Larry_A_DiMatteo_-_International_Sales_Law_A_Global_Challenge-Cambridge_University_Press_2014

language of the drafters, although he notes that a court in some countries will rely on a translation rather than the authentic version.13 In the end, these arguments state that when there are conflicts in translations of the text, the English and, occasionally, the French versions are used because they best express the intentions of the drafters of the CISG – French and English being the languages of the negotiations, English being the drafting language.14

Not surprisingly, a commentary in French speaks against the notion that in case of doubt the English text should prevail, supposedly because of the “uncertainties” of the legal Anglo-American language.15 An ancillary argument given is that most contributors to the drafting process were people who were not fluent in English, that it is safer to rely on the concordance of texts in several official languages, and that French and Spanish could often serve as starting points.16 Clearly, this is a minority position.

III. Drafting Issues: Choice of Words and Neutral Language

The drafters of the CISG came from different legal traditions, mostly from civil and common law countries. They therefore aimed to avoid domestic legal terms and concepts, and sought to use an independent legal language.17 CISG drafters chose what was intended to create a neutral, international language detached from domestic legal concepts.18 For instance, to explain the passing of risk, the CISG uses the words “[goods] handed over” rather than the “title or property” passing to the buyer.19

To avoid tradition-laced concepts, such as hardship or force majeure, CISG’s Article 79 uses “impediment without control” or “empechementˆ independant de sa volonte´.” The CISG solution started a drafting trend, and was influential on the terminology used in other international documents. The UNIDROIT Principles use the phrase events “beyond control” and “ev´enement´ qui lui echappe´.” The PECL uses “impediment beyond its control” and “ev´enement´ qui echappe´ a` son controleˆ.” It is a fair statement that the CISG has succeeded in creating common concepts and legal language unique

13Ole Lando, preface to CISG Methodology (ed. Andre´ Janssen and Olaf Meyer) (Munich: Sellier, 2009), 3; Frank Diedrich, “Maintaining Uniformity in International Uniform Law via Autonomous Interpretation: Software Contracts and the CISG,” 8 Pace Int’l L. Rev. 317, 318 (1996) (posits that the French and English are the preferable versions). Compare Camille Baasch Andersen, Uniform Application of the International Sales Law (The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2007), 89 (objects to the notion of the English version being the best, as being politically incorrect and Eurocentric).

14Schlechtreim and Schwenzer, Commentary, 130.

15Karl H. Neumayer and Catherine Ming, Convention de Vienne sur les contrats de ventei de marchandises. Commentaire (ed. Francois Dessemontet) (Lausanne: CEDIDAC, 1993), 100.

16Id.

17Schwenzer and Hachem, CISG, 457, 461 n. 27.

18“When drafting the single provisions these experts had to find sufficiently neutral language on which they could reach a common understanding.” Michael Joachim Bonell, Article 7, in Bianca-Bonell Commentary on the International Sales Law (Giuffre:` Milan 1987), 65, 74. See also United Nations Commission, “Witness Clause,” ix. (“The drafters of the Convention took special care in avoiding the use of legal concepts typical of a given legal tradition.”) They succeeded to a large extent, favoring “non-legal earthy words to refer to physical acts.” Bruno Zeller, “Four-Corners: The Methodology for Interpretation and Application of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods,” Pace Law School Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database, n. 187 (May 2003), http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/4corners. html.

