Abstract
Whatever its importance may be, the draft regulation for a common European sales law (CESL) has had one major effect. It has been discussed all over Europe and even outside.
The question whether or not an Optional Instrument should be introduced, is hotly debated. Basically, authors have either given a positive appraisal of the project, albeit usually with reservations regarding specific proposals, or rejected the Optional Instrument. Among the latter there is a widely held view that if the proposal does not help, it does not harm either. This view is challenged in this paper.
A different question addressed in this paper is why the Common European Sales Law seems to provoke the German speaking part of Europe so much more than other linguistic communities. The reason may be the following. The draft Regulation is of course available in all official languages including German. Until its publication, the earlier Feasibility study existed only in English. And although this is comprehensible to most German lawyers, it does make discussion of technical issues awkward. The present abundance of German language commentaries is most certainly attributable to this linguistic background.
Although basically the CESL proposal is modeled after the Feasibility study, there are also some differences. The major difference is that whereas the Feasibility study dealt with Contract Law in general, the CESL focuses on a sales plus contract. By ‘sales plus’ we should think of sales contracts and some related contracts. In the future, the CESL – or its follow-up – may serve as a building block for a Civil Code. It may even contribute to the further development of CISG. This also holds true for other parts of private law, although provisions on tort law for instance are more difficult to imagine as the object of an option. The CESL may serve as a regional supplement to CISG. When establishing the final text of the CESL, no limiting time constraints should be imposed.
Paper delivered at the conference Content And Effects Of Contracts: The CESL In The European Multi-Level System Of Governance. Groningen 31 May – 1 June 2013. The paper builds on an Editorial in the European Review of Private Law 2013/1.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
CM (2011) 635 final. The proposal has been the subject of differences of opinion between the European Commission and the European Parliament. Politically, the fact that France, Germany and the United Kingdom have expressed their disapproval with CESL has at present led to a stalemate – see J Rutgers, ‘Unfair terms in consumer contracts’ in L Gullifer, S Vogenauer (eds) English and European perspectives on contract and commercial law (Oxford, Hart, 2014) 279–289; and for the most recent news the frequent blogs on European Private Law News of Eric Clive.
- 2.
The European Parliament’s Economic Affairs Committee on 11 October 2012 backed the proposal – < europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-777_en.htm>. And on 26 February 2014, the full Parliament backed the proposal with 416 votes for, 159 against and 65 abstentions – press release European Parliament PV 26/02/2014 – 9.12. However, according to several newsletters ‘Despite strong backing from the European Parliament, proposals for a Common European Sales Law (CESL) are likely to be bogged down in the European Council, due to opposition from a majority of member states, including the UK, France and Germany’(EurActiv 24 March 2014). And indeed, by December 2014, after the submission of the present chapter, European Commissioner Frans Timmermans retracted the CESL proposal.
- 3.
JM Prinssen, Doorwerking van Europees recht, De verhouding tussen directe werking, conforme interpretatie en overheidsaansprakelijkheid (PhD Amsterdam, Deventer, Kluwer, 2004) 279; MH Wissink, Richtlijnconforme interpretatie van burgerlijk recht (Deventer, Kluwer, 2011) 448.
- 4.
Commissioner Vĕra Jourová’s remarks before the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee, 13 July 2015.
- 5.
University of Amsterdam, Conference of 29 February 2012. The papers by C Cauffman and M Loos have been published in NTBR of May 2012. Other Dutch-language papers may be found in the Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht.
- 6.
Tagung der Zivilrechtslehrer, papers by S Grundmann, Kosten und Nutzen eines optionalen Europäischen Kaufrechts (2012) AcP, 502–544; B Zöchling-Jud, ‘Acquis-Revision’, Common European Sales Law und Verbraucherrechterichtlinie, 550–574; D Looschelders, ‘Das Allgemeine Vertragsrecht des Common European Sales law’ (2012) AcP, 581–693; S Lorenz, ‘Das Kaufrecht und die damit verbundenen Dienstverträge im Common European Sales Law’(2012) AcP, 702–847; A Stadler, ‘Anwendungsvoraussetzungen und Anwendungsbereich des Common European Sales Law’(2012) AcP, 473–501; B Zöchling-Jud, ‘Acquis-Revision, Common European Sales Law und Verbraucherrechterichtlinie’ (2012) AcP, 550–574.
