This page uses so called "cookies" to improve its service (i.e. "tracking"). Learn more and opt out of tracking
I agree
Principles
1620
Bibliography
1032
Materials
86
Archive
65
History & Modern Evolution of Transnational Commercial Law

Ferrari, Franco, in: Kröll, Stefan, Mistelis, Loukas, Perales Viscasillas, Pilar (eds.), UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) - A Commentary, 2nd ed. 2018

Title
Ferrari, Franco, in: Kröll, Stefan, Mistelis, Loukas, Perales Viscasillas, Pilar (eds.), UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) - A Commentary, 2nd ed. 2018
Table of Contents
6. Incorporation of standard contract terms
Content

6. Incorporation of standard contract terms
38The offeror will generally attempt to have his standard contract terms govern the contract. As regards the incorporation of standard contract terms, according to both commentators174 and courts,175 the “CISG does not postulate special requirements. The rules needed therefore have to be derived from Arts 14 et seg. CISG that govern the process of contract formation.”176 Recourse to domestic law or to non-binding rules, such as the UNIDROIT Principles, is neither necessary nor appropriate,177as also expressly stated by a German court in 2015.178

39To determine whether standard contract terms are part of the offer,179 special regard must be given to Art.8, as often suggested by both commentators180 and courts181. Hence, where the addressee knew or could not have been unaware of the fact (Art. 8(1)) that it was the offeror’s intent that the standard contract terms be part of the offer, those terms have to be considered an integral part of the offer.182 Even absent the aforementioned requirements, the standard contract terms must be considered an integral part of the offer if “a reasonable person of the same kind” as the addressee “in the same circumstances” (Art. 8(2)) would have understood that the terms were supposed to be part of the offer.183 Pursuant to Art. 8(3), in determining “the understanding a reasonable person [of the same kind as the addressee} 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, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.”184 Thus, “for an effective incorporation it is required that the addressee can gain knowledge of the standard contract terms in a reasonable manner.”185 “An effective incorporation of standard contract terms therefore requires above all that the addressee of the offer could become aware of offeror’s intent to incorporate his standard contract terms into the contract. Furthermore, the uniform sales law requires [...] from the user of standard contract terms that he send their text to the addressee or make them available in another way.”186

40“By virtue of the differences between the legal systems and usages many differences exist between standard contract terms; this is why the contractual partner of the user of standard contract terms oftentimes will not be able to predict the particular contents of the terms he agreed to; moreover, a control as regards the contents of the standard contract terms according to domestic law (Article 4(2)(a) CISG) is not provided for everywhere. For the user of the standard terms it is easily possible to attach the terms = which are regularly advantageous to him - to the offer. It would violate both the — principle of good faith in international trade (Article 7(1) CISG) and the general duty of the parties to corporate and to inform each other [as to issues relevant to the their contract] if one were to impose an obligation on the contractual partner of the user of the standard contract terms to inquire as to the contents of the terms that have not been transmitted, and, thus, impose upon that party the risks and disadvantages of unknown standard contract terms drafted by the opposing party. As regards the fact that standard contract terms referred to in commercial transactions or in transactions between businesses become part of the contract under German non-uniform law even if the opposing party is not aware of them, but could have become aware of them by using reasonable efforts - for instance, by requesting them from the user [...], this is irrelevant in international commerce, with the consequence that, pursuant to the principle of good faith, the opposing party cannot be expected to have an obligation to inquire into their contents.”187 Where, however, the front side of an order form clearly contains a reference to the standard contract terms printed on the back side of the same (both in the language of the offeror and in that of the offeree), those standard contract terms have to be considered incorporated into the offer.188 In this author's opinion, it is not sufficient189 that the user refers to its standard contract terms accessible on the Internet because, as previously mentioned, “the addressee is not under a duty to get access to standard contract terms that the user wants to use against the addressee.”190 If, however, the addressee is familiar with specific standard contract terms used by opposing party because “the standard contract terms have been used on the occasion of prior contracts between the parties, particularly in long standing business relationships”,191 the standard contract terms do not have to be transmitted to the addressee of the proposal.192

41The question of whether the standard contract terms are incorporated into the offer cannot be clearly distinguished from that of what terms are part of the offer (not the contract). The aforementioned considerations are relevant with regard to the latter issue as well. As a result, it must be assumed that standard contract terms are not considered part of the offer,193 when the addressee does not know or cannot understand the contents and when a reasonable person of the same kind as the addressee cannot have known or understood (for instance, because the language in which the standard contract terms are drafted is neither one known to the addressee nor one commonly used in the area of trade concerned).194
While the incorporation of standard contract terms is governed by the CISG provisions on formation of contracts195 in principle the determination of the appropriateness of their contents is, pursuant to Art. 4(a), left to the applicable domestic law.196 This is the true, at least where the determination is not solely based on form requirements.197 This is the case in Italy, for instance, because the principle of informality provided by Art. 11 would apply (and override any domestic form requirements). If, according to the applicable domestic law, an evaluation has to occur with respect to the appropriateness contents of the standard contract terms, the evaluation must take into account that the contract is for an international, and not a domestic, sale of goods. Thus, the CISG's values, rather than domestic ones, have to be taken into account.198
 