19Id.

to international sales law.20 This common vocabulary is not linked to national legal systems.21 An example would be the French and English versions of Article 79 noted earlier.22

As Professor Bruno Zeller aptly puts it, “[D]omestic legislation needs to consider the choice and clarity of words. International legislation, in addition, needs to consider the effects of translation on the meaning of words as most conventions unfortunately are not . . . written in [a single] language.”23 He cites, as an example, the issue of mixed sales dealt with in CISG Article 3(1). Article 3(1) states that a transaction is not a sale of goods if the buyer supplies a “substantial” part of the materials. The German “wesentlich” and the French “part essentielle” are a better match to each other than they are to the English adjective “substantial.” These imperfect matches will lead to ambiguities, which can only be avoided by reviewing the text in different languages.24

Professor Eric Bergsten notes that much has been written about the problems of translation, but less has been written about drafting in one language with the expectation that the text will be translated.25 Professor Bernard Audit notes the need to use a simple language in such international instruments. The terms should refer to material events without using words with a legal connotation. Thus, terms such as the French “delivrance´” and “force majeure” were avoided.26 The French concept of delivery associates the delivery and the conformity, including warranty against hidden defects (“garantie contre les vices caches´”). It is nearly impossible to translate this concept, which provides instances where the goods are determined to not have been delivered when the buyer is in possession of the goods.27

As well as being simple and nonlegal in nature, words in a multijurisdictional private law instrument have to be comprehensive and functional enough to overcome technical divergences in domestic legal systems. For instance, the word “avoidance” in CISG Article 26, “resolution´” in the French text, covers the German concepts of Rucktritt¨, Wandelung, Kundigung¨, Irrtumsanfechtung, as well as termination, cancellation, rescission, and the French concept of “redhibitory defects.”28 From a French perspective, the notion of fundamental breach in CISG Article 25 is problematic because it seems to be somewhere between the French contraventions essentielles et non essentielles. In English law it is akin to the distinction between conditions and warranties. The contract can only be voided because of a violation of a condition. This approach is similar in regard to that of Article 1184 of the French Civil Code.29

20Castellani, “International Trade Law,” 7–8 (citing Bruno Zeller, “International Trade Law: Problems of Language and Concepts?,” 23 J. L. & Commerce 39, 43 (2003).

21Castellani, “International Trade Law,” 6 (citing Moreteau,´ “Le prototype,” 183–202).

22See United Nations Commission, “Witness Clause,” 252.

23Zeller, “International Trade Law.”

24Id.

25Eric Bergsten, “Methodological Problems in the Drafting of the CISG,” in Janssen and Meyer, CISG Methodology, 18.

26Bernard Audit, La vente internationale de marchandises (Paris: LGDJ, 1990), 48 n. 1.

27Id., 80 n. 1.

28Horatia Muir Watt, “Book Review,” 87 Revue Critique de Droit International Prive´ 818 (1998); Peter Schlechtriem, ed., Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sales of Goods, 2nd ed. (English trans. Geoffrey Thomas) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998).

29Audit, La vente internationale, 119 n. 2.

Differences in official translations, at times, have led to different meanings in the official texts. An example of this phenomenon is seen when comparing the English and French wordings of Articles 71 and 72.30 Article 71(1) allows a party to temporarily suspend performance if “it becomes apparent that the other party will not perform a substantial part of his obligations.”31 Article 72(1) allows a party to avoid the contract if “it is clear” that the other side will commit a fundamental breach.”32 The English version of these two articles uses two different words: “substantial” and “fundamental.” The use of two different words implies two different standards were intended by the drafters of the CISG with a higher one for the permanent avoidance of a contract. But this may not be the case, because the French version of the CISG uses the same word for both articles, “essentielle.” Article 71 requires the nonperformance of “une partie essentielle de ses obligations” and Article 72 requires the threat of a “contravention essentielle au contrat.”

Although the translations were done carefully, when one looks at the different language versions synoptically,33 one notes that some words are translated differently. An illustration is provided by Article 3(2) where the French version refers to a “part essentielle” (essential part) and the English version refers to a “substantial part.” The unofficial German text refers to a “wesentlicher Teil,” which corresponds to the French version, and would be translated as “essential part.”34 It is instructive to go back to the legislative history, where it appears that ULIS contained both “substantial and essential,” but the English version removed “essential” and the French version removed “substantial.”35