- 7.
Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Seminar Neue Entwicklungen im europäischen Vertragsrecht, 25 June- 1 July 2012. In Frankfurt the German Ministry of Justice also organised a conference – see Jörg-Uwe Hahn (ed), Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht/Moderner Ansatz oder praxisferne Vision ? (München, Beck, 2012) 223.
- 8.
31 May – 1 June 2013. See the chapters in this volume.
- 9.
Symposium Optionales europäisches Privatrecht for the Verein der Freunde und Förderer des Max Planck Instituts, 18 June 2011. The papers have been published in an updated version in RabelsZeitschrift April 2012.
- 10.
Annual conference of the Leiden student association Suum cuique, 26 April 2012.
- 11.
Presentation by Christian Twigg-Flesner, ‘The proposed Common European sales law – a common law perspective’ (20 March 2012).
- 12.
On its Brussels Campus. The papers have been published in the Maastricht Journal 1–2012.
- 13.
Universität Marburg, Rechtsvergleichendes Seminar im Sommersemester 2012, Ein einheitliches europäisches Kaufrecht, Sonia Meier.
- 14.
Conference “European Law Days – The European law of obligations at a turning point”, 17–19 October 2012.
- 15.
Conference Université Paris II, 28 November 2011.
- 16.
November 2013.
- 17.
See G Alpa et al. (eds), The proposed common European sales law – the lawyers’ view, (München, Sellier) 2013, 251.
- 18.
Europäische Rechtsakademie, An optional European sales law, 9–10 February 2012.
- 19.
European Law Institute, first workshop on the proposal for a Common European sales law, 17–18 November 2011 (with papers by Christian Alunaru, Carole Aubert de Vincelles, Fabrizio Cafaggi, Lars Edlund, Bénédicte Fauvarque-Cosson, Johan Gernandt, Paul Gilligan, Peter Limmer, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Pilar Perales Viscasillas, Matthias Storme, Sir John Thomas, Anna Veneziano, Christiane Wendehorst, Reinhard Zimmermann and Fryderyk Zoll).
- 20.
University of Würzburg, 20 January 2012 – see Remien/Herrler/Rimmer (2012); ZEuP-Tagung 3–4 April 2012.
- 21.
University of Chicago, 2 May 2012. The papers are published in the Common Market Law Review 2013/1.
- 22.
University of Chicago, Conference on European contract law: a law-and-economics perspective, 27–28 April 2012 – see CMLR 2013/1.
- 23.
Contratto e impresa Europa 2012, 1–482.
- 24.
ERCL 2012, 30–87, with papers by Jürgen Basedow, Dorota Leczykiewicz and Ruth Sefton-Green, and 241–366, with papers by Stefan Grundmann, Guido Comparato, Ruth Sefton-Green, Ralf Michaels, Jan Smits, Hugh Collins, Chantal Mak and Martijn Hesselink.
- 25.
ERPL 2011, 6: 709–1000.
- 26.
Journal of International Trade Law and Policy 11 (2012) No 3, 222–305.
- 27.
Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht 2012, issue 7/8 with papers by JHM Spanjaard & THM van Wechem, EH Hondius, PCJ De Tavernier and T Heremans.
- 28.
Maastricht Journal 1–2012, with papers by Eric Clive, Nicole Kornet, Gary Low, Ursula Pachl and Giesela Rühl.
- 29.
RabelsZ April 2012.
- 30.
