Advanced

Hävning av avtal enligt CISG – Särskilt om förhållandet mellan säljarens rätt att avhjälpa och köparens rätt att häva

Hummel, Kajsa LU (2018) JURM02 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Ett led i strävan mot en harmonisering av den internationella köprätten utgör United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) som trädde i kraft den 1 januari 1988. CISG har i skrivande stund ratificerats av 89 stater och är dispositiv lagstiftning för majoriteten av alla internationella avtal om varuköp. Något som diskuterades flitigt vid antagandet av konventionen var hur säljarens rätt att, efter tiden för leverans, avhjälpa ett avtalsbrott och köparens rätt att häva ett avtal skulle förhålla sig till varandra. Förhandlingarna ledde till att bestämmelsen om säljarens avhjälpningsrätt (art. 48) skulle inledas med: “subject to article 49”, som stadgar köparens rätt att häva ett avtal. Resultatet utgjordes... (More)
Ett led i strävan mot en harmonisering av den internationella köprätten utgör United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) som trädde i kraft den 1 januari 1988. CISG har i skrivande stund ratificerats av 89 stater och är dispositiv lagstiftning för majoriteten av alla internationella avtal om varuköp. Något som diskuterades flitigt vid antagandet av konventionen var hur säljarens rätt att, efter tiden för leverans, avhjälpa ett avtalsbrott och köparens rätt att häva ett avtal skulle förhålla sig till varandra. Förhandlingarna ledde till att bestämmelsen om säljarens avhjälpningsrätt (art. 48) skulle inledas med: “subject to article 49”, som stadgar köparens rätt att häva ett avtal. Resultatet utgjordes av en kompromiss och frågan har fortsatt att debatteras intensivt efter att CISG trädde i kraft.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att, med fokus på förhållandet mellan säljarens rätt att avhjälpa fel enligt art. 48 och köparens hävningsrätt enligt art. 49 CISG, undersöka förutsättningarna att häva ett avtal enligt CISG. En viktig fråga är härvid om bedömningen av huruvida ett avtalsbrott är att anse som väsentligt ska avgöras enbart på objektiva grunder eller om även säljarens inställning till och förmåga att företa rättelse utan oskäligt dröjsmål eller olägenhet för köparen, ska vägas in i bedömningen. Då uppsatsen syftar till att utröna gällande rätt har en rättsdogmatisk metod använts. Uppsatsen behandlar ett internationellt ämne, varför även utländska rättskällor har använts. Varken CISG:s förarbeten eller praxis har emellertid tillmätts samma betydelse som vid ett renodlat svenskt lagtolkningsförfarande.

Tröskeln för vad som utgör ett väsentligt avtalsbrott är generellt sett hög, såväl vad gäller fel som dröjsmål. Det är inte tillräckligt att avtala om ett bestämt leveransdatum för att hävningsrätt ska föreligga om leverans sker efter denna tidpunkt. I fråga om hävningsrätt p.g.a. fel har noterats att hänsyn bl.a. tas till hur förpliktelsen som avtalsbrottet avser har specificerats i avtalet. Parterna bör därför tydligt precisera hävningsförutsättningarna genom att tydligt ange vad som är av väsentlig betydelse för dem.

Studier av CISG:s tillkomst visar att såväl förslag om att ta bort förbehållet för hävningsrätten som en lydelse som innebär en större hävningsrätt för köparen förkastades vid antagandet av CISG. Vid en tolkning av CISG i ljuset av UNIDROIT Principles har funnits att avhjälpandemöjligheterna bör tas i beaktande vid bedömningen av huruvida ett väsentligt avtalsbrott föreligger.

Det har framkommit att den rådande uppfattningen i såväl doktrin som praxis är att det vid bedömningen av huruvida ett avtalsbrott är väsentligt tas hänsyn till säljarens vilja och förmåga att avhjälpa felet ifråga. Sammantaget har en rimlig reglering av förhållandet mellan avhjälpanderätten och hävningsrätten funnits vara att erkänna köparens hävningsrätt som primär i förhållande till avhjälpanderätten, men därvid konstatera att köparen, i fall då avhjälpande är möjligt, inte kan anses ha blivit berövad vad denne haft att vänta enligt avtalet. Undantag till detta ska gälla om det är motiverat av köparens särskilda intresse, vilket kan uppkomma exempelvis till följd av svikligt agerande från säljaren eller p.g.a. avtalsbrottets allvar. En sådan ordning har funnits utgöra en rimlig avvägning mellan köparens intresse av att häva och säljarens intresse av att avhjälpa, samtidigt som den inte står i strid mot ordalydelsen i art. 48. (Less)
Abstract
One step in the pursuit of a harmonization of the rules regulating international sale of goods is the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), which entered into force on January 1, 1988. As of today, 89 states have ratified the CISG and it is optional law for the majority of all contracts on the international sale of goods. A question highly debated at the adoption of the convention was the relationship between the seller's right to, after the time of delivery, cure a breach of contract and the buyer's right to avoid the contract. The negotiations led to the provision on the seller's right to cure (art. 48) being initiated with "subject to article 49", which stipulates the buyer's right to avoid a... (More)
One step in the pursuit of a harmonization of the rules regulating international sale of goods is the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), which entered into force on January 1, 1988. As of today, 89 states have ratified the CISG and it is optional law for the majority of all contracts on the international sale of goods. A question highly debated at the adoption of the convention was the relationship between the seller's right to, after the time of delivery, cure a breach of contract and the buyer's right to avoid the contract. The negotiations led to the provision on the seller's right to cure (art. 48) being initiated with "subject to article 49", which stipulates the buyer's right to avoid a contract. This result was a compromise and the issue has continued to be intensively debated after the CISG entered into force.

