Advanced

Det nordiska lagstiftningssamarbetet i relation till FN- konventionen angående avtal om internationella köp av varor (CISG)

Wihlborg, Carina LU (2011) HARH10 20112
Department of Business Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Då Danmark, Finland, Norge och Sverige tillträdde FN- konventionen om internationella köp av varor, CISG, deklarerades även överensstämmande förbehåll, reservationer, av vart och ett av de fyra länderna. Detta agerande var endast ett i mängden av gemensamma beslut som företagits mellan de fyra länderna i rättsutvecklingens historia, men ur ett nutida perspektiv är just detta beslut högst aktuellt. Reservationerna gällde mot avtalsdelen, konventionens Del II, samt mot konventionen som helhet rörande köp mellan parter med affärsställe i något av de nordiska länderna enligt det så kallade naboundantaget. När reservationen gjordes antog lagstiftarna att den internordiska lagstiftningen som grundats på långtgående gränsöverskridande samarbete,... (More)
Då Danmark, Finland, Norge och Sverige tillträdde FN- konventionen om internationella köp av varor, CISG, deklarerades även överensstämmande förbehåll, reservationer, av vart och ett av de fyra länderna. Detta agerande var endast ett i mängden av gemensamma beslut som företagits mellan de fyra länderna i rättsutvecklingens historia, men ur ett nutida perspektiv är just detta beslut högst aktuellt. Reservationerna gällde mot avtalsdelen, konventionens Del II, samt mot konventionen som helhet rörande köp mellan parter med affärsställe i något av de nordiska länderna enligt det så kallade naboundantaget. När reservationen gjordes antog lagstiftarna att den internordiska lagstiftningen som grundats på långtgående gränsöverskridande samarbete, i framtiden skulle vara än mer överensstämmande än den var vid tillfället, och därför var reservationerna att föredra framför alternativet att de internationella reglerna skulle tillämpas på köp inom Norden eller vid frågor rörande avtal för nordisk del. Sedan undertecknandet av konventionen har en rad händelser däremot bidragit till att rättsutvecklingen i Norden inte fortskrider som tänkt, och de nordiska länderna är idag i otakt. I skrivande stund företas dock åtgärder för att återkalla reservationen mot avtalsdelen, dels på grund av att de nordiska avtalslagarna anses föråldrade och dåligt anpassade till nutida internationella avtalsförhållanden, och dels för att konventionen fått en så omfattande spridning.
Norge, som implementerade CISG genom transformation, förde in de internationella reglerna genom omskrivning i lagen som reglerar nationella köp. Detta har ansetts vara ett högst kontroversiellt drag i dubbel betydelse, för det första för att Danmark, Finland och Sverige inkorporerade CISG till en separat författning, för det andra för att konventionens regler har fått en norsk prägel vilket strider mot konventionens syfte som internationellt enhetlig. Denna metod för implementering försvårar även för en eventuell återkallelse, och Norge har valt att avvakta med den återkallelse som Danmark, Finland och Sverige är i färd med att företa.
Vid slutet på 1980- talet reformerades de nordiska köplagarna i en omfattande anpassning till CISG, med syftet att de nordiska lagarna skulle bli mer internationellt anpassade men framförallt mer internordiskt överensstämmande. Denna gemensamma köplag antogs dock inte av Danmark, bland annat på grund av att den innehöll bestämmelser som ter sig främmande mot tidigare nordisk rätt men även mot de internationella principerna. En tröskelfråga som ansågs särskilt otillfredsställande var införandet av nya regler för beräkningen av skadestånd. Indelningen i indirekta och direkta förluster medger ersättning endast för direkta förluster då kontrollansvar föreligger. För att indirekta förluster skall ersättas krävs förekomsten av försummelse från ansvarig parts sida enlig culpa- regeln.
Således är rättsläget numera splittrat i Norden. Finland och Sverige har helt överensstämmande regler på det aktuella området genom den reformerade köplagen, som även Norge genomfört i kombination med införandet av internationella regler i sin köplag, och Danmark har kvar sin gamla köplag från 1907. Till följd av den splittrade rättsutvecklingen i Norden undrar man om det inte vore sunt att också återkalla naboundantaget enligt artikel 94, då rättsreglerna ändå inte kan anses uppnå gränsöverskridande överensstämmelse. (Less)
Abstract
When Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden joined the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, CISG, it was with mutual disclaimers, reservations. This decision was only one of the several joint decisions undertaken by the four countries as regards the tradition of legal development among the Nordic countries, although from a contemporary perspective that decision is highly up to date. The reservations regarded the exclusion of Part II on formation of contracts, and the Convention as a whole concerning the affairs between partners with their place of business in the Nordic countries. When the lawmakers decided on these exclusions it was expected that the inter-Nordic legislation, based on traditions of extensive... (More)
When Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden joined the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, CISG, it was with mutual disclaimers, reservations. This decision was only one of the several joint decisions undertaken by the four countries as regards the tradition of legal development among the Nordic countries, although from a contemporary perspective that decision is highly up to date. The reservations regarded the exclusion of Part II on formation of contracts, and the Convention as a whole concerning the affairs between partners with their place of business in the Nordic countries. When the lawmakers decided on these exclusions it was expected that the inter-Nordic legislation, based on traditions of extensive cooperation, would be even more uniform in the future than it was at the time. Hence the reservations were preferred rather than the alternative of having international rules applied to sales within the Nordic countries, or to the issues concerning contract formation for Nordic merchants. However, following the signing of the Convention, a series of legal events contributed to the incoherent development of the inter-Nordic legislation, and the Nordic countries are now out of step. As of now the Nordic legislators have undertaken measures to withdraw the reservation regarding Part II of the Convention, partly because the Nordic contracts laws are considered obsolete and ill-suited to contemporary international contractual relations, and partly because the Convention has had such widespread success.