Bergsten mentions one small discrepancy that was knowingly included with regard to the Chinese translation, but overall, he celebrates the high congruence of the English and French CISG texts, and also the Russian text.36 He has less confidence in the Spanish, and even less in the Arabic and Chinese. Some of the language versions have been officially rectified, which requires a formal procedure to amend the text called proces`-verbal.37 He also mentions the special problem of more than one state sharing the same language, such as with German.38 The Chinese and Russian versions differ markedly from the

30Harry M. Fletcher, “The Several Texts of the CISG in a Decentralized System: Observations on Translations, Reservations and other Challenges to the Uniformity Principle in Article 7(1),” 17 J. of L. and Commerce 187 (1998), available at http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/flechtnerauthentic.html.

31United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods Art. 71(1), April 11, 1980, 52 Fed. Reg. 6262, 6264–6280 (1987) (CISG). (“A party may suspend the performance of his obligations if, after the conclusion of the contract, it becomes apparent that the other party will not perform a substantial part of his obligations.”)

32Id. at Article 72(1). (“If prior to the date for performance of the contract it is clear that one of the parties will commit a fundamental breach of contract, the other party may declare the contract avoided.”)

33For a nice synoptic display of CISG convention articles and other texts, see Heinz Albert Friehe and Winfried Huck, “Uniform Sales Law (CISG): Synopsis of Selected Texts” (2011), http://web.law-and-business. de/cisg7/index2.php?lang=2, which is in ten languages: five authentic texts (Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish) and five translations (Dutch, German, Italian, Japanese, and Swedish).

34Schlechtreim and Schwenzer, Commentary, 25 n. 62.

35Id., 62. See also Zeller, “Four-Corners,” n. 131. Generally on the problems raised by the different languages versions under CISG, see Bergsten, “Methodological Problems,” 18–21.

36Bergsten, “Methodological Problems,” 19–20.

37For more information on the proces`-verbal of correction, see UN Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) Treaty Section, Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, at paras. 48–62, U.N. Doc. ST/LEG/7/Rev. 1, U.N. Sales No. Sales No. E. 94. V. 15, available at http://untreaty. un.org/ola-internet/Assistance/Summary.htm.

38Bergsten, “Methodological Problems,” 21.

English and French ones.39 There is also some criticism of the German translation.40 Andersen mentions some issues with the Norwegian text, an unofficial translation, which was incorporated into domestic Norwegian law, creating its own problems because it sets itself apart.41

The discrepancies observed and debated here do not seem to have created particular practical problems for courts and arbitral tribunals. This is probably due to the excellent work of UNCITRAL translators in the preparation of the texts, and the various methods available and used for comparing wording among the various versions.

IV. Interpretation and Homeward Trend

A substantial number of CISG cases, especially in the earlier case law, suffer from a homeward trend bias where courts apply domestic rules of interpretation in applying the CISG.42 Differences in language and other domestic peculiarities sometimes make it difficult for outsiders to even “hear” the message of foreign precedent.43 The issue of language and translation arises in the interpretation of CISG Articles 7 and 8. Article 7(1) aims for an autonomous interpretation of the CISG44 “free from preconceptions of domestic law.”45 The guiding principles focus on the international character of the CISG, the goal of promoting uniformity, and the promotion of good faith in international trade. The CISG allows the use of domestic law only as a last resort.

Professor John Honnold noted the difference between uniform words and uniform meaning.46 The uniform interpretation of text meaning is best achieved through autonomous interpretations detached from the traditional concepts, principles, rules, and terms of domestic legal systems.47 Identical words in the CISG and domestic law may be faux-amis and have different meanings.48 CISG is filled with undefined terms, such as “good faith.” CISG Article 7(1) lists good faith as a general principle, but fails to provide a definition or criteria for applying the principle.49

To expect a single interpretation of each provision of the CISG is unrealistic.50 It is difficult enough in domestic law, and unthinkable with a text in multiple languages and where no court of final appeal can give a uniform interpretation.51 The aim of uniformity of application can only be attained if the national courts and arbitral tribunals interpret

39Schlechtreim and Schwenzer, Commentary, 123 n. 22.

