Autonomy of Common European Sales Law in Lithuania
Sį dokumentą lietuvių kalba galima rasti adresu: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2243074 Private law is the area of law in which the resistance to unification in Europe is probably the strongest. Private law codification initiative, which began in 1989, after more than twenty years was recently reduced to optional non binding common sales law draft, which is gradually making its way through the EU institutions’ legislative process. Choice of EU regulation as a form indicates that the willingness to reach objective results is strong enough, but the reasoning in support of this project faces equally strong argument against it. Lithuanian experience expands this discussion in several important respects. Rome I Regulation Article 6.2. deadlock solution is specifically beneficial for smaller countries, where market participants have less bargaining power. In addition, an optional supplementary regulatory framework that the parties could choose, would allow testing existing legal systems by competition. Lithuania's recent reform experience suggests that the draft regulation provides for a smooth change in Europe. Multilingualism, some of the Common European Sales Law solutions, radically different from the Lithuanian national legal provisions will certainly require revision of the existing concepts, but that is not a reason not to try to improve the EU's common private law.
CISG and CESL
The subject of this paper – which is dedicated to Ole Lando – is to examine the relationship between the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) of 1980 and the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law (CESL) which the EU Commission published on 11 October 2011 and to compare both instruments. However, only major differences will be discussed, primarily with respect to the regulations for businesses. The focus lies on the objectives, opt-in and opt-out approach, scope of application, structure, and style of regulation of both sets of rules. The conflict of laws problem will be addressed, as well as specific matters such as the rules regarding formation of contract, and the rights and obligations of the parties.This contribution is published in this Research Paper Series as a part of the Liber Amicorum Ole Lando with the generous and exceptional permission of the rights owner, Djof Forlag.
“A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE IN ALL BUT NAME”: DISCUSSING THE NATURE AND PURPOSES OF THE DRAFT COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE
In February 2008, an Interim Outline Edition of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) for European private law was published, and in February 2009 the definitive Outline Edition. By the end of 2009, the full work (i.e. model rules, comments and comparative notes) was available in print, consisting of six volumes comprising about 6,100 pages. The DCFR project was launched and sponsored by the Commission of the European Union. Ever since the enigmatic term “Common Frame of Reference” (CFR) was coined in a Communication from 2003, commentators have been trying to figure out what it might be intended to mean. The Commission itself has repeatedly stated that the CFR is supposed to be a “tool box” for future legislation in the field of contract law. But the CFR might also conceivably serve as an “optional instrument”, i.e. a set of rules which parties to a transnational contract can agree upon to govern their transaction. Yet, the main part of the DCFR constitutes a fully-fledged draft code of patrimonial law at large. For its scope reaches far beyond (general) contract law. It has a book with rules on obligations in general, and it comprises specific types of contract (including mandate and donation), noncontractual obligations (including “benevolent intervention in another’s affairs”, i.e. negotiorum gestio), a property law regime concerning movables as well as a book with no less than 116 articles on trust law.