offered by some eminent scholars on the issue of applicability and suitability of CISG to service contracts. By doing so, it is hoped that the confusion caused in discussions so far are clarified. Hopefully, this paper can also provide practical guidance to practitioners engaged in the fields of international sales, services, and IoT industries.
《销售公约》是否适用于服务合同?
目的:本文研究CISG是否可以成为适用于纯服务合同的适用法律。在最初起草《销售公约》时,对于货物销售合同和提供服务合同是两种不同类型的合同这一事实几乎没有异议。根据这种理解,《销售公约》明确规定,《公约》将适用于合同义务的绝大部分是关于货物销售而不是关于服务的合同。然而,随着越来越多的销售交易开始包含更多的服务元素,主要是由于物联网行业的进步,商品和服务之间的区别变得更加模糊。根据对最近变化的观察,一些学者甚至认为,这种变化支持《销售公约》甚至适用于纯服务合同。本文的目的是批判性地分析和评价他们的论点。设计/方法-本文侧重于两个独立但相关的问题:CISG对服务合同的“适用性”和“适用性”。对于第一个问题,本文将研究1969年《维也纳条约法公约》下的国际条约解释规则,并将适用其规则来寻找适当的答案。对于第二个问题,本文将对学者主张《销售公约》适用于服务合同的推理进行逻辑和实证分析。结论-本文的结论是,CISG不适用,也不应该适用于纯服务合同。认为《销售公约》适用于纯服务合同的论点直接违反了《公约》第3条第2款,该条明确规定,《销售公约》不适用于其义务的绝大部分是关于服务而不是关于销售的合同。同样,《销售公约》也不是适用于纯服务合同的适用法律,因为它的目的是提供专门针对货物销售交易需要而不是针对服务需要的规则。商品销售交易的服务化并没有改变这一结论。原创性/价值-本文就《销售公约》对服务合同的适用性和适宜性问题提出了与一些知名学者不同的观点。通过这样做,希望迄今为止在讨论中造成的混乱得到澄清。希望本文也能为从事国际销售、服务、物联网等行业的从业者提供实践指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Korea Trade
Journal of Korea Trade Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
自引率
20.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of Korea Trade purports to support and encourage researches in the area of international economics, international business and foreign trade practices & laws. The Journal welcomes theoretical and empirical papers in the broadly-defined international trade issues and policy implications in the context of Korea Trade.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信