Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography
Reproduced with permission of 23 Journal of Law and Commerce (2004) 169-192

International Sales Law and the Inevitability of
Forum Shopping: A Comment on Tribunale di Rimini

26 November 2002
[*] [†]

Franco Ferrari [**]

  1.    Uniform Application and Foreign Court Decisions
  2.    The Relationship Between Uniform Substantive Law and Private International Iaw

  3.    THE INEVITABILITY OF FORUM SHOPPING DESPITE UNIFORM SUBSTANTIVE LAW CONVENTIONS
  4.    -   Divergent Applications
  5.    -   The Limited Sphere of Application "Rations Materiae" of Uniform Substantive
            Law Conventions
  6.    -   The Limited "International" Sphere of Application of Uniform Substantive Law
            Conventions and the Parties' or the Contract's Link with One or More Contracting States
  7.    -   The Conventions' Limited Scope of Application and Their Dispositive Nature
  8.    -   Other Reasons Inherent in Such Conventions
  9.    Conclusion

I. UNIFORM APPLICATION AND FOREIGN COURT DECISIONS

Although the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International. Sale of Goods (CISG) entered into force in Italy more than fifteen years ago, there are not many Italian decisions that deal with it.[1] Up [page 169] to now, the most famous Italian court decision was, without doubt, the decision rendered by the Tribunale di Vigevano on July 12, 2000,[2] which referred to a total of forty foreign court decisions and arbitral awards from disparate countries [3] to solve some "typical"[4] issues arising under the CISG, such as the parties' ability to exclude the CISG,[5] the determination of the [page 170] period of time within which notice of non-conformity must be given,[6] as well as allocation of the burden of proof.[7] By referring to these forty foreign decisions, the Tribunale di Vigevano has, like no other court before it, observed the mandate set forth in Article 7(1) CISG: in the interpretation of the CISG, regard is to be given to its "international character and the need to promote uniformity in its application."

At this point, however, the decision by the Tribunale di Vigevano is no longer the only Italian decision to have applied the CISG in an exemplary way. The more recent decision, rendered by the Tribunale di Rimini, has done so as well. Indeed, in dealing with similar "typical"[8] CISG issues as that dealt with by the Tribunale di Vigevano, the Tribunale di Rimini also took into account both the need for an "autonomous interpretation,"[9] i.e., "an [page 171] interpretation that does not rely on domestic law or domestic interpretative principles,"[10] and the need to promote uniformity in the CISG's application,[11] These dual necessities, according to some commentators,[12] require judges to refer to foreign case law. It is exactly this requirement with which Dr. Cortesi, sitting as the sole judge in Tribunale di Rimini, complied when he cited about 35 foreign court decisions and arbitral awards,[13] thus promoting uniformity in the CISG's application. [page 172]

The fact that the Tribunale di Rimini cited so many foreign court decisions and arbitral awards is, however, not the only reason why the Tribunale di Rimini's decision must be praised. In effect, it also correctly solved an issue closely linked to reliance on foreign decisions, namely that of the value to be given to foreign decisions. In this respect, the Tribunale di Rimini stated, as did the Tribunale di Vigevano previously,[14] that "the resort to case law of other countries or arbitral tribunals can only have persuasive value and not binding value."[15] By so stating, the Tribunale di Rimini -- correctly, in this author's opinion -- rejected the view, of one commentator who not only suggested attributing binding force to foreign case law, but also suggested the creation of a "supranational stare decisis."[16] This suggestion is not tenable, as it does not take into account that the doctrine of stare decists requires a rigid hierarchical structure. It is the lack of a similar judicial hierarchy on an international level that does not allow for the creation of a "supranational stare decisis doctrine in this area. Indeed, how should one decide whether a specific court is, from a hierarchical point of view, a lower court in respect to the court of a different country? And where, in the scheme of things, would arbitral tribunals fit into the hierarchy? Are they to be considered hierarchically superior to courts of first instances, appellate courts or even supreme courts? And what about the courts of non-Contracting States? Should their decisions be taken into account at all? In a German court decision, this question seems to have been answered negatively, without, however, the German court providing any rationale as to why such decision was taken.[17] But even if the decisions of courts of non-Contracting States were to be considered, would they prevail over those of Contracting States and/or arbitral tribunals? [18] [page 173]

In light of these remarks, it seems apparent why foreign case law should always be considered as having merely persuasive value.[19] This result is, essentially, what Article 7(1) of the CISG imposes when it provides that "regard is to be had [...] to the need to promote uniformity in its application."[20] Foreign case law should be used as a source from which to draw either arguments or counter-arguments. Consequently, an arbitral award could have more influence on a specific solution than a decision of a supreme court of a country whose judges are not accustomed to dealing with international issues in general, and the CISG in particular. Similarly, a court decision of a non-Contracting State could be more influential than that of a Contracting State. Furthermore, the obiter dicta to be found in one decision could impact the outcome of a specific case more than the rationes decidendi of other court decisions.

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNIFORM SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND PRIVATE
     INTERNATIONAL LAW

The decision of the Tribunale di Rimini has other merits apart from its recourse to multiple foreign court decisions and arbitral awards and its statement on the non-binding value of foreign decisions. In effect, in deciding the dispute, the Tribunale di Rimini (in the person of Judge Cortesi) also dealt with the relationship between uniform substantive law rules (such as those set forth by the CISG) and private international law rules. Indeed, when deciding which substantive law to apply to solve the dispute, Judge Cortesi did not limit himself to identifying the relevant private international law rules; he also dealt with whether these rules were at all applicable. [page 174]

As for the first issue, unlike other Italian judges,[21] Judge Cortesi correctly identified the relevant Italian private international law rules for determining the law applicable to contracts for the international sale of goods in the rules contained in the 1955 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to International Sales of Goods (Convention).[22] In doing so, Judge Cortesi let the rules of this Convention prevail over those of the 1980 EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, even though the latter came into force in Italy more recently, specifically, on April 1, 1991. At first glance, Judge Cortesi's decision appears incorrect, as it contrasts with the principle pursuant to which "lex posterior derogat legi priori." However, since Article 21 of the EEC Convention itself states that it "shall not prejudice the application of international conventions to which a Contracting State is, or becomes, a party," Judge Cortesi's decision, which coincides with that of a few other Italian courts,[23] is fully justified.

Even though Judge Cortesi identified the relevant Italian private international law rules, he ended up -- in this author's opinion, [page 175] correctly [24] -- not applying them. He, like other judges before him,[25] let resort to the CISG prevail [26] over resort to the relevant private international law rules on the grounds that the CISG lays down uniform substantive law rules that must, due to their being more specific than the relevant rules of private international law (i.e., the rules laid down by 1955 Hague Convention), prevail. In Judge Cortesi's view, however, the CISG being more specific is not only due to its limited international sphere of application (in the sense that the CISG's definition of internationality is based upon the contracting parties' relevant places of business being located in different countries, whereas the 1955 Hague Convention does not at all define internationality and therefore can be applicable to any kind of "international" sales contract), but rather on the fact that "the provisions of the CISG are more specific per definitionem, since they resolve the substantive issues 'directly,' thus avoiding the double-step approach (identification of applicable law and application thereof), which is needed when one resorts to the rules of private international law."[27] Consequently, judges from Contracting States to a uniform substantive law convention will always have to look first at whether a uniform substantive law convention that is prima facie applicable really applies before resorting to their own rules of private international law.

III. THE INEVITABILITY OF FORUM SHOPPING DESPITE UNIFORM SUBSTANTIVE LAW CONVENTIONS:
       DIVERGENT APPLICATIONS

The number of foreign decisions quoted, the answer given to the question of what value these foreign decisions have, and the very detailed examination of the relationships between uniform substantive law and private international [page 176] law would per se be sufficient to make the decision by the Tribunale di Rimini one of the most important court decisions applying the CISG. Considering, however, that this decision also analyzes an issue that has never before been examined in depth in case law -- that is to say the relationship between the uniform substantive law laid down by the CISG and the so-called "forum shopping" -- there can be little doubt that it really is the most important court decision applying the CISG.