40Id.

41Andersen, Uniform Application, 88 n. 272.

42The expression “homeward trend” is attributed to John Honnold. He mentions it in Documentary History of the Uniform Law for International Sales 1 (Deventer: Kluwer, 1989). See Franco Ferrari, “Homeward Trend: What, Why, and Why Not,” in Janssen and Meyer, CISG Methodology, 171.

43Joseph Lookofsky, Understanding the CISG: A Compact Guide to the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods (Frederick, MD: Kluwer, 2008), 35.

44Schlechtreim and Schwenzer, Commentary,122.

45Id.

46John Honnold, “The Sales Convention in Action: Uniform International Words: Uniform Application,” 8 J. of L. & Commerce 207–12 (1988).

47Schlechtreim and Schwenzer, Commentary, 115. Id.

48Id., 118.

49Bruno Zeller, “The Observance of Good Faith in International Trade,” in Janssen and Meyer, CISG Methodology, 133, 134–5.

50Bergsten, “Methodological Problems,” 29.

51Id., 30.

the CISG in a uniform way.52 To achieve this goal, they have to look at the decisions of other courts and scholarly commentary to develop common interpretations.53

Several methods of interpretation are well documented in the scholarly literature, including use of scholarly commentary, legislative history,54 interpretive methods found in public international law, comparative law, and uniform law principles espoused in soft law instruments.55 UNCITRAL has played a fundamental role in starting a comprehensive way to gather and disseminate international case law (jurisprudence) and scholarly writings (doctrine), which in many countries have a higher authority than cases.56

Useful information may be gathered from the experience of officially bilingual countries such as Canada.57 Three methods of interpretation of bilingual legislation often occur in decisions of the Canada Supreme Court and Federal Court: unilingual, if there are no discrepancies in translation but the meaning is ambiguous; bilingual, if one version helps define the meaning of a term better than the other one; and when the two versions lead to divergent meanings, legislative objectives should be used as a guide to a meaning that best achieves those objectives.58

Finally, even when translations lead to the same meaning, similar terms can be interpreted differently. For instance, the notion of “reasonable time” has a consistent meaning across languages. So, even when the CISG is found textually uniform, the text may be applied differently. Reasonably timely notice of nonconformity under CISG Article 39, as an example of an open-textured rule, has been interpreted by different courts to range from four days being untimely to four months being timely.59

V. Solutions to Deal with Language and Translation Issues

It is obvious that the stated goal of the uniform interpretation of the CISG presupposes the accessibility and availability of foreign legal materials, both case law and scholarly writings and commentaries. Thanks to the remarkably successful efforts of several groups, notably Professor Albert Kritzer at the Pace Law School, and others, in developing easily accessible databases, the CISG is one of the most fully documented international conventions.

UNCITRAL’s mandate is to promote uniform interpretation and application of international trade conventions and uniform laws through the collection and dissemination

52Schlechtreim and Schwenzer, Commentary, 124.

53Professor Honnold notes that “traditional barriers to the use of scholarly writing in legal development broke down long” in the United States and other common law countries, and civil law countries have always relied on scholarly writings. Honnold, “The Sales Convention in Action,” 207.

54Id., 208.

55See Schlechtreim and Schwenzer, Commentary, 130, for a good discussion.

56Id., 211 n. 10.

57Marie Lajoie, “L’interpretation´ judiciaire des textes legislatifs´ bilingues,” 24 no. 1 Meta: Translators’ J. 115–24 (1979), available at http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1979/v24/n1/003376ar.html?vue=resume.

58Article 8 of the Law on Official Languages. Id., 117.

