A Comparative Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts to Choice of Law and Interpretation of Contracts for International Sale of Goods

As international trade and commerce continues to grow and becomes more diverse and expansive in nature, enforcement of contracts for the international sales of good (CISG) increasingly throw up challenges especially in relation to enforcement of these contracts between parties from different national jurisdictions in cases where the agreement is silent on the applicable governing law and dispute resolution forum. This leads to forum shopping with its attendant consequences on prolonged litigation and even more complexity in the enforcement procedure. The aim of this research is to study the attitudes of national courts in the US, UK and selected European countries to enforcement of CISG in cases where the parties have failed to expressly choose an applicable governing law in their agreement and how this influences the outcome of such cases. The methodology adopted is a comparative analysis of the attitudes of national courts in the stated jurisdictions and an appraisal of its effects on the enforcement of CISG across these jurisdictions.The research finds that the difference in the legal and socio-political settings of these countries account for the variations in the attitudes of their national courts to enforcement of CISG in the absence of express choice of governing law and that generally, in such cases, the national courts of these countries tend to be influenced by local laws and practice in deciding the cases as they subject international transactions to domestic standards, with its unpleasant consequences. In this regard, forum shopping has its advantage as it enables the parties shop for national courts with more liberal approach to enforcement of CISG.