The purpose of the thesis is to, with a focus on the relationship of the seller's right to cure in art. 48 to the buyer's right to avoid a contract in art. 49, examine the possibility of avoidance under CISG. A question of importance is whether the seller's willingness and ability of to cure a breach without unreasonable delay and without causing the buyer unreasonable inconvenience should be considered when deciding whether a breach is fundamental, or whether this should be examined on objective grounds only. The thesis seeks to examine established law, why a traditional legal dogmatic method has been used. The thesis deals with an international topic, why also foreign sources of law have been used. However, neither the preparatory work nor case law of the CISG has been given the same importance as when interpreting national law.

The threshold for what constitutes a fundamental breach of contract is generally high, both regarding non-conformity and delay in delivery. It is not enough to agree on a specific delivery date for the right of avoidance to exist if delivery takes place after this date. In terms of right of avoidance due to non-conformity, it has been noted that account is, inter alia, taken of how the obligation to which the breach of contract relates, has been specified in the contract. The parties should therefore clearly stipulate the conditions for avoidance by clearly specifying what is of significant importance to them.

Studies of the history of the CISG show that both a proposal to remove the reservation for the right of avoidance and a wording that would entail a greater right of avoidance for the buyer were rejected when the CISG was adopted. An interpretation of CISG in the light of UNIDROIT Principles, has been found to indicate that the possibility to cure should be taken into account when assessing whether a fundamental breach of contract exists.

It has become apparent that the prevailing perception in both legal writing and in case law is that when assessing whether a breach of contract is fundamental, account is taken of the seller's willingness and ability to remedy the failure in question. Overall, a reasonable regulation of the relationship between the right to cure and the right of avoidance has been found to recognize the buyer's avoidance right as primary in relation to the right to cure, but conclude that the buyer, when cure is possible, cannot be deemed to have been deprived of what he was entitled to expect under the contract. Exceptions to this shall apply if it is justified by the buyer's particular interest, which may arise, for example, as a result of fraudulent actions by the seller or because of the seriousness of the breach. Such a position has been found to be a reasonable balance between the buyer's interest in avoidance and the seller's interest in curing, while at the same time not being in conflict with the wording of art. 48. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hummel, Kajsa LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Avoidance under the CISG – About the relationship of the seller's right to cure to the buyer's right to avoid a contract
course
JURM02 20182
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Köprätt, Internationell köprätt, Utrikeshandelsrätt, Kommersiell avtalsrätt
language
Swedish
id
8965662
date added to LUP
2019-01-29 15:19:08
date last changed
2019-01-29 15:19:08
@misc{8965662,
  abstract     = {One step in the pursuit of a harmonization of the rules regulating international sale of goods is the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), which entered into force on January 1, 1988. As of today, 89 states have ratified the CISG and it is optional law for the majority of all contracts on the international sale of goods. A question highly debated at the adoption of the convention was the relationship between the seller's right to, after the time of delivery, cure a breach of contract and the buyer's right to avoid the contract. The negotiations led to the provision on the seller's right to cure (art. 48) being initiated with "subject to article 49", which stipulates the buyer's right to avoid a contract. This result was a compromise and the issue has continued to be intensively debated after the CISG entered into force.
 
The purpose of the thesis is to, with a focus on the relationship of the seller's right to cure in art. 48 to the buyer's right to avoid a contract in art. 49, examine the possibility of avoidance under CISG. A question of importance is whether the seller's willingness and ability of to cure a breach without unreasonable delay and without causing the buyer unreasonable inconvenience should be considered when deciding whether a breach is fundamental, or whether this should be examined on objective grounds only. The thesis seeks to examine established law, why a traditional legal dogmatic method has been used. The thesis deals with an international topic, why also foreign sources of law have been used. However, neither the preparatory work nor case law of the CISG has been given the same importance as when interpreting national law.
 
The threshold for what constitutes a fundamental breach of contract is generally high, both regarding non-conformity and delay in delivery. It is not enough to agree on a specific delivery date for the right of avoidance to exist if delivery takes place after this date. In terms of right of avoidance due to non-conformity, it has been noted that account is, inter alia, taken of how the obligation to which the breach of contract relates, has been specified in the contract. The parties should therefore clearly stipulate the conditions for avoidance by clearly specifying what is of significant importance to them.
 
Studies of the history of the CISG show that both a proposal to remove the reservation for the right of avoidance and a wording that would entail a greater right of avoidance for the buyer were rejected when the CISG was adopted. An interpretation of CISG in the light of UNIDROIT Principles, has been found to indicate that the possibility to cure should be taken into account when assessing whether a fundamental breach of contract exists.
 
It has become apparent that the prevailing perception in both legal writing and in case law is that when assessing whether a breach of contract is fundamental, account is taken of the seller's willingness and ability to remedy the failure in question. Overall, a reasonable regulation of the relationship between the right to cure and the right of avoidance has been found to recognize the buyer's avoidance right as primary in relation to the right to cure, but conclude that the buyer, when cure is possible, cannot be deemed to have been deprived of what he was entitled to expect under the contract. Exceptions to this shall apply if it is justified by the buyer's particular interest, which may arise, for example, as a result of fraudulent actions by the seller or because of the seriousness of the breach. Such a position has been found to be a reasonable balance between the buyer's interest in avoidance and the seller's interest in curing, while at the same time not being in conflict with the wording of art. 48.},
  author       = {Hummel, Kajsa},
  keyword      = {Köprätt,Internationell köprätt,Utrikeshandelsrätt,Kommersiell avtalsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Hävning av avtal enligt CISG – Särskilt om förhållandet mellan säljarens rätt att avhjälpa och köparens rätt att häva},
  year         = {2018},
}