Interpreting merger clauses in contracts governed by the CISG: delineating the scope for the use of extrinsic evidence

IF 0.7 Q4 LAW
Aditya Suresh
{"title":"Interpreting merger clauses in contracts governed by the CISG: delineating the scope for the use of extrinsic evidence","authors":"Aditya Suresh","doi":"10.1093/ulr/unab013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Under Article 8(3) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), parties’ statements, prior negotiations and other external circumstances may be used to assess the presence of subjective or objective intent that can, in turn, be used to interpret contractual terms in international sales contracts governed by the CISG. However, parties to the contract can, through the adoption of an ‘entire agreement’ or ‘merger’ clause, opt out of this rule under Article 8(3) and restrict these interpretative tools in any manner as they see fit, depending on the requirements of their contract. Since the CISG does not explicitly address merger clauses and their effects, the CISG Advisory Council, in its Opinion no. 3, has provided a test to determine how the scope of a merger clause is to be determined. However, this test presents certain conceptual and practical limitations that render it inadequate for use in international commercial contracts. This article aims to analyse this test and the methods that have been used to interpret merger clauses under other uniform legal instruments and cases in common law jurisdictions. On this basis, the article proposes a test that attempts to fully capture the conceptual intent behind including merger clauses while ensuring that the parties are in the driver’s seat while determining their scope and effect.","PeriodicalId":42756,"journal":{"name":"Uniform Law Review","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Uniform Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unab013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under Article 8(3) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), parties’ statements, prior negotiations and other external circumstances may be used to assess the presence of subjective or objective intent that can, in turn, be used to interpret contractual terms in international sales contracts governed by the CISG. However, parties to the contract can, through the adoption of an ‘entire agreement’ or ‘merger’ clause, opt out of this rule under Article 8(3) and restrict these interpretative tools in any manner as they see fit, depending on the requirements of their contract. Since the CISG does not explicitly address merger clauses and their effects, the CISG Advisory Council, in its Opinion no. 3, has provided a test to determine how the scope of a merger clause is to be determined. However, this test presents certain conceptual and practical limitations that render it inadequate for use in international commercial contracts. This article aims to analyse this test and the methods that have been used to interpret merger clauses under other uniform legal instruments and cases in common law jurisdictions. On this basis, the article proposes a test that attempts to fully capture the conceptual intent behind including merger clauses while ensuring that the parties are in the driver’s seat while determining their scope and effect.
解释受《销售公约》管辖的合同中的合并条款:划定使用外在证据的范围
根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》(《销售公约》)第8条第3款,当事人的陈述、事先谈判和其他外部情况可用于评估是否存在主观或客观意图,而主观或客观意图又可用于解释受《销售公约》管辖的国际销售合同中的合同条款。然而,合同各方可以通过采用“完整协议”或“合并”条款,根据第8(3)条选择退出这一规则,并根据其合同的要求,以任何他们认为合适的方式限制这些解释工具。由于《销售公约》没有明确处理合并条款及其影响,销售公约咨询委员会在其第7号意见中。3、提供了一个测试来确定如何确定合并条款的范围。但是,这种检验方法在概念上和实际上有某些限制,因此不适用于国际商业合同。本文旨在分析这一检验标准,以及在其他统一法律文书和英美法系案例中解释合并条款所采用的方法。在此基础上,本文提出了一个测试,试图充分捕捉包含合并条款背后的概念意图,同时确保各方在确定其范围和效果时处于主导地位。
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书