59Schlechtreim and Schwenzer, Commentary, 127, 629–33; Camilla Baasch Andersen, “The Global Jurisconsultorium of the CISG Revisited,” 13 Vindobona J. of Int’l Commercial L. & Arbitration 43, 45 (2009); Camilla Baasch Andersen, “The Uniform International Sales Law and the Global Jurisconsultorium,” 24 J. of L. and Commerce 159 (2005); Camilla Baasch Andersen, “Reasonable Time in Article 39(1) of the CISG: Is Article 39(1) Truly a Uniform Provision,” in 1998 Review of the CISG 63 (ed. Pace University) (Kluwer, 1998), available at http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/andersen.html.

of information.60 Since 1983, UNCITRAL has worked on a method to disseminate court decisions and arbitral awards interpreting the CISG,61 resulting in CLOUT (Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts) abstracts in 1988.62 National correspondents monitor cases in their respective countries, create an abstract of each case, and send it together with the full opinion to the UNCITRAL Secretariat, which adds them to the database.63 The second edition of the CLOUT Digest was released in 2012. The case digest is authoritative, each chapter “highlighting common views and reporting divergent approaches,”64 but does not allow for critical commentary.65 The unofficial CISG Advisory Council, which held its inaugural conference in 2003, is composed of scholars who prepare opinions on suggested interpretations of CISG provisions.66 The UNILEX database is a collection of international case law and bibliography on the CISG, as well as the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts.67

A. International Sales Law Thesauri and Case Translations

The development of international sales law thesauri is essential in promoting accessibility and uniformity of interpretation. Two of them are of particular note, the UNCITRAL and the Pace thesauri.

In 1995, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law commissioned Professor John O. Honnold to develop a classification system of the provisions of the CISG.68 UNCITRAL refers to this classification on its database as a thesaurus, but the UNCITRAL Thesaurus is more aptly described as a classified index.69 This outline classifies decisions under the CISG. It includes a detailed breakdown of the subjects addressed in each provision of the CISG, which makes it very useful for searching for particular words or concepts in the outline.70

60UNCITRAL should be active, inter alia, in “promoting ways and means of ensuring a uniform interpretation and application of international conventions and uniform laws in the field of the law of international trade [and] collecting and disseminating information on national legislation and modern legal developments, including case law, in the field of the law of international trade”: General Assembly resolution 2205 (XXI) of December 17, 1966, available on UNCITRAL’s website at www.uncitral.org.

61Rep. of the U.N. Comm. on Int’l Trade Law on the Work of Its Sixteenth Session, May 24–June 3, 1983, U.N. Doc. A/38/17; GAOR, 38th Sess., Supp. No. 17 (1983).

627 Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the Work of Its TwentyFirst Session, New York, April 11–20, 1988, United Nations document A/43/17, paragraphs 98– 109. CLOUT reports are published as United Nations documents A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/1 to A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/112 (latest document available at the date of this UNCITRAL DIGEST revision). The 112 CLOUT reports are also available on UNCITRAL’s Web site at www.uncitral.org/ clout/showSearchDocument.do?lf=898&lng=en.

63United Nations Commission, “Witness Clause,” x.

64Id.

65For an evaluation of the usefulness and weaknesses of the UNCITRAL Digest, see Franco Ferrari, “Remarks on the UNCITRAL DIGEST’s Comments on Article 6 CISG,” 25 J. L. & Commerce 13–37 (2005–6), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/CISG25/Ferrari.pdf.

66See http://www.cisgac.com.

67See http://www.unilex.info.

68See http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/uncitral.html.

69See http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/case law/thesauri.html.

70Personal communication from Professor Vikki Rogers to author (December 16, 2011) (on file with author).

The Pace CISG Database provides a truer form of a thesaurus because it includes a controlled vocabulary.71 As an example, all information on termination of contract is placed under “avoidance of contract.” Alternative terms, phrases, and expressions used in legal systems around the world are cross-referenced to the controlled vocabulary. The Global Sales Law Thesaurus provides a uniform international sales law indexing language. The thesaurus includes terminology from the UCC, but directs the user to parallel legal concepts in international sales law.