After stating that uniform substantive law rules prevail over private international law rules due to their being more specific -- in the sense that they solve the substantive problem "directly," without the need for a two-step approach which resort to private international law necessarily entails -- the Tribunale di Rimini states that "it has also been pointed out by some scholars that the application of substantive uniform law has an additional advantage compared to the application of the rules of private international law: the avoidance of forum shopping."[28]

Indeed, with respect to both the unification of substantive law as such [29] and to some specific uniform substantive law conventions such as the CISG,[30] commentators have often stated that one of the advantages, if not one of the goals, of the unifcation of substantive law rules is to prevent forum shopping, which both the Tribunale di Rimini and legal writers define as the lawyer's activity of seeking the forum that is most beneficial to his client's interest.[31]

In its decision, the Tribunale di Rimini rejected this view, agreeing with those commentators that have "rightly objected that this advantage is merely a theoretical one, as there are various reasons for which the parties will still have an interest in forum shopping, despite the applicability of a uniform law [page 177] convention."[32] In effect, the entry into force of a uniform substantive law convention such as the CISG cannot per se prevent forum shopping,[33] which occurs for disparate reasons. The most "classical" of these reasons were expressly listed by the Tribunale di Rimini: the differences in the procedural rules,[34] above all in the rules of evidence, which have long been considered one of the reasons that induce parties to forum shop [35] (in this respect it suffices to recall that the procedural law of some countries acknowledges pretrial discovery, something that is not acknowledged at all by the procedural law of other countries); the varying conditions of efficiency and rapidity of the judicial process;[36] the language of the proceedings;[37] the reputation for impartiality of the courts, and, the enforceability of the decisions.[38]

Apart from these "classical" reasons that may induce a party to start court proceedings in the court of one country rather than another, and to which one has to add other "classical reasons," not expressly referred to by the Tribunale di Rimini, such as the differences in the costs of the proceedings [39] and in the private international law rules,[40 ] as well as, according to some commentators, the differences in the "legal climate,"[41] the Tribunale di Rimini also identifies one reason, more closely linked to uniform substantive law conventions themselves, to demonstrate that these conventions cannot prevent forum shopping -- namely, "the fact that conventions may be interpreted differently in the various countries, with the possibility of inconsistent results being reached on substantive issues."[42] The divergences in the application of [page 178] uniform substantive law conventions like the CISG by the courts of different countries represents one of the most important reasons for forum shopping inherent to uniform substantive law conventions (i.e., reasons other than the "classical" ones referred to supra). This fact makes it impossible to argue that uniform substantive law conventions can eradicate forum shopping.

IV. THE INEVITABILITY OF FORUM SHOPPING DESPITE UNIFORM SUBSTANTIVE LAW CONVENTIONS:
       THE LIMITED SPHERE OF APPLICATION "RATIONS MATERIAE"
       OF UNIFORM SUBSTANTIVE LAW CONVENTIONS

There are other reasons -- intrinsic to uniform substantive law conventions -- that prevent forum shopping from becoming irrelevant despite the entry into force of such conventions.

One of these relates to the fact that the sphere of application ratione materiae of any international uniform contract law convention is limited." There will, in other words, always be contracts, even of the kind dealt with by the various international uniform substantive law conventions, that will be governed by the applicable domestic law. Those who claim, for instance, that the CISG covers all contracts for the international sale of goods are as wrong as those who assert that the 1988 Unidroit Convention on International Factoring"[44] (IFC) covers all international factoring contracts, or those who assert that the 1988 Unidroit Convention on International Financial Leasing [45] (IFL) covers all international financial leasing contracts. The CISG does not cover all contracts for the international sale of goods, nor does the IFC cover all international factoring contracts, nor the IFL all international financial leasing contracts.

At this point, it may be appropriate to give some concrete examples. As far as the IFC is concerned, there are contracts that are not governed by it, even though they are of the type to which the IFC generally applies (i.e., factoring contracts). In this respect, it may be recalled that the IFC is generally applicable only to assignments relating to receivables arising from [page 179] international sales or service contracts.[46] The assignment of other receivables, such as those arising from torts or from contracts other than sales or service contracts [47] do not in principle fall under the IFC.[48] If one also considers that some of the assignment contracts relating to receivables arising from international sales and service contracts fall outside the IFC's substantive sphere of application (i.e., because the drafters decided to exclude non-notification factoring from the Convention's sphere of application),[49] then it becomes apparent that there still is room for forum shopping: To determine the law applicable to these assignment contracts, recourse must be to the private international law rules of the forum. By determining where court proceedings commence, one determines at the same time which private international law rules are to be applied and, thus, which domestic law is applicable.

Similarly, the substantive sphere of application of the CISG [50] is limited, as it excludes the sale of certain types of goods, such as ships, vessels, aircrafts and hovercrafts, from its sphere of application.[51] The sale of these goods will be governed by the law applicable by means of the private international law rules of the forum. This means, however, that forum shopping will be relevant in determining the applicable substantive law rules, given that choice of a forum impacts the applicable private international law rules and, thus, applicable substantive law. [page 180]

V.  THE INEVITABILITY OF FORUM SHOPPING DESPITE UNIFORM SUBSTANTIVE LAW CONVENTIONS:
      THE LIMITED "INTERNATIONAL" SPHERE OF APPLICATION OF UNIFORM SUBSTANTIVE LAW
      CONVENTIONS AND THE PARTIES' OR THE CONTRACT'S LINK WITH ONE OR MORE
      CONTRACTING STATES

It is common knowledge that uniform substantive law relating to purely domestic situations is rare.[52] Uniform substantive law conventions generally create uniformity in respect to international situations.[53] All of the aforementioned international uniform contract law conventions (CISG, IFC, IFL) are good examples of this, as they apply solely to "international" transactions. Since these conventions, unlike most uniform private international law conventions, require a specific kind of "internationality" to be applicable, and since they themselves define the relevant "internationality" (thus limiting their own sphere of application), some "international" contracts of the type covered by these conventions will continue to be governed by the applicable domestic law determined by means of the private international law rules of the forum. Consequently, the search for the most suitable forum -- and thus the most suitable private international law rules -- will always be relevant in practice. This becomes very evident in respect of the IFC.

The IFC merely applies, as mentioned, to international factoring contracts. This has been justified on the grounds that a regime that would have substituted domestic law would have significantly reduced the acceptance of the IFC.[54] As far as the definition of internationality is concerned, one would think, that it was linked to the factoring contract.[55] Nevertheless, the drafters of the IFC preferred not to link the internationality requirement to the parties to a factoring contract having their places of business in different countries,[56] as opposed to the drafters of other uniform [page 181] substantive law conventions, such as the CISG, who let the internationality of a contract depend on where the parties to the contract governed by the convention have their places of business.[57] In order to determine internationality according to the IFC, the relevant criterion pursuant to Article 2(1) is whether the underlying contract is international [58] -- i.e., whether the debtor and the assignor have their place of business in different States.[59] In other words, it is the internationality of the receivable that is important, rather than that of the factoring contract.[60] This leads, on the one hand, to the factoring contract being considered an international one under the IFC even where the parties to it have their places of business in one and the same State, as long as the debtor and the supplier have theirs in different States.[61]

On the other hand, this also means -- and for the purpose of this paper it is even more important that a factoring contract concluded between parties having their places of business in different States is not an international one, according to the IFC, if the receivables are not international. The IFC does not apply to these kind of "international" factoring contracts.[62] Rather, they are governed by the domestic law to be determined through the rules of private international law of the forum. From this it follows that the choice of the forum has an impact upon the applicable substantive rules.

What has just been said is also true, in respect of the CISG, according to which a contract for the sale of goods is international whenever the parties have their places of business in different States,[63] as well as in respect of the [page 182] IFL,[64] which defines internationality on the basis of the lessor and the lessee having their places of business in different countries.[65]

Internationality by itself -- except in very few cases, such as under the 1964 Hague Uniform Laws [66] -- is, however, not sufficient to make a uniform substantive law convention applicable. Most of these conventions also require the existence of a specific link between the contract, the parties or the places relevant for a specific contract (such as the place of acceptance of the goods or that designated for delivery, relative to contracts for the carriage of goods) and Contracting States or the law of such States. As a consequence, a contract falling within the substantive and international sphere of application of an international uniform contract law convention is not governed by that convention unless the aforementioned connection with a Contracting State or the law of a Contracting State exists. Therefore, it cannot be a surprise that in respect to the CISG -- which by virtue of Article 1(1)(a) is "directly"[67] or "autonomously" applicable when the parties have their places of business in different Contracting States, and "indirectly"[68] (by virtue of Article 1(1)(b) CISG) when the rules of private international law [69] lead to the law of a Contracting State [70] -- it has been argued that the CISG thus creates a distinction [page 183] between two types of international contracts for the sale of goods, i.e., those contracts to which the CISG applies and those to which it does not apply, which are therefore subject to the applicable domestic law.[71]

Similar statements can also be made in respect to contracts that fall under both the substantive sphere of application of the IFC and are international according to the IFC: in order for the IFC to apply to these contracts, all parties involved (i.e., debtor, supplier and factor) must have their places of business in Contracting States (Article 2(1)(a) IFC) [72] or both the factoring contract and the underlying contract must be governed by the law of a Contracting State (Article 2(1)(b) IFC).[73] If neither requirement is met, the IFC will not apply. This is true in respect of the IFL as well.

From the above it follows that the contracts that fall under both the substantive and the international sphere of application of the aforementioned international uniform contract law conventions, but that do not present the link required to a Contracting State, will not be governed by the relevant convention. Rather they will be governed by the domestic law determined through the rules of private international law of the forum. This goes to show, however, that forum shopping will have practical relevance even in respect of contracts that do fall under both the substantive and international spheres of application of the aforementioned conventions.

