Go to Database
Directory || Go
to Bibliography
Published by Manz, Vienna: 1986. Reproduced with their permission.
excerpt from
Uniform Sales Law - The UN-Convention on Contracts for the International
Sale of Goods
Univ. Prof. Dr. Peter Schlechtriem [*]
(...)
B. The Offer [see also Formation of the Contract: Basic Principles and Open Questions]
(...)
As for the revocation of an offer, the Convention
distinguishes, on the one hand, between the revocation of an offer that already
has reached the addressee and is therefore fully effective (Article 16), and, on
the other hand, the withdrawal of an offer that has not yet reached the
addressee (Article 15(2)). The possibility of withdrawing an offer until, or in
any case simultaneously with, its arrival coincides with ULF Article 5(1) and §
130(1) sentence 2 of the German Civil Code.[170]
The antagonism between legal systems that permit the revocation of offers for a
fixed period or that have been declared irrevocable and those legal systems that
prefer to bind the offeror to his offer already dominated the Hague [page
52] Conference. It erupted once again in Vienna.[171]
The result was the same as the compromise already worked out by UNCITRAL, but
the discussions made it clear that the various viewpoints will be reflected in
divergent interpretations of the offeror's intent to be bound. In particular, a
fixed time, which was understood by some delegates to be an irrebuttable
presumption of an intent to be bound,[172]
may be subject to different interpretations depending on the legal system in
which the offeror lives.[172a] [page 53]
(...)
FOOTNOTES
* The author of this book participated at the Conference as a
member of the delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany. The views
expressed here are personal to the author and do not necessarily represent the
position of the F.R.G. or its delegation.
(...)
170. Unfortunately, a British proposal (A/Conf. 97/C.1/L.48) (=
O.R. 94) concerning the withdrawal of a public offer found no support because of
the misunderstanding that there is no such thing as a real public offer.
See A/Conf. 97/C.1/SR.9 at 3 (= O.R. 278). In the end, though, one will
probably have to decide the same way as suggested in that proposal: The public
offer can be revoked if the revocation reaches the interested party before he
has dispatched his acceptance. For a less restrictive view, see Dölle
(Schlechtriem) ULF Articles 5 § 3 19 (revocation is effective if made in the
same manner in which the offer was made, so long as the offer has not been
accepted or the acceptance has not been dispatched).
171. See A/Conf. 97/C.1/L.48 (= O.R. 94) (British
proposal); A/Conf. 97/C.1/SR.9 at 3 § 14 (= O.R. 277 et seq.)
(discussion).
172. Compare A/Conf. 97/C.1/SR.9 at 3 § 15 (= O.R. 278)
(Japan); id. § 35 (The Netherlands) and id. § 37 (= O.R. 279)
(United Kingdom). Farnsworth confirms the danger of divergent interpretations.
See Farnsworth, Formation at 3-11.
172a. See Feltham at 352.
(...)
Go to entire contents of Schlechtriem text
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law -
Last updated June 15, 2000
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database
Directory || Go
to CISG Table of Contents