Avtalsmodellerna i avtalslagen, CISG och förslaget till en gemensam europeisk köplag (CESL) - En utveckling mot en klarare avtalsmekanism?
(2013) JURM02 20131Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Efter att Sverige återkallade sin reservation mot del II i FN-konventionen om internationella köp av varor (CISG) har det i svensk rätt presenterats parallella regler om avtalsslut, vid sidan av de som stadgas i den svenska avtalslagen. Inom EU har det framlagts ett förordningsförslag till en gemensam europeisk köplag (CESL). Förslaget innehåller avtals- och köprättsliga regler, inklusive regler om avtals ingående. Uppsatsen belyser vilka skillnader som finns mellan avtalsmodellerna i dessa verk och tar sikte på tendenser till förbättring av avtalsmekanismens reglering. Mot bakgrund av att det finns en internationell köplag inbegriper uppsatsen en utvärdering av de resonemang som ligger bakom förslaget till en europeisk köplag.
Den... (More) - Efter att Sverige återkallade sin reservation mot del II i FN-konventionen om internationella köp av varor (CISG) har det i svensk rätt presenterats parallella regler om avtalsslut, vid sidan av de som stadgas i den svenska avtalslagen. Inom EU har det framlagts ett förordningsförslag till en gemensam europeisk köplag (CESL). Förslaget innehåller avtals- och köprättsliga regler, inklusive regler om avtals ingående. Uppsatsen belyser vilka skillnader som finns mellan avtalsmodellerna i dessa verk och tar sikte på tendenser till förbättring av avtalsmekanismens reglering. Mot bakgrund av att det finns en internationell köplag inbegriper uppsatsen en utvärdering av de resonemang som ligger bakom förslaget till en europeisk köplag.
Den komparativa studien visar att skillnaderna är tydligast vid en jämförelse mellan dels avtalslagen, dels CISG och CESL. Avtalsmodellerna i CISG och CESL påminner i stor utsträckning om varandra. Den principiellt viktigaste skillnaden finns i reglerna om anbuds bindande verkan. Enligt avtalslagen kan ett anbud återkallas endast om anbudets innehåll ännu inte kommit till mottagarens kännedom. Därefter står det fast under en acceptfrist. Enligt CISG och CESL kan ett anbud fritt återkallas fram till att det accepteras. Denna utgångspunkt neutraliseras dock av vissa undantag. En annan iakttagelse är att avtalslagen bygger på subjektiva rekvisit som tar hänsyn till parters faktiska insikter och vad de måste ha förstått, medan reglerna i CISG och CESL utgår från vad man kan kalla objektiva rekvisit. Detta kommer tydligast till uttryck i reglerna om sen och oren accept. Avtalsmodellen i CISG reglerar vidare fler frågor av betydelse för hur avtal ingås i jämförelse med avtalslagens modell och är på grund av sin objektiva syn på avtalsproceduren mer praktiskt hanterbar. Avtalsmekanismen i CESL föreslår en tydligare reglering i frågor som visat sig vara oklara vid tillämpningen av CISG. Det klargörs till exempel att tidsangivna anbud inte kan återkallas, och hanteringen av kolliderande standardavtal regleras.
Den europeiska köplag som föreslås utmärks av att den ska fungera som ett frivilligt instrument och, förutom konsumentavtal, ta sikte på kommersiella avtal om minst en av parterna tillhör kategorin små- och medelstora företag. Ett skäl bakom förslaget är behovet av en enhetlig och heltäckande avtalsrättsakt som ska underlätta för framför allt mindre företag att bedriva gränsöverskridande handel genom att avlägsna den osäkerhet som följer av att parter behöver falla tillbaka på nationella rättsregler. För att uppnå en enhetlig tillämpning måste parter aktivt välja att tillämpa regelverket i fråga och hänskjuta uppkomna tvister till EU-domstolen. I kommersiella sammanhang avtalas dock dispositiva regler, inklusive reglerna i CISG, i regel bort eftersom bruket av standardavtal är omfattande. Tvister slits ofta genom skiljeförfarande. Det saknas vidare incitament för större företag att tillämpa ett regelverk som bygger på grundtankar om skydd för svagare part. Mot bakgrund av detta framstår skälen bakom förslaget inte som tillräckliga för att motivera den typ av kommersiell reglering som föreslås. (Less) - Abstract
- Sweden has withdrawn its reservation against Part II of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Thus, parallel rules on contract formation have come into force, beside those provided in the Swedish Contracts Act (Contracts Act). At EU level a Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (CESL) has been introduced. This paper illustrates the differences between the rules on contract formation within these contractual instruments, and aims at finding tendencies for improvements on the regulation of what can be called “the contract model”. In the light of the International Sales Law this paper includes an evaluation of the reasoning behind the proposal for a European Sales Law.
