2002UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA)Requires access

Determining the Contractual Intent of Parties under the CISG and Common Law - A Comparative Analysis

Bruno Zeller

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

This paper will investigate how the mutual contractual obligations of parties are determined. The intent of parties is regulated in Article 8, which states: (1) For the purposes of this Convention statements made by other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to his intent where the other party knew or could not have been unaware what the intent was. (2) If the preceding paragraph is not applicable, statements made by and other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to the understanding that a reasonable person of the same kind as the other party would have had in the same circumstances. (3) In determining the intent of a party or the understanding a reasonable person would have had, due consideration is to be given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices which the parties have established between themselves, usage and any subsequent conduct of the parties. It will be argued that Article 8 touches on subtle and difficult issues, especially as some domestic doctrines need to be reviewed or abandoned. Great care must be taken to isolate and discard principles within domestic law which are not compatible with the interpretation of Article 8. For this reason, a comparison of the interpretation and application of the principle of intent between the CISG and common law, in particular the principle of mistake, is used to point to different methods and approaches. A complete understanding of intent also requies knowledge of at least one or two approaches in civil law. For comparative reasons, only Swiss and German legislation is looked at to discover a possible "common" approach to the application and interpretation of intent. It must be noted that the purpose of this paper is to investigate the "teasing out" of the intent of parties and hence to construct the contract. Thereforce, the common law principle of mistake is only viewed from that point of view.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This paper will investigate how the mutual contractual obligations of parties are determined. The intent of parties is regulated in Article 8, which states: (1) For the purposes of this Convention statements made by other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to his intent where the other party knew or could not have been unaware what the intent was. (2) If the preceding paragraph is not applicable, statements made by and other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to the understanding that a reasonable person of the same kind as the other party would have had in the same circumstances. (3) In determining the intent of a party or the understanding a reasonable person would have had, due consideration is to be given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices which the parties have established between themselves, usage and any subsequent conduct of the parties. It will be argued that Article 8 touches on subtle and difficult issues, especially as some domestic doctrines need to be reviewed or abandoned. Great care must be taken to isolate and discard principles within domestic law which are not compatible with the interpretation of Article 8. For this reason, a comparison of the interpretation and application of the principle of intent between the CISG and common law, in particular the principle of mistake, is used to point to different methods and approaches. A complete understanding of intent also requies knowledge of at least one or two approaches in civil law. For comparative reasons, only Swiss and German legislation is looked at to discover a possible "common" approach to the application and interpretation of intent. It must be noted that the purpose of this paper is to investigate the "teasing out" of the intent of parties and hence to construct the contract. Thereforce, the common law principle of mistake is only viewed from that point of view.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This paper will investigate how the mutual contractual obligations of parties are determined. The intent of parties is regulated in Article 8, which states: (1) For the purposes of this Convention statements made by other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to his intent where the other party knew or could not have been unaware what the intent was. (2) If the preceding paragraph is not applicable, statements made by and other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to the understanding that a reasonable person of the same kind as the other party would have had in the same circumstances. (3) In determining the intent of a party or the understanding a reasonable person would have had, due consideration is to be given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices which the parties have established between themselves, usage and any subsequent conduct of the parties. It will be argued that Article 8 touches on subtle and difficult issues, especially as some domestic doctrines need to be reviewed or abandoned. Great care must be taken to isolate and discard principles within domestic law which are not compatible with the interpretation of Article 8. For this reason, a comparison of the interpretation and application of the principle of intent between the CISG and common law, in particular the principle of mistake, is used to point to different methods and approaches. A complete understanding of intent also requies knowledge of at least one or two approaches in civil law. For comparative reasons, only Swiss and German legislation is looked at to discover a possible "common" approach to the application and interpretation of intent. It must be noted that the purpose of this paper is to investigate the "teasing out" of the intent of parties and hence to construct the contract. Thereforce, the common law principle of mistake is only viewed from that point of view.

Key concepts: Paragraph, Interpretation (philosophy), Mistake, Negotiation, Law, Political science, Convention, Law and economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Determining the Contractual Intent of Parties under the CISG and Common Law - A Comparative Analysis — Research Paper | ScholarLens