Homeward Trend: What, Why and Why Not
Files
Description
It is common knowledge, and has been for some time, that “drafting uniform words is one thing; ensuring their uniformity is another”, since “even when outward uniformity is achieved (…), uniform application of the agreed rules is by no means guaranteed, as in practice different countries almost inevitably come to put different interpretations upon the same enacted words.” In order to reduce the risk of diverging interpretations of one and the same text, that text must also be interpreted in a uniform way, since, as stated, for instance, by Viscount Simonds on behalf of the House of Lords in Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd., “it would be deplorable if the nations should, after protracted negotiations, reach agreement (…) and that their several courts should then disagree as to the meaning of what they appeared to agree upon”. The drafters of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, hereinafter: CISG, were aware of this problem, which is why they introduced a provision designed to help to reach the uniformity aimed at, by imposing that in interpreting the CISG “regard is to be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade.” The same is also true for the drafters of other uniform law conventions, such as the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and the 1988 UNIDROIT Conventions on International Factoring and International Financial Leasing.
Source Publication
CISG Methodology
Source Editors/Authors
André Janssen, Olaf Meyer
Publication Date
2009
Recommended Citation
Ferrari, Franco, "Homeward Trend: What, Why and Why Not" (2009). Faculty Chapters. 581.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-chapt/581