VI. THE INEVITABILITY OF FORUM SHOPPING DESPITE UNIFORM SUBSTANTIVE LAW CONVENTIONS:
      THE CONVENTIONS' LIMITED SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND THEIR DISPOSITIVE NATURE

Another reason, inherent in the conventions themselves, that purports that "forum shopping" becomes irrelevant due to the mere entry into force of uniform substantive law conventions, relates to the fact that not only is the conventions' sphere of application limited, but so is their scope of application.[74] None of these conventions solves all the problems which may [page 184] arise in connection with the contracts they deal with.[75] This is of course true for the CISG as well [76] (although there is case law that -- wrongly -- defines the CISG as an "exhaustive body of rules on sales"[77]), which expressly excludes some of the matters that may come up in connection with contracts for the international sale of goods from its scope of application. By way of example, it may suffice to recall that Article 4 of the CISG expressly provides that it is not concerned with either the validity of the contract or of any of its provisions [78] or the effects which the contract for the international sale of goods may have on the property of the goods sold.[79] Pursuant to Article 5 of the CISG, the liability for personal injury does not fall under the CISG's scope either.[80] It goes without saying that the CISG does not deal with matters that [page 185] are not expressly listed, such as set-off,[81] assignment of receivables,[82] agency [83] and the limitation period.[84]

Similarly, the IFC only deals with some matters (albeit important ones),[85] such as the effect of a non-assignment clause, the transfer of accessory rights, the effect of a notification on the debtor's duty to pay, and so on.[86] Other issues (even important ones) are not dealt with by the IFC, such as the priority between creditors of the same receivable,[87] set-off,[88] the effect of the insolvency of any of the parties involved in the factoring transaction,[89] and so on,[90] and are therefore left to the applicable domestic law.

From the above, it becomes apparent that there is still room for forum shopping aimed at making applicable the provisions most favourable to one's client, since the many issues not dealt with by international uniform contract law conventions will have to be dealt with by resorting to domestic law. The creation of an exhaustive body of uniform contract law alone can make this specific reason for forum shopping irrelevant.

But even where a contract meets all substantive and international application requirements of a specific uniform substantive law convention and the issue to be dealt with falls under the scope of that convention, forum [page 186] shopping cannot be avoided. This is due, e.g., to the fact that most international uniform contract law conventions are dispositive in nature. That this is not true for all international uniform contract law conventions can easily be derived from the 1956 Geneva Convention on Transport of Goods by Road [91] [CMR] which, as it is known, is mandatory.[92] The mandatory nature of the CMR results from Article 41 of the CMR pursuant to which "any stipulation which would directly or indirectly derogate from the provisions of [the] Convention shall be null and void," thus making the Convention immune against any agreement of the parties aiming at derogating from the Convention.[93] This obviously requires that the issues the parties agree upon are dealt with in the Convention.[94]

As far as the other aforementioned conventions are concerned, i.e., CISG, IFC and IFL, they are all non-mandatory,[95] as can easily be evinced from Articles 6, 3, and 5 respectively. The parties can therefore exclude the applicability of these conventions, which is why it has been stated that "the parties' will is the most important source of the contract."[96] The conventions, [page 187] in other words, only apply absent an exclusion; the exclusion thus becomes a negative applicability requirement.[97]

Where the parties have validly agreed upon the exclusion of these conventions, the domestic law to be determined by means of the rules of private international law of the forum will apply.[98] This means, however, that the choice of the forum (and, thus, of the relevant private international law rules) will impact on the applicable substantive law provisions. This is very evident in respect of the 1974 UNCITRAL Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods.[99] This is due to the fact that some legal systems qualify the limitation period as a procedural issue, and therefore apply the lex fori (law of the forum) whereas other legal systems qualify the limitation period as a substantive issue, thus making applicable the lex causae (the applicable law).[100]

VII. THE INEVITABILITY OF FORUM SHOPPING DESPITE UNIFORM SUBSTANTIVE LAW CONVENTIONS:
         OTHER REASONS INHERENT IN SUCH CONVENTIONS

Another reason that hinders forum shopping obsolescence is that some of the uniform substantive law conventions refer to domestic law themselves. Some of these conventions even refer to the law of the forum State, thus inevitably opening the door to forum shopping.

One example of a provision referring to domestic law is Article 28 of the CISG,[101] pursuant to which a court is not bound to enter a judgment for [page 188] specific performance unless the court would do so under its own law, i.e., the law of the forum.[102] Thus, the obligation to enter a judgment for specific performance depends on the domestic law of the judge. This provision's potential for forum shopping has often been pointed out in legal writing.[103]

The possibility provided for in most international uniform contract law instruments to declare reservations also leads to further relevancy of forum shopping. In this respect, the most prominent examples were the 1964 Hague Uniform Laws that allowed Contracting States to declare a number of declarations [104] that impacted the applicability requirements and thus created a vast potential for forum shopping.

It is common knowledge that the 1964 Hague Uniform Laws applied, as a rule, whenever the contract for the sale of good was an international one, i.e., when the parties had their place of business in different States and when one of the following alternative requirements was met: border-crossing of the goods, offer made in a country other than that where the acceptance was made, conclusion of the contract in a country different from that where the performance was to take place. The criticism against the Hague Uniform Laws' resulting wide sphere of application (merely requiring the contract for the sale of goods to be international for them to be applicable) led all but one Contracting State to declare one or more reservations, thus making the sphere of application non-uniform and encouraging forum shopping. In this respect it may suffice to recall that the Federal Republic of Germany declared a reservation pursuant to which the parties were required not only to have their place of business in different States, but those States had to be Contracting States.[105] If one further considers that other States declared a reservation [page 189] according to which the Hague Uniform Laws were to be applied only if the rules of private international law of the forum led to the law of a Contracting State, and that other States declared the reservation which bound them to apply the Hague Uniform Laws only in case of the parties' opting in, the potential for forum shopping becomes self-evident.

The CISG also allows Contracting States to declare reservations, although the number of possible reservations is not as high.[106] For the purposes of this paper, it may suffice to recall the possibility for States to limit the applicability of the CISG by declaring, pursuant to Article 95, that they will not be bound by Article 1(1)(b) of the CISG, i.e., the provision that makes the CISG applicable where the rules of private international law of the forum lead to the law of a Contracting State. As a consequence of this reservation, reservatory States will not apply the CISG where the rules of private international law lead to the law of the forum.[107] In courts of Contracting States that did not declare an Article 95 reservation, however, the CISG may nevertheless be applicable even where the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law is that of a reservatory State.[108] This shows the potential for forum shopping, despite the entry into force of the CISG.

Apart from the aforementioned reasons demonstrating that forum shopping cannot be avoided despite the entry into force of international uniform contract law conventions, there is another reason forum shopping will still play a role in the future. This reason relates to the fact that no one international uniform contract law convention is in force in every State of the world. In respect of any such convention there are therefore States that are not bound by its provisions, and accordingly do not have to take into consideration its rules on applicability. As a consequence, the courts of non-fontracting States will have to rely on their rules of private international law to determine the applicable substantive law.[109] This, however, does not necessarily exclude [page 190] the application of international uniform contract law conventions in the non-Contracting States. These conventions can be applicable in non-Contracting States, albeit not by virtue of their own rules of application, but rather by virtue of the rules of private international law of the forum.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Based on the ruling of Judge Cortesi [110] and the other factors discussed above, it is clear that uniform substantive law conventions have not removed the incentive to have an action tried in a particular jurisdiction where one determines that one will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict.[111] Thus, stating that forum shopping will be avoided by the coming into force of uniform substantive law conventions is both wrong and misleading. That viewpoint merely creates an erroneous sense of legal certainty, which is much more dangerous than forum shopping (if one agrees at all with the view that forum shopping is dangerous). Forum shopping is practiced today and will be practiced for some time; there is no way around it. The possibility for forum shopping can merely be reduced, but nothing more.

Therefore, it would be much more useful if, instead of just badmouthing [112] and condemning forum shopping as an activity with "an improper purpose,"[113] one would study the reasons underlying the policy against forum shopping, i.e., the reasons that lead courts, commentators and, in some instances, even legislators [114] to oppose it. In other words, one should examine more closely whether the reasons generally given for policies against forum shopping -- mainly that forum shopping goes against the principle of consistency of outcomes (apparently a fundamental tenet of virtually any legal system),[115] that forum shopping overburdens certain courts [116] and creates unnecessary expenses as litigants pursue the most favorable, rather than the [page 191] simplest or closest, forum,[117] that forum shopping contrasts with the idea of a "level playing field,"[118] and that forum shopping may create a negative popular perception about the equity of the legal system [119] -- are valid ones.

Furthermore, in doing so, one should also consider whether the distaste. with which certain actions are characterized as forum shopping makes sense in the light of the lawyer's obligation to "represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law."[120] Additionally, if one considers that a lawyer's "duty to clients [...] should never be subordinate merely because the full discharge of his obligation may be misunderstood or may tend to subject him or the legal profession to criticism, "[121] it does not appear that forum shopping necessarily violates ethical rules.[122] There may be instances where the lawyer's obligation to client-driven litigation must be deemed unethical, but this does not mean that forum shopping itself is necessarily unethical [123] or even necessarily evil. It means only that the relationship between the aforementioned conflicting interests should be studied more in detail.[124]


FOOTNOTES

* Editor's Note: Foreign source citations are based upon the author's recommendation. The Journal of Law and Commerce adheres to The Bluebook Uniform System of Citation, but the Journal of Law and Commerce has created uniform citations for certain sources not addressed by the Bluebook. Moreover, with respect to foreign language sources for which the Journal of Law and Commerce was not provided an English translation, the editors have relied on the author for the veracity of the statement drawn from such sources.