O Remien, S Herrler, P Limmer (eds), Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht für die EU ? (München, Beck, 2012) 214; M Schmidt-Kessel (ed), Der Entwurf für ein gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht/Kommentar, Überblick über die wesentliche Streitstände und Ergebnisse (München, Sellier, 2014) 884; H Schulte-Nölke, F Zoll, N Jansen, R Schulze, Der Entwurf für ein optionales europäisches Kaufrecht (München, Sellier, 2012) 424; D Staudenmayer, Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht (München, Beck, 2012) 93; C Twigg-Flesner, A cross-border-only regulation for consumer transactions in the EU (Springer, 2012) 76; C Wendehorst, B Zöchling-Jud (eds), Am Vorabend eines Gemeinsamen Europäischen Kaufrechts (Wenen, Manz, 2012).
- 31.
R Schulze (ed), Common European Sales Law (CESL) (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2012) 780, with chapters by C Wendehorst (Vienna) on the ‘chapeau’ and art 58–65 (interpretation), H Schulte-Nölke (Osnabrück) on art 1–6 and 9–12 (general principles), D Mazeaud (Paris) and N Sauphanor-Brouillaud (Versailles) on art 7 and 79–86 (unfair contract terms), F Zoll (Cracow) on art 8, 87–122 (digital content) and 140–158 (transfer of risk, rights and duties), G Howells (Manchester) on art 13–29 (precontractual relations), T Watson (Münster) on art 13–29 (precontractual relations) and 140–158 (transfer of risk, rights and duties), E Terryn (Leuven) on art 30–39 (formation), R Schulze (Münster) on art 40–47 (right to withdraw), T Pfeiffer (Heidelberg) on art 48–57 (defects of consent), EM Kieninger (Würzburg) on art 66–78 (contents and effects), Ge Dannemann (Berlin) on art 123–139 (duties of the buyer), D Možina (Ljubljana) on art 159–171 (compensation and interest), M Lehmann (Halle) on art 172–177 (restitution); P Mǿgelvang-Hansen (Copenhagen) on art 178–186 (prescription). All chapters have the same order: A. function, B. context, C. interpretation, D. criticism.
- 32.
In this sense also EM Kieninger, ‘Allgemeines Leistungsstörungsrecht im Vorschlag für ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht’ in H Schulte-Nölke, F Zoll, N Jansen, R Schulze, Der Entwurf für ein optionales europäisches Kaufrecht (München, Sellier, 2012) 205–228.
- 33.
M Stürner, ‘Das Verhältnis des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Kaufrechts zum Richtlinienrecht’ in H Schulte-Nölke, F Zoll, N Jansen, R Schulze, Der Entwurf für ein optionales europäisches Kaufrecht (München, Sellier, 2012) 47–84.
- 34.
M Gebauer, in H Schulte-Nölke, F Zoll, N Jansen, R Schulze, Der Entwurf für ein optionales europäisches Kaufrecht (München, Sellier, 2012) 121–145.
- 35.
See M Schmidt-Kessel (ed), Der Entwurf für ein gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht/Kommentar, Überblick über die wesentliche Streitstände und Ergebnisse (München, Sellier, 2014) 884.
- 36.
H Beale, WG Ringe, ‘Transfer of rights and obligations under DCFR and CESL: interactions with German and English law’ in G Dannemann, S Vogenauer (eds), The Common European Sales law in context/Interactions with English and German law (Oxford, University Press, 2013) 521–561.
- 37.
See some of the papers in P Mankowski, W Wurmnest (eds), Festschrift für Ulrich Magnus zum 70. Geburtstag (München, Sellier, 2014) 734.
- 38.
See Luke Nottage, The Government’s Proposed “Review of Australian Contract Law”: A Preliminary Positive Response, https://www.ag.gov.au.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hondius, E. (2016). The Many Advantages of a Common European Sales Law. In: Colombi Ciacchi, A. (eds) Contents and Effects of Contracts-Lessons to Learn From The Common European Sales Law. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28074-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28074-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28072-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28074-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)