Interpretation of Statements: Article 8
Files
Description
The draft Digest comments on Article 8, like those on other CISG provisions, show that even though the Digest is very useful in providing a means for interpreters to know what case law exists on specific issues, it is helpful only in a limited way. This is due to the restrictive guidelines, set by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law in its thirty, fourth session. The guidelines require that the Digest not criticize any court's decisions, with the consequence that, where it lists contradicting views, it is not supposed to point in any particular direction. Of course, this means that the guidance it provides is limited. Furthermore, the Digest is supposed to refer merely to the issues dealt with in case law; it is not supposed to deal with other issues, even though they may be more important than those arising in existing cases. This is why it is necessary to go beyond the Digest, in the sense that it is important to take a position not only in those instances where there is contradictory case law, but also on those issues for which there is no case law at all. It is with this goal in mind that the draft Digest comments on interpretation will be dealt with. As the draft Digest itself points out, the CISG contains two provisions that refer to issues of interpretation, namely Articles 7 and 8. Whereas Article 7 concerns the interpretation (and gap,filling) of the Convention, which has often been the focus of legal scholars, Article 8 sets forth dispositive rules relating to the interpretation of any statement or conduct of a party. The rules of Article 8 seem to have been neglected by commentators, despite being rather important in practice. This paper will discuss those rules, the importance of which is evidenced by the number of cases that dealt with these rules and are cited in the draft Digest. Even though Article 7 lays down rules on the interpretation of the CISG designed to "promote its uniform application", Article 8 also assists in that goal by setting forth uniform rules (on the interpretation of statements and conduct) which prevent interpreters from resorting to domestic interpretive criteria. Indeed, invoking domestic interpretive criteria would be detrimental to the uniformity aimed at by the CISG, as such criteria vary from country to country. By laying down interpretive criteria, which, where applicable, prevail over any domestic interpretive rule (as pointed out by a German court cited in the draft Digest), Article 8 reduces the need to have recourse to non,uniform domestic rules, thus undoubtedly promoting uniformity.
Source Publication
The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond: Cases, Analysis and Unresolved Issues in the U.N. Sales Convention - Papers of the Pittsburgh Conference Organized by the Center of International Legal Education (CILE)
Source Editors/Authors
Franco Ferrari, Harry Flechtner, Ronald A. Brand
Publication Date
2004
Recommended Citation
Ferrari, Franco, "Interpretation of Statements: Article 8" (2004). Faculty Chapters. 590.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-chapt/590