An earlier version of this article was published at the Vindobona Journal, 8 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration (2004-1)1-22.

** Professor of International Law, Verona University, School of Law; former Legal Officer, United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, International Trade Law Branch.

1. See in chronological order, Cassazione civile, sez. un., 24 Oct. 1988, No. 5739, published in FORD ITALIANO 2878 et seq. (1989/1), commented on by Niccolo Pisaneschi; Pretura di Parma-Fidenza, 24 Nov. 1989, available at <http://soi.cnr.it/~crdcs/crdcs/it241189f.htm>; Corte cost., 19 Nov. 1992, published in GIUSTIZIA CIVILE 314 f. (1994); Tribunale di Monza, 14 Jan. 1993, published in FORO ITALIANO 916 et seq. (1994/I), commented on by S. Di Paola; App. Genova, 24 March 1995, published in DIRITTO MARITTIMO 1059 et seq. (1995), commented on by Marco Lopez de Gonzalo; Cassazione civile, sez. un., 9 June 1995, No. 6499, published in FORO PADANO 2 et seq. (1997/I), commented on by Luigi Mari; Tribunale di Cuneo, 31 Jan. 1996, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=160&step=FullText>; Pretura di Torino, 30 Jan. 1997, published in GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA 982 et seq. (1998); Tribunale di Verona, 19 Dec. 1997, published in RIVISTA VERONESE DI GIURISPRUDENZA ECONOMICA E DELL'IMPRESA 22 et seq. (1998); App. Milano, 20 March 1998, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 170 et seq. (1998); Cassazione civile, sez. un., 8 May 1998, No. 4668, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 290 et seq. (1999); Cassazione civile, sez. un., 7 August 1998, No. 7759, published in DIRITTO DEL COMMERCIO INTERNAZIONALE 757 et seq. (1999), commented on by Tommaso Monfeli; Cassazione civile, sez. un., 5 Nov. 1998, No. 11088, published in GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA RECENTISSIME 164 f. (1999); App. Milano, 11 Dec. 1998, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 112 et seq. (1999); Cassazione civile, sez. un., 14 Dec. 1999, No. 895, published in GIuSTIZIA CIVILE 2333 et seq. (2000), commented on by Franco Ferrari; Tribunale di Pavia, 29 Dec. 1999, published in CORRIERE GIURIDICO 932 f. (2000), commented on by Franco Ferrari; Cassazione civile, sez. un., 10 March 2000, published in GIUSTIZIA CIVILE (2000), 3203 et seq.; Cassazione civile, sez. un., 19 June 2000, No. 448, published in CORRIERE GIURIDICO 369 et seq. (2002), commented on by Franco Ferrari; Tribunale di Reggio Emilia, 3 July 2000, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=1&do=case&id=762&step> FullText; Tribunale di Vigevano,12 July 2000, published in GIURISPRUDENZAITALIANA 281 et seq. (2001), commented on by Franco Ferrari; App. Milano, 23 Jan. 2001, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 1008 et seq. (2001); App. Milano, 29 Jan. 2001, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE (2002), 742; Tribunale di Busto Arsizio, 13 Dec. 2001, published in RIVISTA DI DIRTTTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 151 et seq. (2003); Tribunale di Mantova, 26 August 2002, unpublished (on file with author); eCassazione civile, sez. un., 18 Oct. 2002, No. 14837, unpublished (on file with author).

2. See Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, published in GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA (2001), 281 et seq. (This decision's importance can be evinced from the fact that it has been translated into various languages. For a German translation, see INTERNATIONALES HANDELSRECHT 72 et seq. (2001); for an English translation, see 20 J.L. & COM. 209 et seq. (2001); for comments on this decision, see Franco Ferrari, Problematiche tipiche della Convenzione di Vienna sui cbntratti di vendita internazionale di beni mobili risolte in una prospettiva uniforme, GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA 281 et seq. (2001)); Franco Ferrari, Applying the CISG in a Truly Uniform Manner: Tribunale di Vigevano (Italy), 12 July 2000, UNIFORM L. REV. 203 etseq. (2001); Franco Ferrari, Tribunale di Vigevano: Specific Aspects ofthe CISG Uniformly Dealt with, 20 J.L. & COM. 225 et seq. (2001); Franco Ferrari, Internationales Kaufrecht Einheitlich Ausgelegt, INTERNATIONALES HANDELSRECHT 56 et seq. (2001); Francesca Rosati, Anmerkung zu Trib. Vigevano, INTERNATIONALES HANDELSRECHT 78 et seq. (2001); Anna Veneziano, Mancanza di conformita delle merci ed onere della prova nella vendita internazionale: un esempio di interpretazione autonoma del diritto uniforme alla luce dei precedenti stranieri, DIRITTO DEL COMMERCIO INTERNAZIONALE 509 et seq. (2001).

3. In its decision, the Tribunale di Vigevano referred to decisions rendered, in the following countries: Austria, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United States.

4. Peter Kindler, Sachmängelhaftung, Aufrechnung und Zinssatzbemessung: Typische Fragen des UN-Kaufrechts in der gerichtlichen Praxis, PRAXIS DES INTERNATIONALEN PRIVAT- UND VERFAHRENSRECHTS 16, 16 (1996).

5. For papers on the exclusion of the CISG, see, e.g., Beatriz Campuzano Diaz, La exclusion del Convenio de Viena de 11 abril de 1980 sobre compraventa internacional de mercaderias en virtud de la autonomia de los contratantes, REVISTA DE DERECHO PATRIMONIAL 151 et seq. (2001); Franco Ferrari, Zum vertraglichen Ausschluß des UN-Kaufrechts, ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES PRIVATRECHT 737 et seq. (2002); Franco Ferrari, Exclusion et inclusion de la CVIM, REVUE DE DROIT DES AFFAIRES INTERNATIONALES 401 et seq. (2001); Rüdiger Holthausen, Vertraglicher Ausschluß des UN-Übereinkommens über internationale Warenkaufverträge, RECHT DER INTERNATIONALEN WIRTSCHAFT 513 et seq. (1989); Robert Koch, Wider den formularmaßigen Ausschluß des UN-Kaufrechts, NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 910 et seq. (2000); Christina Reifner, Stillschweigender Ausschluß des UN-Kaufrechts im Prozess?, INTERNATIONALES HANDELSRECHT 52 et seq. (2002); Nico Spiegel, Exclusion tacite de la CVIM par les parties et dénonciation des defauts de conformite, DALLOZ 395 et seq. (2002); Claude Witz, L'exclusion de la Convention des Nations unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises par la volonte des parties (Convention de Vienne du 11 avril 1980), DALLOZ (1990), Chron. 107 et seq.

6. For papers on this issue, see ANDRE JANSSEN, DIE UNTERSUCHUNGS- UND RUGEPFLICHTEN IM DEUTSCHE, NIEDERLANDISCHEN UND INTERNATIONALEN KAUFRECHT (2001); MARKUS LINNERZ, DIE UNTERSUCHUNGS- UND RÜGEFRIST DES KÄUFERS NACH DEM UN-KAUFRECHT (UNTER BESONDERER BERÜCKSICHTIGUNG DEÜTSCHER, ÖSTERREICHISCHER, SCHWEIZER, ITALIENISCHER, NIEDERLANDISCHER, BELGISCHER, AMERIKANISCHER UND SCHIEDSGERICHTLICHER RECHTSPRECHUNG) (2000); YINGXIA SU DIE VERTRAGSGEMAßE BESCHAFFENHEIT DER WARE IM UNCITRAL-KAUFRECHT IM VERGLEICH ZUM DEUTSCHEN UND CHINESISCHEN RECTIT (1996); PATRICK TANNO, DIE BERECHNUNG DER RÜGEFRIST IM SCHWEIZERISCHEN, DEUTSCHENUND UN-KAUFRECHT (1993); HANS-JOSEF VOGEL, DIE UNTERSUCHUNGSUND RUGEPFLICHT IM UN-KAUFRECHT, (2000).

7. For a detailed discussion on this issue, see e.g., CLEMENS ANTWEILER, BEWEISLASTVERTEILUNG IM UN-KAUFRECHT. INSBESONDERE BEI VERTRAGSVERLETZUNGEN DES VERKAUFERS (1995); Franco Ferrari, Burden of Proof under the CISG, REV. CISG 1 et seq. (2001); MICHAEL HENNINGER, DIE FRAGE DER BEWEISLAST IM RAHMEN DES UN-KAUFRECHTS: ZUGLEICH EINE RECHTSVERGLEICHENDE GRUNDLAGENSTUDIE ZUR BEWEISLAST (1995); Reinhard Hepting, Beweislast and Beweismaß im UN Kaufrecht, in HANDBUCH DER BEWEISLAST IM PRIVATRECHT 1405 et seq. (Baumgartel & Laumen eds., 2d ed. 1999); ALEXANDER IMBERG, DIE VERTEILUNG DER BEWEISLAST BEIM GEFAHRÜBERGANG NACH UN-KAUFRECHT (1998), REINHARD JUNG, DIE BEWEISLASTVERTEILUNG IM UN-KAUFRECHT INSBESONDERE BEI VERTRAGSABSCHLUß, BEI VERTRAGSVERLETZUNGEN DES KAUFERS, BEI ALLGEMEINEN BESTIMMUNGEN SOWIE BEI GEMEINSAMEN BESTIMMUNGEN UBER VERKAUFER- UND KAUFERPFLICHTEN (1996); BIRGIT REIMERS-ZOCHER, BEWEISLASTFRAGEN IM HAAGER UND WIENERKAUFRECHT (1995).