The Pace CISG Thesaurus, on the other hand, is a controlled indexing vocabulary, created in accordance with the ISO Standards for monolingual thesauri (ISO 2788). It establishes equivalence relationships, hierarchical relationships, and associative relationships (preferred terms, broader and narrower terms, and related terms). It is thus a uniform terminology that will used to index CISG materials. The intent is to share freely the thesaurus so that other databases will be able employ the same controlled vocabulary to index their CISG collections.72

The CISG Database also provides English translations of foreign cases using the Queen Mary Case Translation program. This allows for a fuller dissemination of foreign cases, which may be used by courts in interpreting the CISG.73 The Pace website includes a list of cases translated, arranged by country, as well as a chart of court hierarchies in different countries.74

B. Reading Foreign Decisions: French Cour de cassation

The role of higher courts is not the same in the different national legal systems. This can be misleading if one reads a foreign decision with a domestic perspective.75 For example, the highest court in France for civil and commercial cases is the Cour de cassation. Its decisions are brief, sketchy, and often less than a page in length. They do not include policy reasoning or citations to court cases or scholarly writings, and have been the subject of misunderstandings by common law scholars. One misunderstanding lies in the fact that the Cour de cassation is not a “supreme court” in the common law sense,76 as it does not review the facts on appeal, but only whether the law was correctly applied to the facts as found by the lower court. The Cour de cassation reviews the law applied in the lower court, either confirms or “quashes” (casse) the decision, and then remands the case to another lower court for a decision.77 The Cour decides which issues are matters

71Vikki M. Rogers and Albert H. Kritzer, “A Uniform International Sales Law Terminology,” SISU on Behalf of CISG Database, Pace Institute of International Commercial Law (March 23, 2004), available at http:// www.jus.uio.no/sisu/a uniform international sales terminology.vikki rogers.and.albert kritzer/. See also Andersen, “The Uniform International Sales Law.”

72Id.

73The Queen Mary Case Translation Programme, Pace Law School Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database, http:// cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/queenmary.html.

74CISG Database Country Case Schedule, Pace Law School Albert H. Kritzer CISG Database, http://www. cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/casecit.html.

75Sofie Geeroms, “Comparative Law and Legal Translation: Why the Terms Cassation, Revision and Appeal Should Not Be Translated,” 50 American J. of Comparative L. 201, 202 (2002).

76Id. See also Sofie Geeroms, Foreign Law in Civil Litigation: A Comparative and Functional Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).

77Principles of French Law (ed. John Bell, Sophie Boyron, and Simon Whittaker) (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 3.

of law, and which ones are matters of facts left to the “sovereign power of assessment” of the juges du fonds (lower court judges who judge the facts).78 A long-standing tradition has left the interpretation of contracts and the measure and quantification of damages to the lower courts. A 2000 Cour de cassation decision left the issue of “reasonable time” for a buyer to give notice of lack of conformity of goods pursuant to CISG Article 39(1) to the lower court judge.79 This decision was subject to criticism.80

The lack of reasoned opinions by the Cour de cassation masks the several commentaries that are available for important decisions, including the recommendations of the reporting judge (Conseiller rapporteur), the recommendations of the Avocat Gen´eral´ (judge representing the public interest), and commentaries prepared by scholars in the specialized law reviews. These various commentaries provide the likely reasons for the decision with citations to relevant cases and scholarly writings. Nonetheless, several French commentators have argued that French Cour de cassation decisions should contain a better explanation of the Court’s policy reasoning.81

C. Role of Foreign Decisions and Scholarly Writings

There is consensus that case law is to be considered a major source for the interpretation of the CISG: “A consistent body of case law is progressively being built under the CISG.”82 Several trends have appeared. Civil law countries are becoming increasingly sensitive to foreign case law, and common law courts have begun to use scholarly writings as a source of interpretation.83 Doctrinal writings are influential not only in describing the state of affairs of a particular issue, but also in taking positions on critical issues in order to provide guidance to courts in the creation of an international common law of sales.84

However, the debate is ongoing as to how much weight courts should give to foreign decisions and scholarly commentary in applying the CISG. There is general agreement that well-reasoned foreign decisions should have persuasive authority.85 Of course, this presupposes that the foreign cases can be read or translated by lawyers and judges. As noted previously, the development of databases and translations of cases have provided much greater access to foreign case laws. The reading of foreign decisions needs to be done with the awareness of the context and the procedural and remedial aspects of the

78Id.

