{"title":"法律诉讼期间排除《销售公约》","authors":"Małgorzata Pohl-Michałek","doi":"10.1093/cjcl/cxad003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In the contracting States of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), where the CISG applies via its Article 1, the courts have a duty under public international law to apply its rules automatically, regardless of the parties’ awareness in this respect. At the same time, the parties have a subsequent autonomy based on Article 6 of the CISG to exclude the application of the Convention, which may be done expressly or by implication. Such an exclusion may take place at various stages of the parties’ legal relationship, including during legal proceedings. Due to the fact that the legal representatives are often not aware of the CISG’s existence and its potential automatic application to the given case, when a dispute arises, they may fail to plead or base their arguments on the basis of its applicable rules. This article focuses on the adjudicator’s duty to apply the CISG ex officio, together with the possibility and requirements regarding its exclusions made during legal proceedings, given the example of two recent Chinese cases. In this contribution, it is advocated that the failure by the parties’ representatives to plead and base their arguments during litigation over the applicable CISG rules is not a sufficient indication of their intention to exclude the Convention.","PeriodicalId":42366,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CISG Exclusion during Legal Proceedings\",\"authors\":\"Małgorzata Pohl-Michałek\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cjcl/cxad003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In the contracting States of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), where the CISG applies via its Article 1, the courts have a duty under public international law to apply its rules automatically, regardless of the parties’ awareness in this respect. At the same time, the parties have a subsequent autonomy based on Article 6 of the CISG to exclude the application of the Convention, which may be done expressly or by implication. Such an exclusion may take place at various stages of the parties’ legal relationship, including during legal proceedings. Due to the fact that the legal representatives are often not aware of the CISG’s existence and its potential automatic application to the given case, when a dispute arises, they may fail to plead or base their arguments on the basis of its applicable rules. This article focuses on the adjudicator’s duty to apply the CISG ex officio, together with the possibility and requirements regarding its exclusions made during legal proceedings, given the example of two recent Chinese cases. In this contribution, it is advocated that the failure by the parties’ representatives to plead and base their arguments during litigation over the applicable CISG rules is not a sufficient indication of their intention to exclude the Convention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42366,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxad003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxad003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
In the contracting States of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), where the CISG applies via its Article 1, the courts have a duty under public international law to apply its rules automatically, regardless of the parties’ awareness in this respect. At the same time, the parties have a subsequent autonomy based on Article 6 of the CISG to exclude the application of the Convention, which may be done expressly or by implication. Such an exclusion may take place at various stages of the parties’ legal relationship, including during legal proceedings. Due to the fact that the legal representatives are often not aware of the CISG’s existence and its potential automatic application to the given case, when a dispute arises, they may fail to plead or base their arguments on the basis of its applicable rules. This article focuses on the adjudicator’s duty to apply the CISG ex officio, together with the possibility and requirements regarding its exclusions made during legal proceedings, given the example of two recent Chinese cases. In this contribution, it is advocated that the failure by the parties’ representatives to plead and base their arguments during litigation over the applicable CISG rules is not a sufficient indication of their intention to exclude the Convention.
期刊介绍:
The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law (CJCL) is an independent, peer-reviewed, general comparative law journal published under the auspices of the International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL) and in association with the Silk Road Institute for International and Comparative Law (SRIICL) at Xi’an Jiaotong University, PR China. CJCL aims to provide a leading international forum for comparative studies on all disciplines of law, including cross-disciplinary legal studies. It gives preference to articles addressing issues of fundamental and lasting importance in the field of comparative law.