8. For this qualification, see, apart from the author quoted supra note 4, FRANCO FERRARI, CONTRAT DE VENTE INTERNAT IONALE, APPLICABILITÉ ET APPLICATIONS DE LA CONVENTION DE VIENNE SUR LES CONTRATS DE VENTE INTERNATIONALE DE MARCHANDISES 24 f. (1999).

9. See BERNARD AUDIT, LA VENTE INTERNATIONALE DE MARCHANDISES 47 (1990); Michael Joachim Bonell, La nouvelle Convention des Nations-Unies sur les contrats de vente Internationale de marchandises, DROIT ET PRATIQUE DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONALE 7, 14 (1981); Frank Diedrich, Maintaining Uniformity in International Uniform Law via Autonomous Interpretation: Software Contracts and the CISG, 8 PACE INT'L L. REV. 303, 303 (1996); John Felemegas, The United Nations Convention on Contractsfor the International Sale of Goods: Article 7 and Uniform Interpretation, REV. CISG 115, 235 (2001); Franco Ferrari, Interpretation uniforme de la Convention de Vienne de 1980 sur la vente internationale, REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE DROIT COMPARE 813, 827 (1996); Philip Hackney, Is the UnitedNations Convention on the International Sale of Goods Achieving Uniformity?, 61 LA. L. REV. 473, 475 (2001); Ulrich Magnus, Konventionsubergreifende Interpretation internationaler Staatsvertrdge privatrechtlichen Inhalts, in AUFBRUCH NACH EUROPA. 75 JAHRE MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR PRIVATRECHT 571, 572 (Basedow et al. eds., 2001); Tomas Vazquez Lepinette, The Interpretation of the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention on International Sales, DIRITTO DEL COMMERCIO INTERNAZIONALE 377, 387 et seq. (1995).

10. ULRICH MAGNUS, WIENER UN-KAUFRECHT (CISG) 152 (1999); v. anche Andrew Babiak, Defining "Fundamental Breach" under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 6 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 113, 117 (1992); FRANK DIEDRICH, AUTONOME AUSLEGUNG VON INTERNATIONALEM EINHEITSRECHT, COMPUTERSOFTWAREIM WIENERKAUFRECHT 77 (1994); Franco Ferrari, Besprechung von U. Magnus Kommentar zum Wiener UN-Kaufrecht, PRAXIS DES INTERNATIONALEN PRIVAT- UND VERFAHRENSRECHTS 64, 65 (1997); VINCENT HEUZÉ, LA VENTE INTERNATIONALE DE MARCH ANDISES, DROITUNIFORME 79 (1992); Jean-Pierre, Plantard, Un Nouveau Droit Uniforme de la Vente Internationale: La Convention des Nations Unies du 11 avril 1980, JOURNAL DU DROIT INTERNATIONAL 311, 329 (1988).

11. MAGNUS, supra note 10, at 155.

12. See, e.g., Michael Joachim Bonell, Art. 7, in COMMENTARY ON THE INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW 65, 90 et seq. (Bianca & Bonell eds., 1987); Susanne V. Cook, The Need for Uniform Interpretation of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 50 U. PITT. L. REV. 197, 226 (1988); Susanne V. Cook, The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Mandate to Abandon Legal Ethnocentricity, 16 J.L. & COM. 257,261 (1997); Joanne M. Darkey, A U.S. Court's Interpretation of Damage Provisions under the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Preliminary Step towards an International Jurisprudence of CISG or a Missed Opportunity?, 15 J.L. & COM. 139, 142 (1995); FRIEDRICH ENDERLEIN ET AL INTERNATIONALES KAUFRECHT, KOMMENTAR 62 (1991); FRANCO FERRARI, VENDITA INTERNAZIONALE DI BENI MOBILI, AMBITO DI APPLICAZIONE, DISPOSIZIONI GENERALI 138 (1994); Helen E. Hartnell, Rousing the Sleeping Dog: The Validity Exception to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 18 YALE J. INT'L L. 1, 7 (1993); ROLF HERBER & BEATE CZERWENKA, INTERNATIONALES KAUFRECHT 48 (1991); HEUZÉ, supra note 10, at 79 et seq.; JOHN O. HONNOLD, UNIFORM LAW FOR INTERNATIONAL SALES 95 et seq. (3d ed. 1999); ALBERT H. KRITZER, GUIDE TO PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS 109 (1989); Ulrich Magnus, Wahrungsfragen im Einheitlichen Kaufrecht. Zugleich ein Beitrag zu seiner Lückenfüllung and Auslegung, RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 116, 123 (1989); MAGNUS, supra note 10, at 155; Dietrich Maskow, The Convention on the International Sale of Goods from the Perspective of the Socialist Countries, in LA VENDITA INTERNAZIONALE 39, 54 (1981); Elisabeth H. Patterson, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Unification and the Tension Between Compromise and Domination, 22 STAN. J. INT'L L. 263,283 (1986); BURGHARD PILTZ, INTERNATIONALES KAUFRECHT 66 (1993); Peter Winship, Changing Contract Practices in the Light of the United Nations Sales Convention: A Guide for Practitioners, 29 INT'L LAW. 525 (1995).

13. In its decision, the Tribunale di Rimini quoted decisions rendered in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United States.

14. See Tribunlae di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA 281, 286 (2001).

15. See also Tribunale di Pavia, 29 December 1999, CORRIERE GIURIDICO 932, 933 (2000).

16. Larry DiMatteo, An International Contract Law Formula: The Informality of International Business Transactions Plus the Internationalization of Contract Law Equals Unexpected Contractual Liability, 23 SYRACUSE J. INT'L L. & COM. 67,79 (1997); Larry DiMatteo, The CISG and the Presumption of Enforceability: Unintended Contractual Liability in International Business Dealings, 22 YALE J. INT'L L. 111, 133 (1997).

17. See OLG Frankfurt, Apr. 20, 1994, RECHT DER INTERNATIONALEN WIRTSCHAFT 593 (1994).,

In deciding a dispute regarding the sale of New Zealand mussels by a Swiss seller to a German buyer, the court expressly referred to the need to interpret the CISG with consideration of its international character and the need to promote the CISG's uniform application in Contracting States.

18. For this criticism, see also Franco Ferrari, Art. 7, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT 121, 128 (Peter Schlechtriem ed., 3d ed. 2000).

19. For this conclusion, see also Ernst A. Kramer, Uniforme Interpretation von Einheitsprivatrecht -- mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Art. 7 UNKR, JURISTISCHE BLÄTTER 137, 146 (1996).

20. Article 7(1) CISG (emphasis added).

21. For Italian courts that applied the wrong private international law rules, see, e.g., Tribunale di Mantova, 26 Aug. 2002, unpublished (on file with author); Cassazione civile, sez. un., 6 June 2002, No. 8224, RIVISTA DIDIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 473 et seq. (2003); Cassazionecivile, sez. un., 18 Oct. 2002, No. 14837, unpublished (on file with author); Corte d'Appello di Milano, 18 July 1997, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 980 et seq. (1997); Tribunale di Monza, 24 July 1986, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 783 (1987); Cassazione civile, sez. un., 20 March 1986, No. 1971, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 681 (1986); Cassazione civile, sez. un., 12 June 1984, No. 3479, published in RIVISTA DI DIRTTTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 380 (1985); Cassazione civile, sez. un., 20 Dec. 1982, No. 7040, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 152 (1984); Tribunale di Torino, 16 Jan. 1978, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 590 (1978).

22. See 510 U.N.T.S. 147. Commentators have often pointed out that the Italian rules of private international law in respect to contracts for the international sale of goods are those set forth in the 1955 Hague Convention; see, e.g., FERRARI, supra note 12, at 37; ALESSANDRA LANCIOTTI, NORME UNIFORMI DI CONFLITTO E MATERIALI NELLA DISCIPLINA CONVENZIONALE DELLA COMPRAVENDITA 61-62 and 239 (1992); Riccadro Luzzato, voce: Vendita (dir. internaz. priv.), in 46 ENCICLOPEDIA DEL DIRITTO 502, 515 (1993); Lucia Rossi, Il problema dei conflitti tra le convenzioni promosse dalla CEE e dalla Conferenza Permanente dell'Aja, DIRITTO DEGLI SCAMBI INTERNAZIONALI 347, 367 et seq. (1986). For Italian court decisions stating the same, see, e.g., Cassazione civile, sez. un., 19 June 2000, No. 448, published in CORRIERE GIURIDICO 970 (2000); Corte d'Appello di Milano, 20 March 1998, published in RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 170 (1998).

