Abstract
This chapter concerns implied terms under the CESL, with particular emphasis on how to establish their content. An analysis of a Dutch case and an English case concerning termination of a long-term agreement gives rise to the impression that there is not the same approach for implied terms in these two countries. The intended European database is therefore a good idea.
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.
The ‘Principles of European Contract Law’ (PECL), prepared by the Commission on European Contract Law (The Hague 1999); the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law ‘Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts’ (Unidroit, Rome, 2010) (Unidroit Principles) and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the international Sale of Goods 1980, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1489, 3 (CISG) do not contain provisions that explicitly deal with the issue of the sources of contractual terms. The Research Group on the Existing EC Private Law’s ‘Draft Common Frame of Reference’(DCFR) states that the terms of a contract may be derived from the express or tacit agreement of the parties, from rules of law or from practices established between the parties (Article II-9:101, para 1).
- 2.
European Commission ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on a Common European Common European Sales Law’ (2011) SEC 1165 final.
- 3.
Article 66(a) CESL.
- 4.
It also contains a provision on usages and practices in contracts between traders (Article 67).
- 5.
EM Kieninger, in R Schulze (ed) Common European Sales Law (CESL): A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, 2012) 327.
- 6.
The circumstances in which the contract was concluded are also mentioned (sub-paragraph b), as well as the requirements of good faith and fair dealing (sub-paragraph c).
- 7.
Unidroit Principles (n 1) Comment to Article 5.1.1, 148.
- 8.
Kieninger (n 5) 334.
- 9.
Kieninger (n 5) 335.
- 10.
C Von Bar and E Clive (eds), Draft Common Frame of Reference, Full Edition (Sellier, 2009) 579 et seq; O Lando and H Beale (eds), Principles of European Contract Law, Part I and II (Kluwer Law International, 2000) 302 et seq, Kieninger (n 5) 335–336.
- 11.
Kieninger (n 5) 336.
- 12.
Baird Textile Holdings Limited v Marks & Spencer plc. [2001] EWCA Civ 274 (Court of Appeal, Civil Division) 28 February 2001 This case has its own page on Wikipedia, www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baird_Textile_Holdings_Ltd_v_Marks_%26_Spencer_plc
- 13.
Baird/M&S (n 12) para 11.
- 14.
Baird/M&S (n 12) para 13.
- 15.
These considerations of Justice Morrison are cited in Baird/M&S, para 13, see (n 2).
- 16.
The Aramis [1989] 1 LIoyd’s Rep. 213.
- 17.
Bingham LJ, The Aramis (n 16) 224.
- 18.
Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] 1 WLR 1195.
- 19.
Baird/M&S (n 12) para 24.
- 20.
Hillas v Arcos (1932) 147 LT 503.
- 21.
See on this case also Vice Chancellor Morrit in Baird/M&S (n 12) para 26.
- 22.
Baird/M&S (n 12) para 30.
- 23.
Baird/M&S (n 12) para 67–68.
- 24.
Dutch Supreme Court 19 October 2007, NJ 2007/565 (Vodafone/ETC).
- 25.
Former Dutch currency.
- 26.
See Vodafone/ETC, among others para 3.3.
- 27.
Vodafone/ETC, para 3.3.
- 28.
Vodafone/ETC, para 3.4.
- 29.
Dutch Supreme Court 13 April, 1980, NJ 1981/635 (Haviltex).
- 30.
Vodafone/ETC, para 3.4.
- 31.
Vodafone/ETC, para 3.4.
- 32.
In both countries there are more cases concerning termination of long-term agreements.
- 33.
Article 6:248, para 1 DCC.
- 34.
Article 6:248, para 2 DCC.
- 35.
High Court of London (Queen’s Bench Division), 1 February 2013, Yam Seng Pte Limited v International Trade Corporation Limited, [2013] EWHC 111 (QB), sub 131. This quote of Justice Leggatt is also cited by CE Drion, NJB 2013/793, 1029.
- 36.
Article 6:248 DCC. For contracts such as on rent or employment there are special provisions for terminations. Article 6:248, para 2 DCC is the relevant legal basis for long term agreements for which no ‘special’ regime is applicable.
- 37.
Dutch Supreme Court, 21 October 1988, NJ 1990/439 (Mondia/Calanda).
- 38.
Dutch Supreme Court, 28 October 28 2011, NJ 2012/685 (Gemeente De Ronde Venen/Stedin).
- 39.
Dutch Supreme Court, 28 October 28 2011, NJ 2012/685 (Gemeente De Ronde Venen/Stedin).
- 40.
The fact that for the specific type of contract in Baird/M&S there might be a specific provision under Dutch Law does not affect this general statement.
- 41.
Justice Leggatt in Sam Yeng/ITC, para 153. Drion has called this decision bold (‘een gedurfde steen in de vijver’), (n 33) 1029.
- 42.
See Recital 34 CESL and Explanatory Memorandum to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law (n 2) para 5 (Additional information).
- 43.
This is governed by Article 14 Regulation and Recital 34 CESL.
- 44.
It will not be the first database. For example, there was the database CLAB (clause abusive), The European Database on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. Other examples are the databases on the CISG from Pace Law School and Unilex.
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
Krans, B. (2016). Art. 66–68: Implied Terms in the CESL: Different Approaches?. 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_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28074-5_7
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)