79Claude Witz, Un arretˆ regrettable: le delai´ de denonciation´ des defauts´ prevu´ par la Convention de Vienne laisse´ a` l’appreciation´ souveraine des juges du fond, 2000 Recueil Dalloz, 788.

80Id.

81Adolphe Touffait and Andre´ Tunc, “Pour une motivation plus explicite des decisions´ de justice, notamment de celles de la Cour de cassation,” 72 Rev. Trim. Dt. Civ. 487 (1974). See also Intervention de M. Christian Charruault, president´ de la premiere` chambre civile de la Cour de cassation, Cour de Cassation, April 2010, available at http://www.courdecassation.fr/colloques activites formation 4/2010 3159/ christian charruault 15853.html.

82Schlechtreim and Schwenzer, Commentary, 128, citing other authors who think that it is the most important source.

83Id., 129.

84Anna Veneziano, “Uniform Interpretations: What Is Being Done? Unofficial Efforts and Their Impact,” in The 1980 Uniform Sales Law: Old Issues Revisited in the Light of Recent Experiences, Verona Conference 2003 (ed. Franco Ferrari) (Milan: Giuffre,` 2003), 326, n. 6. She cites to one French decision: CA Grenoble, October 23, 1996, which cites to a German decision. Id., 328, n. 13.

85Id., 125, citing Lookofsky, Understanding the CISG.

decision.86 Finally, foreign case precedent must be analyzed critically in order to prevent the perpetuation of faulty reasoning in such cases.87

VI. Language Risk

When the parties to a contract use different languages (which may result in the contract being written in different languages), the issue of which party is allocated the risk of differences in the respective languages is raised.88 According to CISG Article 8, regarding the interpretation of statements made by and other conduct of the parties, the party making the statement bears the risk of defective formulation. The parties should specify the language of the contract for purposes of resolving disputes over divergent interpretations due to language differences. This is especially important for the interpretation of standard terms and conditions.89 The language of the contract is almost always the language of the negotiations. To be effective, a reference by one party to its standard terms must be sufficient to put a reasonable person in the place of the other party in a position to understand the reference and to gain knowledge or an understanding of the standard terms.

In one case, the seller’s standard contract terms were not in the language of the contract, and the court held that the terms did not become part of the contract because of the seller’s failure to provide a translation of the terms. Another court stated that standard contract terms written in a language different from that of the contract do not bind the other party.90 An early German court decision ruled that a case-by-case approach must be employed in determining the effectiveness of a notice written in a language other than the language in which the contract was made.91 The reasonableness of the language used is to be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person, looking at the usages and practices observed in international trade. The mere fact that a notice was in a language that was neither that of the contract nor that of the addressee did not necessarily prevent the notice from being effective if it was an acceptable language from the perspective of trade usages and practices. Furthermore, the court noted that the recipient of the notice might reasonably have been expected to request a clarification explanations or a translation.

The Tribunale di Rovereto held that standard terms have to be drafted “either in the language of the contract, or in that of the opposing party or a language that the opposing

86Silvia Ferreri, “Remarks Concerning the Implementation of the CISG by the Courts (the Seller’s Performance and Article 35),” 25 J. of L. and Commerce 223, 229 (2005–6), available at http://www.cisg.law. pace.edu/cisg/biblio/ferreri.html.