Norway implemented the Convention by transformation, which means that the international rules were implemented by conversion and placed among the rules that regulate national sales. This has been considered a highly controversial move, firstly because Denmark, Finland and Sweden incorporated the CISG into a separate statute, secondly because by transformation the rules of the Convention have been given a Norwegian character, which is contrary to the objectives of the Convention and its international uniformity. Further, this method of implementing the Convention is an obstruction to a Norwegian withdrawal, and the Norwegian legislators have decided to await the outcome of the withdrawals made by its neighboring countries before initiating such a comprehensive task.

In the late 1980´s the Scandinavian Sale of Goods Acts were reformed in an extensive adjustment to the rules of the Convention, with the vision of the Nordic laws becoming more suitable internationally, and above all reach a higher degree of inter-Nordic consistency. This joint Sales Act was not adopted by Denmark, partly because it contained provisions that seemed foreign to the former Nordic laws, but also since it was considered incompatible with international principles. The main issue that was considered unsatisfactory was the new approach on evaluating the grounds for compensation by the division of losses by classification. The division of indirect and direct loss admits compensation solely for direct losses when they are due to impediments within the control of the responsible party. For indirect losses to be granted grounds for compensation, it is required for the liable party to have acted with neglect, according to the culpa rule.

Thus, the legal situation is now slightly shattered in the Nordic countries: Finland and Sweden have fully consistent rules in the area concerned by their "new Sale of Goods Acts" along with Norway, although the Norwegian law contains international principles in the very same statute as well, while Denmark has kept its old Sale of Goods Act from 1907. As a result of the fragmented legal developments in the Nordic countries, one might wonder whether it might also be for the better to withdraw the declarations made according to article 94, as the rules of law cannot be considered to achieve the cross-border consistency that is required according to the article. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Wihlborg, Carina LU
supervisor
organization
course
HARH10 20112
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
CISG, Del II, Naboundantag, reservationer, återkallelse, nordisk, lagstiftning, förlustindelning, skadeståndsberäkning, Part II, reservations, withdrawal, Scandinavian law, indirect loss
language
Swedish
id
2199660
date added to LUP
2011-10-31 07:53:57
date last changed
2011-10-31 07:53:57
@misc{2199660,
  abstract     = {When Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden joined the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, CISG, it was with mutual disclaimers, reservations. This decision was only one of the several joint decisions undertaken by the four countries as regards the tradition of legal development among the Nordic countries, although from a contemporary perspective that decision is highly up to date. The reservations regarded the exclusion of Part II on formation of contracts, and the Convention as a whole concerning the affairs between partners with their place of business in the Nordic countries. When the lawmakers decided on these exclusions it was expected that the inter-Nordic legislation, based on traditions of extensive cooperation, would be even more uniform in the future than it was at the time. Hence the reservations were preferred rather than the alternative of having international rules applied to sales within the Nordic countries, or to the issues concerning contract formation for Nordic merchants. However, following the signing of the Convention, a series of legal events contributed to the incoherent development of the inter-Nordic legislation, and the Nordic countries are now out of step. As of now the Nordic legislators have undertaken measures to withdraw the reservation regarding Part II of the Convention, partly because the Nordic contracts laws are considered obsolete and ill-suited to contemporary international contractual relations, and partly because the Convention has had such widespread success.

Norway implemented the Convention by transformation, which means that the international rules were implemented by conversion and placed among the rules that regulate national sales. This has been considered a highly controversial move, firstly because Denmark, Finland and Sweden incorporated the CISG into a separate statute, secondly because by transformation the rules of the Convention have been given a Norwegian character, which is contrary to the objectives of the Convention and its international uniformity. Further, this method of implementing the Convention is an obstruction to a Norwegian withdrawal, and the Norwegian legislators have decided to await the outcome of the withdrawals made by its neighboring countries before initiating such a comprehensive task.

In the late 1980´s the Scandinavian Sale of Goods Acts were reformed in an extensive adjustment to the rules of the Convention, with the vision of the Nordic laws becoming more suitable internationally, and above all reach a higher degree of inter-Nordic consistency. This joint Sales Act was not adopted by Denmark, partly because it contained provisions that seemed foreign to the former Nordic laws, but also since it was considered incompatible with international principles. The main issue that was considered unsatisfactory was the new approach on evaluating the grounds for compensation by the division of losses by classification.  The division of indirect and direct loss admits compensation solely for direct losses when they are due to impediments within the control of the responsible party. For indirect losses to be granted grounds for compensation, it is required for the liable party to have acted with neglect, according to the culpa rule.

Thus, the legal situation is now slightly shattered in the Nordic countries: Finland and Sweden have fully consistent rules in the area concerned by their "new Sale of Goods Acts" along with Norway, although the Norwegian law contains international principles in the very same statute as well, while Denmark has kept its old Sale of Goods Act from 1907. As a result of the fragmented legal developments in the Nordic countries, one might wonder whether it might also be for the better to withdraw the declarations made according to article 94, as the rules of law cannot be considered to achieve the cross-border consistency that is required according to the article.},
  author       = {Wihlborg, Carina},
  keyword      = {CISG,Del II,Naboundantag,reservationer,återkallelse,nordisk,lagstiftning,förlustindelning,skadeståndsberäkning,Part II,reservations,withdrawal,Scandinavian law,indirect loss},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Det nordiska lagstiftningssamarbetet i relation till FN- konventionen angående avtal om internationella köp av varor (CISG)},
  year         = {2011},
}