23. In this respect, see, e.g., Tribunale di Pavia, 29 Dec. 1999, published in CORRIERE GIURIDICO 932 f. (2000) (stating that in Italy "the conflict of law rules relating to international sales are not those provided by the Rome Convention; instead, one must look to the Hague Convention of 15 June 1955 (ratified by Law of 4 Feb. 1958 No. 50, entered into force in Italy on 1 Sept. 1964), since by virtue of Article 21 of the Rome Convention, the Hague Convention takes precedence over the conflict rules of the Rome Convention.").

24. In this respect, see also Franco Ferrari, Rapporto di diritto materiale uniforme di origine convenzionale e diritto internazionale privato, CORRIERE GIURIDICO 933 et seq. (2000).

25. See, e.g., Tribunale di Pavia, 29 Dec. 1999, in CORRIERE GIURIDICO 932 f. (2000).

26. At this point it must be pointed out that the Tribunale did not refer to the applicability of Art. 90 CISG to solve the conflict between the CISG and the 1955 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to the International Sale of Goods. In this author's opinion, this lack of reference to the aforementioned provision is to be construed as acceptance of the view of those authors (see, e.g., Sergio M. Carbone, Commento all art. 90 della Convenzione di Vienna sui contratti di vendita internazionale di beni mobili, NUOVE LEGGI CIVILI COMMENTATE 342, 343 (1989); Franco Ferrari, Art. 90, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT, supra note 18, at 850, 851) who consider that Art. 90 CISG does not apply to solve conflicts between the CISG and private international law conventions, but to solely solve conflicts between the CISG and uniform substantive law conventions (see also Kurt Siehr, Art. 90, in KOMMENTAR ZUM UN-KAUFRECHT 1059, 1059 (Heinrich Honsell ed., 1997)).

27. For a reference to the double-step approach referred to in the text, see, e.g., FERENC MAJOROS, LE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVÉ 6 (4th ed. 1997).

28. Al Palazzo S.r.l. v. Bernardaud di Limoges S.A. (Tribunale di Rimini Nov. 26, 2002), available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/021126i3.html> [hereinafter Tribunale di Rimini].

29. See DIEDRICH, supra note 10, at 27.

30. In this respect see, e.g., FABIAN BURKART, INTERPRETATIVES ZUSAMMENWIRKEN VON CISG UND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 8 (2000); Issak L Dore, Choice of Law under the International Sales Convention: A U.S. Perspective, 77 AM. J. INT'L L. 521, 532 (1983); Johan Erauw, Wanneer is het Weens Koopverdrag van toepassing?, in HET WEENS KOOPVERDRAG 21, 23 (Johan Erauw et al. eds., 1997); David Matthews, International Sales Law: Goodbye Soon to All Forum Shoppers?, ICC BUSINESS WORLD 12 (1983).

31. For this definition, see George D. Brown, The Ideologies of Forum Shopping -- Why Doesn't a Conservative Court Protect Defendants?, 71 N.C. L. REV. 649, 654 (1993); Friedrich K Juenger, Forum Shopping, RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 708, 708 (1982); Miguel Checa Martinez, Fundamentos y limites del forum shopping: modelos europeo y anglamericano, RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 521, 521 (1998); Kimberly J. Norwood, Shopping for a Venue: The Need for More Limits on Choice, 50 U. MIAMI L. REV. 267, 268 (1995).

32. Tribunale di Rimini, supra note 28.

33. See also Franco Ferrari, Forum Shopping et Droit Materiel Uniforme, JOURNAL DU DROIT INTERNATIONAL 383 (2002).

34. V. Lawrence Collins, Contractual Obligations -- The EEC Preliminary Draft Convention on Private International Law, in INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 35, 36 (1976), referring generally to "procedural advantages."

35. For similar statements, see, e.g., DIETER JASPER, FORUM SHOPPING IN ENGLAND AND DEUTSCHLAND 23 et seq. (1990); Martinez, supra note 31, at 521; Kurt Siehr, "Forum Shopping" im Internationalen Rechtsverkehr, ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR RECHTSVERGLEICHUNG 124, 128 (1984).

36. See Friedrich K Juenger, Forum Shopping, Domestic and International, 63 TUL. L. REV. 553, 553 (1989); for a similar statement in case law, see Lord Denning, in The Atlantic Star, (1972) 3 All ER 705, 709: "England [...] is a good place to shop in, both for quality of goods and the speed of service."

37. See Franco Ferrari, "Forum shopping" e Diritto Contra ttuale Uniforme, RIVISTA DI DIRITTO E PROCEDURA CIVILE 575, 577 (2002).

38. See Juenger, supra note 36, at 558; Siehr, supra note 35, at 130.

39. See also Friedrich K. Juenger, What's Wrong with Forum Shopping?, 16 SYDNEY L. REV. 5, 10 (1984).

40. Ferrari, supra note 37, at 577.

41. Juenger, supra note 36, at 574.

42. Tribunale di Rimini, supra note 28.

43. For a similar statement, see also Franco Ferrari, I rapporti tra le convenzioni di diritto materiale uniforme in materia contrattuale e la necessitd di un 'interpretazione interconvenzionale, RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE 669, 674 (2000). [ratione materiae defined by BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (7th ed.) as: "By reason of the matter involved." Eds.]

44. For the English text of the Unidroit Convention on International Factoring, see 27 ILM 931 et seq. (1988).

45. For the English text of the Unidroit Convention on International Financial Leasing, see 27 ILM 931 et seq. (1988).

46. In this respect, see, e.g., ANGELA VON FALKENHAYN, DAS VERHALTNIS VON FACTOR UND DEBITOR BEIM FACTORING 14 (1999); Martin Weller, Die UNIDROIT Konvention von Ottawa über internationales Factoring, RECHT DER INTERNATIONALEN WIRTSCHAFT 161, 162 (1999).

47. Cf. Franco Ferrari, Art. 1 FactÜ, in 5 MÜNCHENER KOMMENTAR ZUM HANDELSGESETZBUCH 1573, 1581 (Karsten. Schmidt ed., 2000).

48. For the IFC's applicability to assignments that do not per se fall under the Convention's substantive sphere of application, see Franco Ferrari, Art. 3 FactÜ, in 5 MÜNCHENER KOMMENTAR ZUM HANDELSGESETZBUCH, supra note 47, 1599, 1604.

49. See Weller, supra note 46, at 162.

50. For a detailed analysis of the CISG's substantive sphere of application, see, e.g., Giorgio De Nova, L'ambito di applicazione ratione materiae della convenzione di Vienna, RIVISTA TRIMESTRALE DI DIRITTO E PROCEDURA CIVILE 749 et seq. (1990); STEPHAN Höß, DER GEGENSTANDLICHE ANWENDUNGSBEREICH DES UN-KAUFRECHTS: "CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE CISG IS APPLICABLE" (1995).

51. See Article 2 CISG.

52. See JAN KROPHOLLER, INTERNATIONALES EINHEITSRECHT. ALLGEMEINE LEHREN 168 (1975).

53. See Bernt Lemhofer, Die Beschrankung der Rechtsvereinheitlichung auf internationale Sachverhalte, 25 RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 401 et seq. (1960).

54. See Franco Ferrari, Art. 2 FactÜ, in 5 MÜNCHENER KOMMENTARZUM HANDELSGESETZBUCH, supra note 47, 1586,1588; Eberhard Rebmann, Das UNIDROIT Übereinkommen über das internationale Factoring (Ottawa, 1988), RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 599, 603 (1989).

55. See Rebmann, supra note 54, at 603.

56. See also Alessio Zaccaria, Internationales Factoring nach Inkrafttreten der Konvention von Ottawa, PRAXIS DES INTERNATIONALEN PRIVAT- UND VERFAHRENSRECHTS 279, 281 (1995).

57. Franco Ferrari, II Factoring Internazionale. Commento della Convenzione di Ottawa del 1988 58 (1999).

58. Giorgio De Nova, Il progetto UNIDROIT di Convenzione sul factoring internationale, DIRITTO DEL COMMERCIO INTERNAZIONALE 715, 715-716 (1987); CHRISTOPH HAUSLER, DAS UNIDROIT ÜBEREINKOMMEN ÜBER INTERNATIONALES FACTORING (OTTAWA 1988) UNTER BESONDERER BERÜCKSICHTIGUNG SEINER ANWENDBARKEIT 283 (1998).

59. Domenico Gargiulo & Giancarlo Giancoli, La cessione del credito sotto lqr lente UNIDROIT, COMMERCIO INTERNAZIONALE 1296, 1303 (1993); Alessandro Munari, Il factoring internazionale nella convenzione UNIDROIT, DIRITTO DEL COMMERCIO INTERNAZIONALE 457, 460 (1989).

60. BARBARA DIEHL-LEISTNER, INTERNATIONALES FACTORING -- RECHTSVERGLEICHENDE DARSTELLUNG ZUM RECHT DER BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND, FRANKREICHS UND DER USA UNTER EINSCHLUß DER UNIDROIT-KONVENTION ÜBER DAS INTERNATIONALE FACTORING 127 (1992); Riccardo Monaco, La Convenzione internazionale per i contratti di factoring, BANC ARIA 12, 13 (1989).