87Schlechtreim and Schwenzer, Commentary, 126–7 (citing an Australian decision that cites the Cour de cassation decision, itself inconsistent with another decision). For a review of the main obstacles in finding and evaluating foreign decisions, see also Fabio Liguori, “UNILEX: A Means to Promote Uniformity in the Application of CISG,” 4 Zeitschrift fur¨ Europaisches¨ Privatrecht 600 (1996).

88Id., 166.

89Id., 166, 173. See also Ulrich Magnus, “Incorporation of Standard Contract Terms under the CISG,” in

Sharing International Commercial Law across National Boundaries: Festschrift for Albert H. Kritzer on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (ed. Camilla B. Andersen and Ulrich G. Schroeter) (Wildy, Simmonds & Hill, 2008), 303, 324.

90United Nations Commission, “Witness Clause,” 58, citing 84 Rechtbank Koophandel Hasselt, Belgium, June 2, 1999, available at www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/int/tradelaw/WK/1999–06–02.htm.

91Id., citing CLOUT case No. 132 (Oberlandesgericht Hamm, Germany, February 8, 1995).

party knows” to be a part of the contract.92 Another court ruled that the other contracting party had to be sufficiently notified for the standard terms to be incorporated into the contract either in the language of negotiations or in the party’s native language.”93 Yet another court94 held that if a party accepts statements relating to the contract in a language different from the one used for the contract, it is bound by the contents, and it is the receiving party’s responsibility to determine the meaning of the contents.

In the end, language and translation issues have not become major problems in the application of the CISG, based on a review of the reported cases. A survey of the Pace and French CISG databases, using the key words “translation,” “traduction,” “language,” “langage,” found only a handful of cases in which language issues were mentioned.95

VII. Conclusion

The CISG has been adopted by a large number of countries. It has generated a vast scholarly literature. And, to a surprising degree, it has reached a reasonable level of uniformity in its application.96 The CISG can be credited for the decline of legal babelism that beset the private international law rules it was created to replace.97 There has been serious progress toward the convergence of legal systems, and the CISG has had positive influence on the reforming of a number of national contract-sales legal systems. The most effective way to prevent the homeward trend is to educate the current and future generations of law students and lawyers about foreign legal systems and comparative law, and also to increase the ability of lawyers to read and understand foreign languages.

92Id., citing Tribunale di Rovereto, Italy, November 21, 2007, Unilex.

93Id., citing Landgericht Memmingen, Germany, September 13, 2000, available at http://cisgw3.law.pace

.edu/cases/000913g1.htm.

94Id., citing 88 CLOUT case No. 409 (Landgericht Kassel, Germany, February 15, 1996), also Unilex.

95See, e.g., CISG France Cour d’Appel de Paris, 5eme Chamber Section A, Sept. 10, 2003, Societe H.H. . . . GMBH & Co. v. SARL MG. available at http://www.cisg-france.org/decisions/100903v.htm (French Court of Appeals held that the German “Auftragsbestatigung¨” could be translated as “confirmation de commande” despite it being in a language that the party did not understand); Cour d’appel de Versailles, douzieme` chambre section 2, 13 Octobre 2005 (documents were written in a foreign language without any translation, such that the Court could not interpret it); Societ´e´ E. contre Societ´e´ T.D. SARL B, available at http://www.cisg-france.org/decisions/131005a.htm; Cour d’appel de Grenoble, chambre commerciale, 13 Septembre 1995. Monsieur C . . . , R . . . contre Societ´e´ franc¸aise de f . . . international F . . . F . . . “ S.F.F.” (SA), available at http://www.cisgfrance.org/decisions/130995v.htm (Court held that the date listed on the translation was an obvious material error).

96Bergsten, “Methodological Problems,” 31.

97Claude Witz talks about the “recul du babelisme´ juridique” in “Les vingt-cinq ans de law Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de merchandises: Bilans et perspectives” [“The 25th anniversary of the CISG: Evaluations and perspectives”], 123 Journal du Droit Int’l 5, 25 (2006). The Babel reference is also attributable to John Honnold, in Documentary History, 1 (“Babel of diverse legal systems”).