174Compare Ferrari, Vendita internazionale di beni mobili. Artt. 14-24. Formazione del contratto (2006) p. 44; Gruber, in: MiinchKommBGB (2016), Introduction to Art. 14 para. 6; Herber/Czerwenka, Kommentar (1991), Art. 14 para. 11; Janssen, Nach welchem Recht richtet sich die Einbeziehung von Allgemeinen Geschaftsbedingungen in den Niederlanden?, IHR (2005) 155 (156 et seq.); Janssen, Die Einbeziehung von allgemeinen Geschaftsbedingungen in internationale Kaufvertrage und die Bedeutung der UNIDROIT- und der Lando-Principles, IHR (2004) 194 (197); Magnus, in: Staudinger Kommentar (2013), Art. 14 para. 40; Mankowski, in: Ferrari et al., Internationales Vertragsrecht (2012), Art. 14 CISG para. 22; Schlechtriem, in: Schlechtriem/Schwenzer, Commentary (2005), Art. 14 para. 16; Schlechtriem/ Schroeter, Internationales UN-Kaufrecht (2013) para. 250; Schnyder/Straub, in: Honsell, Kommentar (1997), Art. 14 para. 55; Schroeter, in: Schlechtriem/Schwenzer, Kommentar (German ed. 2013), Art. 14 para. 33; Schroeter, in: Schlechtriem/Schwenzer, Commentary (2016), Art. 14 para. 40.
175See Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) 20 January 2016, CISG-Online 2685; Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) 2 December 2015, CISG-Online 2683; Hof s’Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) 29 September 2015, CISG-Online 2655; Landgericht Fulda (Germany) 29 September 2015, CISG-Online 2716; LG Stade (Germany) 19 February 2015, CISG-Online 2669; OLG Naumburg (Germany) 13 February 2013, CISG-Online 2455; Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) 31 August 2005, CISG-Online 1093; Landgericht Neubrandenburg (Germany) 3 August 2005, CISG-Online 1190; Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) 1 February 2005, CISG-Online 1130; Hoge Raad (the Netherlands) 28 January 2005, CISG- Online 1002; Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) 20 July 2004, CISG-Online 858; Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) 21 April 2004, CISG-Online 915; Landgericht Trier (Germany) 8 January 2004, CISG-Online 910; Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) 17 December 2003, CISG-Online 828.
176Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) 6 February 1996, CISG-Online 224; see also Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) 2 December 2015, CISG-Online 2683; contra see Landgericht Duisburg (Germany) 17 April 1996, CISG-Online 186.
177See, however, Hofs’Hertogenbosch (the Netherlands) 16 October 2002, CISG-Online 816; for a comment on this decision, see Janssen, Die Einbeziehung von allgemeinen Geschaftsbedingungen in internatio- nale Kaufvertrage und die Bedeutung der UNIDROIT- und der Lando-Principles, IHR (2004) 194 et seq.
178Landgericht Fulda (Germany) 29 September 2015, CISG-Online 2716.
179For a very detailed discussion of the issue, see, among others, Hennemann, AGB-Kontrolle im UN- Kaufrecht aus deutscher und französischer Sicht (2001); Teklote, Die Einheitlichen Kaufgesetze und das deutsche AGB-Gesetz: Probleme bei Verwendung allgemeiner Geschaftsbedingungen im CISG und im EKG/EAG (1994).
180Compare Dornis, in: Honsell, Kommentar (2010), Inro. Art. 14 para. 6; Ferrari/Torsello, Interna- tional Sales Law - CISG (2015) p. 137; Gruber, in: MünchKommBGB (2016), Art. 14 para. 28; Lüderitz/ Fenge, in: Soergel, Kommentar zum BGB. Schuldrechtliche Nebengesetze (2000), Art. 14 para. 10; Magnus, in: Staudinger Kommentar (2013), Art. 14 para. 41; Schroeter, in: Schlechtriem/Schwenzer, Commentary (2016), Art. 14 para. 40.
181See Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) 20 January 2016, CISG-Online 2685; Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) 2 December 2015, CISG-Online 2683; Landgericht Fulda (Germany) 29 September 2015, CISG-Online 2716; OLG Naumburg (Germany) 13 February 2013, CISG-Online 2455; Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) 31 August 2005, CISG-Online 1093; Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) 8 August 2005, CISG-Online 1087; Landgericht Neubrandenburg (Germany) 3 August 2005, CISG-Online 1190; Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) 1 February 2005, CISG-Online 1130; Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) 21 April 2004, CISG-Online 915; Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) 31 October 2001, CISG-Online 617; Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) 6 February 1996, CISG-Online 224; Tribunal de commerce de Nivelles (Belgium) 19 September 1995, CISG-Online 366.
182Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) 31 October 2001, CISG-Online 617.
183Ferrari/Torsello, International Sales Law - CISG (2015) p. 137.
184Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) 6 February 1996, CISG-Online 224; for more recent decisions stating the same, see Landgericht Fulda (Germany) 29 September 2015, CISG-Online 2716; Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) 8 August 2005, CISG-Online 1087; Landgericht Neubrandenburg (Germany) 3 August 2005, CISG-Online 1190.
185Magnus, in: Staudinger Kommentar (2013), Art. 14 para. 41; also compare Dornis, in: Honsell, Kommentar (2010), Vor Art. 14 para. 7; Garro/Zuppi, Compraventa internacional de mercaderias (2012), p. 120; Lüderitz/Fenge, in: Soergel, Kommentar zum BGB. Schuldrechtliche Nebengesetze (2000), Art. 14 para. 10; Witz/Salger/Lorenz, Kommentar (2016), Introduction to Art. 14 para. 12; in case law see Landgericht Fulda (Germany) 29 September 2015, CISG-Online 2716; U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (U.S.), Roser Technologies, Inc. v. Carl Schreiber GmbH, 10 September 2013, CISG-Online 2490; OLG Naumburg (Germany) 13 February 2013, CISG-Online 2455; Landgericht Neubrandenburg (Germany) 3 August 2005, CISG-Online 1190.
186Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) 31 October 2001, CISG-Online 617; see also Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) 20 January 2016, CISG-Online 2685; Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) 2 December 2015, CISG-Online 2683; Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) 21 April 2004, CISG-Online 915; Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) 6 February 1996, CISG-Online 224; in legal writing see Hennemann, AGB-Kontrolle im UN-Kaufrecht aus deutscher und franzésischer Sicht (2001) pp. 72 et seq.; Huber/Kröll, Deutsche Rechtsprechung zum UN-Kaufrecht in den Jahren 2001/2002, IPRax (2003) 309 (311); Gruber, in: MünchKommBGB (2016), Art. 14 para. 29; Piltz, Internationales Kaufrecht (2008) para. 3-83; Schlechtriem/Schroeter, Internationales UN-Kaufrecht (2013) para. 254; Teklote, Die Einheitlichen Kaufgesetze und das deutsche AGB-Gesetz: Probleme bei Verwendung allgemeiner Geschaftsbedin- gungen im CISG und im EKG/EAG (1994) pp. 112 et seq; Ventsch/Kluth, Die Einbeziehung von Allgemeinen Geschafisbedingungen im Rahmen des UN-Kaufrechts, IHR (2003) 61 (61).
187Landgericht Neubrandenburg (Germany) 3 August 2005, CISG-Online 1190; see also Landgericht Fulda (Germany) 29 September 2015, CISG-Online 2716; Landgericht Trier (Germany) 8 January 2004, CISG-Online 910.
188See Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) 20 July 2004, CISG-Online 868; Amtsgericht Nordhorn (Germany) 14 June 1994, CISG-Online 259.
189Dornis, in: Honsell, Kommentar (2010), Vor Art. 14 para. 12; Piltz, IHR (2004) 133 (134); Ventsch/ Kluth THR (2003) 124; contra see Gruber, in: MünchKommBGB (2016), Art. 14 para. 30; Stiegele/Halter, Nochmals: Einbeziehung von Allgemeinen Geschaftsbedingungen im Rahmen des UN-Kaufrechts = Zuganglichmachung im Internet, IHR (2003) 169 (169).
190Magnus, in: Staudinger Kommentar (2013), Art. 14 para. 41.
191Gruber, in: MünchKommBGB (2016), Art. 14 para. 31.
192See Huber/Kröll, Deutsche Rechtsprechung zum UN-Kaufrecht in den Jahren 2001/2002, IPR (2003) 309 (311); Magnus, in: Staudinger Kommentar (2013), Art. 14 para. 41.
193Contra see Schnyder/Straub, in: Honsell, Kommentar (1997), Art. 14 para. 57.
194Compare Gruber, in: MünchKommBGB (2016), Art. 14 para. 33; in case law see Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) 21 April 2004, CISG-Online 915.
195Also see Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken (Germany) 31 March 1998, CISG-Online 481.
196In case law see Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), 21 April 2004, CISG-Online 915; Amtsgericht Nordhorn (Germany), 14 June 1994, CISG-Online 259; for more detailed remarks, see Dornis, in: Honsell, Kommentar (2010), Intro. Art. 14 para. 15; Ferrari, in: Schlechtriem/Schwenzer, Kommentar (German ed. 2013), Art. 4 para. 20.
197Compare, for instance, Art. 1341(2) of the Italian Civil Code.
198For this conclusion, see also Schnyder/Straub, in: Honsell, Kommentar (1997), Art. 14 para. 12; Karollus, UN-Kaufrecht: Hinweise für die Vertragspraxis, dsterreichische Juristische Blatter (1993) 23 (30); Ferrari, in: Schlechtriem/Schwenzer, Kommentar (German ed. 2013), Art.4 para. 20; for critical remarks, see Schluchter, Die Gültigkeit von Kaufvertragen unter dem UN-Kaufrecht (1996) pp. 195 et seq.

Referring Principles
Trans-Lex Principle: IV.3.2 - Inclusion of standard terms
How to search - Contact - Team - Trustees - Disclaimer / Legal information / Privacy - Twitter - Facebook
A project of CENTRAL, University of Cologne.