61. Ferrari, supra note 54, at 1588.

62. At this point, it should be mentioned that the 2001 UNCITRAL Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade (available at <http://www.uncitral.org>) does not define internationality on the sole basis of the internationality of the receivables, but also on the basis of the assignor and the assignee having their place of business in different States; see Articles 1(a) and 3.

63. For a critique of this definition of internationality, see, e.g., Paul Volken, Das Wiener Übereinkommen über den internationalen Warenkauf; Anwendungsvoraussetzungen and Anwendungsbereich, in EINHEITLICHES KAUFRECHT UND NATIONALES OBLIGATIONENRECHT 81, 92 (Peter Schlechtriem ed., 1987).

64. For a recent comment on this Convention, see Aldo Frignani, Convenzione UNIDROIT sul leasing finanziario internazionale, in LE CONVENZIONI DI DIRITTO DEL COMMERCIO INTERNAZIONALE 151 et seq. (Franco Ferrari ed., 2d ed. 2002).

65. See PILAR RODRIGUEZ MATEOS, EL CONTRATO DE LEASING MOBILIARIO INTERNACIONAL 103 et seq. (1997); Angeles Sanchez Jimenez, El contrato de leasing, in CONTRATOS INTERNACIONALES 933, 963 (Alfonso L. Calvo Caravaca & Luis Fernandez de la Gandara eds., 1997).

66. See FRANCO FERRARI, INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS: APPLICABILITY AND APPLICATIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS 32 et seq. (1999).

67. See Ulrich Magnus, Zum räumlich-internationalen Anwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts und zur Mängelrüge, PRAXIS DES INTERNATIONALEN PRIVAT- UND VERFAHRENSRECHTS 390, 390 (1993); WOLFGANG WITZ ET AL., INTERNATIONAL EINHEITLICHES KAUFRECHT 40 (2000).

68. FERRARI, supra note 66, at 67.

69. It must be pointed out that the CISG's reference to the rules of private international law by itself should be sufficient to show that forum shopping will never be irrelevant under the CISG.

70. For papers on Art. 1(1)(b) CISG and private international law, see Christophe Bernasconi, The Personal and Territorial Scope of the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Article 1), NETHERLANDS INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 137 et seq. (1999); Franco Ferrari, CISG and Private International Law, in THE 1980 UNIFORM SALES LAW: OLD ISSUES REVISITED IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT EXPERIENCES. VERONA CONFERENCE 2003 19 et seq. (Franco Ferrari ed., 2003); Franco Ferrari, CISG Article l(1)(b) and Related Matters: Brief Remarks on Occasion of a Recent Dutch Court Decision, NEDERLANDS INTERNATIONAAL PRIVAATRECHT 317 et seq. (1995); Franco Ferrari, Diritto uniforme della Vendita Internazionale: Questioni di applicability e diritto internazionale privato, RIVISTA DI DIRITTO CIVILE 669 F.F (1995/II); Herrmann Pünder, Das Einheitliche UN-Kaufrecht Anwendung kraft kollisionsrechtlicher Verweisung nach Art. 1 Abs. 1 lit. b UN-Kaufrecht, RECHT DER INTERNATIONALEN WIRTSCHAFT 869 et seq. (1990); Kurt Siehr, Der internationaleAnwendungsbereich des UN-Kaufrechts, RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHESUND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 587 et seq. (1988); Peter Winship, Private International Law and the U.N. Sales Convention, 21 CORNELL INT'L L.J. 487 et seq. (1988).

71. Volken, supra note 63, at 93.

72. See also HAUSLER, supra note 58, at 300; Ferrari, supra note 54, at 1594.

73. See also Ferrari, supra note 57, at 78 et seq.; Franco Ferrari, Der Internationale Anwendungsbereich des Ottawa-Übereinkommens von 1988 über Internationales Factoring, RECHT DER INTERNATIONALEN WIRTSCHAFT 186 et seq. (1996).

74. For a distinction between sphere of application and scope of application, see most recently Franco Ferrari, Art. 4 CISG, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT 91, 92 (Peter Schlechtriem ed., 3d ed. 2000); Peter Schlechtriem, Anwendungsvoraussetzungen und Anwendungsbereich des UN-Übereinkommens über Vertrage über den internationalen Warenkauf (CISG), ARCHIV FÜR DIE JURISTISCHE PRAXIS 337, 340 f. (1992).

75. For a similar statement, see also Franco Ferrari, Das Verhältnis zwischen den Unidroit Grundsätzen and den allgemeinen Grundsätzen internationaler Einheitsprivatrechtskonventionen. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Lückenfüllung durch staatliche Gerichte, JURISTEN ZEITUNG 9, 10 (1998); Kropholler, supra note 52, at 167; BERNARDINE TROMPENAARS, PLURIFORME UNIFICATIE EN UNIFORME INTERPRETATIE 18 f. (1989).

76. See, e.g., Franco Ferrari, Vor Arts. 1-6 CSG, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT, supra note 74, at 41, 43.

77. See Gerichtprasident Laufen, 7 May 1993, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=&do=case&id=105&step=FullText> 1, stating that the CISG constitutes an "exhaustive set of rules on sales law."

78. For a detailed analysis of the issue of validity and the CISG, see, e.g., ARMIN DAWWAS, DIE GULTIGKEIT DES VERTRAGES UND DAS UN-KAUFRECHT (1998); Helen E. Hartnell, Rousing the Sleeping Dog: The Validity Exception to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods,18 YALE J. INT'L L. 1 et seq. 133-36 (1993); Christoph Heiz, Validity of Contracts under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, April 11, 1980, and Swiss Contract Law, 20 VANDERBILT J. TRANSNAT'L L. 639 et seq. 647-51 (1987); ANNE-KATHRIN SCHLUCHTER, DIE GULTIGKEIT VON KAUFVERTRAGEN UNTER DEM UN-KAUFRECHT (1996).

79. See Duncan Webb, Passing Property in International Sales and Issues in Respect of the Vienna Convention, 5 ASIAN PACIFIC L. REV. 83 et seq. (1996).

80. See Rolf Herber, Zum Verhältnis von UN-Kaufrechtsübereinkommen and deliktischer Haftung, in FESTSCHRIFT FÜR PETER SCHLECHTRIEM ZUM 70. GEBURTSTAG 207 et seq. (Ingeborg Schwenzer & Günter Hager eds., 2003); DYDRA KUHLEN, PRODUKTHAFTUNG IM INTERNATIONALEN KAUFRECHT. ENTSTEHUNGSGESCHICHTE, ANWENDUNGSBEREICH UND SPERRWIRKUNG DES ART. 5 DES WIENER UN-KAUFRECHTS (CISG) (1997); DIRK SCHNEIDER, UN-KAUFRECHT UND PRODUKTHAFTPFLICHT (1995).

81. Compare Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000, GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA 280,288 (2001/I); OLG Koblenz, 31 Jan. 1997, OLG-REPORT KOBLENZ 37 (1997); contra OLG München, 9 July 1997, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=252&step=FullText>.

82. See OLG Hamm, 8 Feb. 1995, PRAXIS DES INTERNATIONALEN PRIVAT- UND VERFAHRENSRECHTS 197 (1996).

83. For an overview of legal matters not governed by the CISG, see Franco Ferrari, Jurisprudence Concernant les Questions Non Abordées par la CVIM, REVUE DE DROIT DES AFFAIRES INTERNATIONALES 835 et seq. (1998); Claude Witz, CVIM: Interpretation et Questions Non couvertes, REVUE DE DROIT DES AFFAIRES INTERNATIONALES 253 et seq. (2001).

84. For case law stating the same, see Tribunale di Vigevano, 12 July 2000,GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA 280, 288 (2001/I); LG düsseldorf, 11 Oct. 1995, available at <http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=l&do=case&id=234&step=FullText>; OLG Hamm, 9 June 1995, NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT RECHTSPRECHUNGS-REPORT 179 (1996); ICC Court of Arbitration, Arbitral award n.7660, ICC INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION BULLETIN 69 et seq. (1996).

85. For similar statements, see HAUSLER, supra note 58, at 238; Munari, supra note 59, at 465.

86. See Franco Ferrari, Einl. FactÜ, in 5 MÜNCHENER KOMMENTAR ZUM HANDELSGESETZBUCH, supra note 47, at 1562, 1568.

87. For this statement, see William C. Philbrick, The Use of Factoring in International Commerical Transactions and the Need for Legal Uniformity as Applied to Factoring Transactions Between the United States and Japan, 99 COM. L.J. 141, 155 (1994); Alexander Reisman, The International Factoring Convention, 44 THE SECURED LENDER 26, 30 (1988).

88. Cf. Ferrari, supra note 73, at 182; Rebmann, supra note 54, at 603.

89. De Nova, supra note 58, at 716.

90. For a detailed list of matters not governed by the IFC, see Ferrari, supra note 47, at 1568; HAUSLER, supra note 58, at 240 et seq.

91. For the English version of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, see DONALD J. HILL & ANDREW MESSENT, CMR: CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD 316 et seq. (2d ed., 1995).