This... (More) - Sweden has withdrawn its reservation against Part II of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Thus, parallel rules on contract formation have come into force, beside those provided in the Swedish Contracts Act (Contracts Act). At EU level a Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (CESL) has been introduced. This paper illustrates the differences between the rules on contract formation within these contractual instruments, and aims at finding tendencies for improvements on the regulation of what can be called “the contract model”. In the light of the International Sales Law this paper includes an evaluation of the reasoning behind the proposal for a European Sales Law.
This comparative study shows that the differences are most evident when comparing the Contracts Act with the CISG and the CESL. The models on contract formation in the CISG and the CESL are extensively similar. The most important difference relates to the binding nature of the offer. Considering the Contracts Act, offers are generally irrevocable. An offer can be revoked only if the offeree has not yet become aware of the content of the offer. In contrast, under the CISG and the CESL an offer can be revoked until it is accepted. However, there are exceptions to this principle. The Contracts Act is based on subjective criterions that take into account the parties’ actual understanding and what they have been expected to understand, while the CISG and the CESL contains what can be defined as objective criterions. It may be noticed that the contract model in CISG governs more points of importance for the formation of contracts in comparison to the model in the Contracts Act and it is, due to its objective approach to the contract procedure, more practically manageable. The model on contract formation in CESL suggests clarifications concerning how to interpret certain issues under the Convention. It is made clear, for example, that offers stating a fixed time for acceptance cannot be revoked. Also, the issue of conflicting standard contract terms is regulated.
The proposed regulation is characterized by its optional nature and that it, apart from consumer contracts, may be used in commercial transactions if at least one of the parties is a small- or medium sized enterprise. The main reason for the proposal is the need to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of contract law rules in order to remove legal uncertainty created by differences in national law, and to promote cross-border trade. In order to achieve a uniform application parties will need to extensively apply the regulation and refer disputes to the European Court of Justice. As far as commercial transactions are concerned, non mandatory rules, including those in the CISG, are generally excluded. Disputes are often referred to arbitration. Further, there is no incentive for large enterprises to use an instrument that bases its basic ideas in favor of the protection of the weaker party. In the light of these facts the ideas behind the proposal are not sufficient to motivate a regulation concerning commercial contracts. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3564125
- author
- Miskin, Nathalie LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The rules on contract formation in the Swedish Contracts Act, the CISG and the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law (CESL) - A progress towards a clearer model on contract formation?
- course
- JURM02 20131
- year
- 2013
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU-rätt, Avtalsrätt, Förmögenhetsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3564125
- date added to LUP
- 2013-04-19 11:00:17
- date last changed
- 2013-04-19 11:00:17
@misc{3564125,
abstract = {{Sweden has withdrawn its reservation against Part II of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Thus, parallel rules on contract formation have come into force, beside those provided in the Swedish Contracts Act (Contracts Act). At EU level a Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (CESL) has been introduced. This paper illustrates the differences between the rules on contract formation within these contractual instruments, and aims at finding tendencies for improvements on the regulation of what can be called “the contract model”. In the light of the International Sales Law this paper includes an evaluation of the reasoning behind the proposal for a European Sales Law.
This comparative study shows that the differences are most evident when comparing the Contracts Act with the CISG and the CESL. The models on contract formation in the CISG and the CESL are extensively similar. The most important difference relates to the binding nature of the offer. Considering the Contracts Act, offers are generally irrevocable. An offer can be revoked only if the offeree has not yet become aware of the content of the offer. In contrast, under the CISG and the CESL an offer can be revoked until it is accepted. However, there are exceptions to this principle. The Contracts Act is based on subjective criterions that take into account the parties’ actual understanding and what they have been expected to understand, while the CISG and the CESL contains what can be defined as objective criterions. It may be noticed that the contract model in CISG governs more points of importance for the formation of contracts in comparison to the model in the Contracts Act and it is, due to its objective approach to the contract procedure, more practically manageable. The model on contract formation in CESL suggests clarifications concerning how to interpret certain issues under the Convention. It is made clear, for example, that offers stating a fixed time for acceptance cannot be revoked. Also, the issue of conflicting standard contract terms is regulated.
The proposed regulation is characterized by its optional nature and that it, apart from consumer contracts, may be used in commercial transactions if at least one of the parties is a small- or medium sized enterprise. The main reason for the proposal is the need to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of contract law rules in order to remove legal uncertainty created by differences in national law, and to promote cross-border trade. In order to achieve a uniform application parties will need to extensively apply the regulation and refer disputes to the European Court of Justice. As far as commercial transactions are concerned, non mandatory rules, including those in the CISG, are generally excluded. Disputes are often referred to arbitration. Further, there is no incentive for large enterprises to use an instrument that bases its basic ideas in favor of the protection of the weaker party. In the light of these facts the ideas behind the proposal are not sufficient to motivate a regulation concerning commercial contracts.}},
author = {{Miskin, Nathalie}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Avtalsmodellerna i avtalslagen, CISG och förslaget till en gemensam europeisk köplag (CESL) - En utveckling mot en klarare avtalsmekanism?}},
year = {{2013}},
}