Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:17:21.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Standard Form Contracts in International Commercial Transactions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

U. Drobnig
Get access

Extract

Both in the Netherlands and in West Germany, producers and merchants are very much accustomed to using standard forms of contract in their domestic business dealings, probably more so than their brethren in most other countries. The incidence of standard forms in international trade is probably even higher, since these transactions are concluded almost exclusively between businessmen.

Type
Notes and Shorter Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , August 1979 , pp. 182 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

**Professor, University of Hamburg; Director Max Planck Institute for Foreign and Private International Law, Hamburg.
*

Based upon a lecture given at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague on 6 October 1978.

References

1. Hondius, E.H., Standaardvoorwaarden (1977) pp. 16–36.Google Scholar

2. See Eike, v. Hippel, , Verbraucherschutz (ed. 2, 1979) 94–110.Google Scholar

3. Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen (AGB-Gesetz) of 9 December 1976, BGB1. I 3317.

4. Hondius, (supra n. 1) 219, 222–223.Google Scholar Very recently, however, some German writings have taken up these problems, see notably Jayme, , “Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen und internationales Privatrecht” ZHR 142 (1978) 105–123Google Scholar, and Drobnig, , “Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen und internationalen Handelsverkehr” Festschrift Mann (1977) 591–615.Google Scholar

5. See supra n. 3, para 10 nos. 8 and 12.

6. Hondius, , op.cit, at pp. 222–223.Google Scholar

7. Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 1 July 1964 (trilingual text in Zweigert, and Kropholler, , Sources of International Uniform Law I (1971) E 138, F 138, G 138).Google Scholar The uniform law is in force in eight countries: Belgium, Gambia, Germany (Fed.Rep.), Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands San Marino and the United Kingdom.

8. ULFIS, Art. 2 para 1.

9. See Velden, Van der, De eenvormige Koopwetten van 1964 (1979) p. 252Google Scholar; Mertens, and Rehbinder, , Internationales Kaufrecht (1975)Google Scholar Art. 4 EAG no. 18; Dölle, (-Schlechtriem), Kommentar zum einheitlichen Kaufrecht (1976) Art. 4 EAG No. 35.Google Scholar

10. LG Landshut 14 07 1976Google Scholar, NJW 1977 p. 2033.

11. According to ULFIS, Art. 7 para. 1.

12. Tacit acceptance according to ULFIS, Art. 6 para. 2.

13. OLG München 12 August 1977, NJW 1978, 499, OLGZ 1978, 215; also extract DB 1977, 2225.

14. Compare Dölle (-Schlechtriem), op.cit., Art.4 EAG no. 14. Similarly van der Velden, , op.cit., supra n. 9 at p. 252Google Scholar, who does not, however, clearly demand knowledge by the offeree; he is already satisfied if the offeree “may reasonably be deemed to know”.

15. Governed by ULFIS, Arts. 4 and 6.

16. ULFIS, Art. 2 (1). On the basis of this theory, Graveson, , Cohn, and Graveson, , The Uniform Laws on International Sales Act 1967 (1968) p. 112Google Scholar, postulate that if silence under the law at the offeree's place of residence means consent, standard form contracts referred to in a letter of confirmation may become binding even if the recipient is silent.

16a. Contra also Cigoj, , “International Sales: Formation of Contract”, in this Review 23 (1976) 257 et seq. (269).Google Scholar

17. A (separate) draft of a convention on formation of international sales contracts is reprinted in International Legal Materials 1978 p. 277.Google Scholar Later this draft was consolidated with the proposed new uniform sales law and now forms Part II of this draft; see the text in RabelsZ, 43 (1979) p. 528.Google Scholar

18. Allgemeine Deutsche Spediteurbedingungen (ADSp).

19. OLG München 9 05 1973Google Scholar, IPRspr. 1973 no. 24, NJW 1973, 1560; LG Hamburg 14 06 1968Google Scholar, IPRspr. 1968/69 no. 42; see also BGH 2 10 1970Google Scholar, VersR 1971, 123, IPRspr. 1970 no. 29.

20. BGH 13 07 1973Google Scholar, WM 1973, 1238, IPRspr. 1973 no. 25 sub I 3; BGH 7 07 1976Google Scholar, WM 1976, 1311, IPRspr. 1976 no. 8, NJW 1976, 2075Google Scholar (obiter dictum) note by Buchmüller, NJW 1977, 501 and Kronke, NJW 1977, 992.Google Scholar

21. BGH 7 07 1976 supra n. 20.Google Scholar

22. BGH 10 03 1971Google Scholar, VersR 1971, 619, IPRspr. 1971 no. 21b.

23. BGH 18 06 1971Google Scholar, WM 1971, 987, NJW 1971, 2126 (critical note by Schmidt-Salzer; positive note by Pleyer and Ungnade NJW 1972, 681), IPRspr. 1971 no. 5.

24. This results from a survey which Pleyer and Ungnade, loc.cit., supra n. 23 conducted.

25. OLG Bremen 22 06 1973Google Scholar, WM 1973, 1228, IPRspr. 1973 no. 8. The foreign merchant had used the services of a German representative; therefore the language barrier did not in fact exist.

26. OLG München 20 03 1975Google Scholar, RIW/AWD 1976, 447.

27. OLG Frankfurt 27 April 1976, RIW/AWD 1976, 532, IPRspr. 1976 No. 137 (Dutch principal's reference in the Dutch language to his standard form contract held irrelevant); OLG Karlsruhe 9 May 1972, IPRspr. 1972 no. 9, NJW 1972, 2185Google Scholar; OLG Düsseldorf 25 April 1963, IPRspr. 1962/63 no. 27; OLG Suttgart 19 July 1962, IPRspr. 1962/63 no. 210. See also the dicta in BGH 9 02 1970Google Scholar, WM 1970, 552 at 554 (no. II 2 a aa of the opinion) and OLG München/Augsburg 4 04 1974Google Scholar, NJW 1974, 2181.

28. See para 362 (1) Commercial Code and the rich case law.

29. BGH 22 09 1971Google Scholar, BGHZ 57, 72 at 77, IPRspr. 1971 no. 133. See (already implicitly) BGH 18 06 1971 supra n. 23.Google Scholar

30. OLG Nürnberg 11 10 1973Google Scholar, AWD 1974. 405 with positive note by Linke, IPRspr. 1973 no. 12 A; LG Darmstadt 5 April 1977, RIW/AWD 1977, 498; LG Zweibrücken 5 03 1974Google Scholar, NJW 1974, 1060; LG Mainz 10 December 1971, IPRspr. 1971 no. 135, AWD 1972, 298Google Scholar with positive note by Ebsen and Jayme. See Jayme, , Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen und Internationales Privatrecht: ZHR 142 (1978) 105Google Scholar et seq., 121–122; Ulmer, Brandner, and Hensen, (-Ulmer), AGBGesetz (ed. 3 1978)Google Scholar Anh. para. 2 no. 18–19.

31. BGH 13 07 1973Google Scholar, WM 1973, 1238 at 1240Google Scholar, IPRspr. 1973 no. 25. On the facts of the case (contract inter absentes with a foreign firm), the court's assumption that the foreigner did in fact contract in Germany appears most artificial. BGH 7 07 1976Google Scholar supra n. 20, obiter dictum.

32. In agreement, implicitly, Jayme, supra n. 30 at p. 121.Google Scholar