92. Cf. CORRADO ET AL., LA DISCIPLINA UNIFORME DEL CONTRATTO DI TRASPORTO DI COSE SU STRADA 17 (1994); ROLF HERBER & HENNING PIPER, CMR. INTERNATIONALES STRAßENGÜTERTRANSPORTRECHT. KOMMENTAR 528 (1998); Jürgen Basedow, Art. 1 CMR, in 7 MÜNCHENER KOMMENTAR ZUM HANDELSGESETZBUCH 887 (Jürgen Basedow ed., 1997); SANCHEZ-GAMBARINO, EL CONTRATO DE TRANSPORTE INTERNACIONAL. CMR 339 (1996); Barbara Sancisi, Convenzione di Ginevra sul trasporto internazionale di merce su strada (1956), in LE CONVENZIONE DI DIRITTO DEL COMMERCIO INTERNAZIONALE, supra note 64, at 3, 5.

93. For this statement, see Jürgen Basedow, Art. 41 CMR, in 7 MÜNCHENER KOMMENTAR ZUM HANDELSGESETZBUCH, supra note 92, at 1261, 1262.

94. Basedow, supra note 92, at 1263, referring to BGH, 9 February 1979, NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 2471 (1979); Tribunal de Commerce de Paris, 15 June 1978, BULLETIN DES TRANSPORTS 422 (1978); RB Breda, 16 Dec. 1969, SHIP & SCHADE n.30 (1970).

95. Cf., with respect to the CISG, Sergio M. Carbon & Riccardo Luzzatto, I Contratti del Commercio Internazionale, in 11 TRATTATO DI DIRITTO PRIVATO 111, 131 (Pietro Rescigno ed., 1984); Alfonso L. Calvo Caravaca, Art. 6, in LA COMPRAVENTA INTERNACIONAL DE MERCADERIAS. COMMENTARIO DE LA CONVENCION DE VIENA 92, 92 (Luis Diez-Picazo ed., 1998); LANCIOTTI, supra note 22, at 146; JOCHEN LINDBACH, RECHTSWAHL IM EINHEITSRECHT AM BEISPIEL DES WIENER UN-KAUFRECHTS 67 (1996); Volken, supra note 63, at 92; with respect to the IFC, see Ferrari, supra note 48, at 1600; as far as the ILC is concerned, see Frignani, supra note 64, at 213.

96. For this statement, see AUDIT, supra note 9, at 37. It should be noted that under the various uniform substantive law conventions, the role of party autonomy differs. Whereas the CISG gives the parties a lot of freedom, as evidenced by the fact that they are allowed not only to exclude the Convention as a whole, but also to derogate from its provisions, the IFC allows the parties to exclude the Convention only as whole (see DIEHL-LEISTNER, supra note 60, at 128; Weller, supra note 46, at 163; Zaccaria, supra note 56, at 280 n.10). The provisions of the IFC are not mandatory but apply only where the provisions of the IFC themselves expressly provide for the parties' ability to exclude them (see HAUSLER, supra note 58, at 318; Ferrari, supra note 48, at 1600; contra Alexander Reisman, The Uniform Commercial Code and the Convention on International Factoring, 22 UCC L.J. 320, 324 (1990)). The IFL, on the other hand, follows the CISG's approach rather than that of the IFC, in that it allows the parties to exclude the Convention as a whole and to derogate from its provisions, except for a few provisions from which the parties cannot derogate in order to protect the lessee's interests (see Ferrari, supra note 75, at 14)).

97. See Ferrari, Problematiche tipiche, supra note 2, at 283.

98. See SYLVAIN MARCHAND, LES LIMITES DE L'UNIFORMISATION MATERIELLE DU DROIT DE LA VENTE INTERNATIONALE: MISE EN OEUVRE DE LA CONVENTION DES NATIONS UNIES DU 11 AVRIL 1980 SUR LA VENTE INTERNATIONALE DE MARCHANDISES DANS LE CONTEXTE JURIDIQUE SUISSE 28 (1994); Ferrari, supra note 76, at 48-49.

99. The dispositive nature of the 1974 UNCITRAL Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods can be evinced from its Article 3(2).

100. See WOLFGANG BURR, FRAGEN DES KONTINENTAL-EUROPÄISCHEN INTERNATIONALEN VERJÄHRUNGSRECHTS 19 et seq. and 53 et seq. (1968); Markus Müller-Chen, Art. 1 VerjÜbk, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT, supra note 18, at 881, 882.

101. See Art. 28 CISG: "If, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, oneparty is entitled to require performance of any obligation by the other party, a court is not bound to enter a judgment for specific performance unless the court would do so under its own law in respect of similar contracts of sale not governed by this Convention."

102. See Martin Karollus, Art. 28 CISG, in KOMMENTAR ZUM UN-KAUFRECHT, supra note 26, at 298, 303; PETER SCHLECHTRIEM, UNIFORM SALES LAW 62 (1986); Ulrich Huber, Art. 28 CISG, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT, supra note 18, at 284, 292.

103. See John M. Catalano, More Fiction Than Fact: The Perceived Differences in the Application of Specific Performance under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 71 TUL. L. REV. 1807, 1830 (1997); Peter A. Piliounis, The Remedies of Specific Performance, Price Reduction and Additional Time (Nachfrist) under the CISG: Are These Worthwhile Changes or Additions to English Sales Law?, 12 PACE INT'L L. REV. 1, 17 (2000); Jianming Shen, The Remedy of Requiring Performance under the CISG and the Relevance ofDomestic Rules, 13 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 253, 305 (1996); Steven Walt, For Specific Performance under the United Nations Sales Convention, 26 TEX. INT'L L.J. 211, 230 (1991).

104. For a criticism of the number of declarations Contracting States were allowed to declare under the 1964 Hague Uniform Laws, see Laszlo Réczei, The Area of Operation of the International Sales Conventions, 29 AM. J. COMP. L. 513, 516 n.10 (1981).

105. See Rolf Herber, Anwendungsbereich des UNCITRAL-KaufrechtsÜbereinkommens, in DAS UNCITRAL KAUFRECHTIM VERGLEICH ZUM ÖSTERREICHISCHEN RECHT 28, 31 (Peter Doralt ed., 1985).

106. For a paper on the reservations provided for by uniform substantive law conventions, see most recently Marco Torsello, Reservations to International Uniform Commercial Law Conventions, UNIFORM L. REV. 85 et seq. (2000).

107. Cf. Franco Ferrari, Art. 1 CISG, in KOMMENTAR ZUM EINHEITLICHEN UN-KAUFRECHT, supra note 18, at 51, 70 et seq.

108. The statement to be found in the text is true, provided that the forum State did not make a declaration similar to Article 2 of the German Vertragsgesetz, dated 5 July 1989, under which German courts have to apply the domestic law of the reservatory State, in case the rules of private international law lead to the law of a State that declared an Article 95 reservation.

109. In respect of the CMR, see Jürgen Basedow, Einleitung CMR, in 7 MÜNCHENER KOMMENTAR ZUM HANDELSGESETZBUCH, supra note 92, at 856, 873.

110. See supra note 28.

111. For this definition of "forum shopping," see BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 655 (6th ed. 1990).

112. "Forum shopping" has been named an "evil." See, e.g., Henry J. Friendly, Averting the Flood by Lessening the Flow, 59 CORNELL L. REV. 634, 641 (1974).

113. See Weight Watchers Int'l, Inc. v. Stouffer Corp., 11 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1544, 1547 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); see also Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 154 (1987), where reference is made to the "danger of forum shopping."

114. See S. REP. No. 275, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. at 19-20 (1981).

115. See H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW 155 (1961).

116. In this respect, see, e.g., Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert , 330 U.S.501, 508 (1947), stating that

"[a]dministrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin."

117. See 135 CONG. REC. E2243 (daily ed. 21 June 1989), where the following sfatement by Rep. Luken is reproduced: "The losers [from forum shopping] are the American public who end up paying excessive legal fees that are silently encapsulated in the price of products." See also Michael H. Gottesman, Draining the Dismal Swamp: The Case for Federal Choice of Law Statutes, 80 GEO. L.J. 1, 13 (1991), referring to the "significant costs" created by "forum shopping."

118. See Brown, supra note 31, at 668; see also infra note 124, at 1685.

119. See Hanna v. Plummer, 380 U.S. 460, 468 (1965); see also Norwood, supra note 31, at 305 et. seq., referring to erosion of public confidence in the court system as one of the outcomes of "forum shopping."

120. Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 7.

121. Id. at EC 9-2.

122. For a short paper on this issue, see Herbert Roth, Zulässiges forum shopping?, PRAXIS DES INTERNATIONALEN PRIVAT- UND VERFAHRENSRECHTS 183 et seq. (1984).

123. For this conclusion, see Forum Shopping Reconsidered, 103 HARV. L. REV. 1677, 1690 (1990); Siehr, supra note 35, at 141.

124. For a paper dealing with the relationship between the conflicting interests referred to in the text, see most recently THOMAS KÖSTER, DIE HAFTUNG FÜR FORUM SHOPPING IN DEN USA (2001).


Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated July 29, 2004
Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography
Comments/Contributions