Abstract
The success of any uniform law instrument in the area of contract law will to a large degree depend on whether it offers a convincing solution for the issue of gap-filling. This chapter analyses to what extent the approach taken by the CESL can serve as a model. The topic is addressed in three steps. First, the delineation between two different categories of lacunae in the Proposal that require supplementation – internal and external gaps – is examined. The chapter then analyses the different techniques provided by the CESL for supplementing such gaps and compares them with the approach taken by the CISG. Finally, a specific problem of gap-filling is discussed that occurs with regard to the control of unfair contract terms.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law, 11 October 2011, COM(2011) 635 final.
- 2.
See J Basedow, ‘Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht – Das Ende eines Kommissionsvorschlags’ (2015) Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 432; J-S Borghetti, ‘Réforme du droit des contrats: un projet s’en vient, l’autre s’en va’ (2015) Recueil Dalloz 1376.
- 3.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 February 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law (COM(2011)0635 – C7- 0329/2011 – 2011/0284(COD)). For an overview of the amendments suggested by the European Parliament see T Pinkel, ‘Der Anwendungsbereich und zentrale Vorschriften des Kommissionsentwurfs für ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht sowie die Änderungsvorschläge des ELI und Änderungsanträge des Parlaments im Vergleich’ (2014) Hanse Law Review 45.
- 4.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 16 December 2014, Commission Work Programme 2015: A New Start, COM(2014) 910 final (Annex II, no. 60).
- 5.
Similar problems are well known from other instruments of uniform law, most prominently the CISG, see generally C Schmid, Das Zusammenspiel von Einheitlichem UN-Kaufrecht und nationalem Recht: Lückenfüllung und Normenkonkurrenz (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1996); T Himmen, Die Lückenfüllung anhand allgemeiner Grundsätze im UN-Kaufrecht (Art 7 Abs. 2 CISG) (Jena, Jenaer Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, 2007); see also MJ Bonell, ‘L’Interpretazione del Diritto Uniforme alla Luce dell’ Art 7 della Convenzione di Vienna Sulla Vendita Internazionale’ (1986) Rivista di diritto Civile 221; F Ferrari, ‘Uniform interpretation of the 1980 Uniform Sales Law’ (1994/95) Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 183; M Gebauer, ‘Uniform Law, General Principles and Autonomous Interpretation’ (2000) Uniform Law Review 683.
- 6.
See eg JJ Ganuza and F Gomez, ‘Optional Law for Firms and Consumers: An Economic Analysis of Opting into the Common European Sales Law’ (2013) Common Market Law Review 29, 50.
- 7.
See especially B Gsell, ‘Der Verordnungsentwurf für ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht und die Problematik seiner Lücken’ in O Remien, S Herrler and P Limmer (eds), Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht für die EU? (CH Beck, Munich, 2012) 145; D Solomon, ‘Externe Lücken, allgemeines Kollisionsrecht und die Rolle der Parteiautonomie’ in M Gebauer (ed), Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht – Anwendungsbereich und kollisionsrechtliche Einbettung (Munich, Sellier, 2013) 129; M Gebauer, ‘Europäisches Vertragsrecht als Option – der Anwendungsbereich, die Wahl und die Lücken des Optionalen Instruments’ (2011) Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht 227, 235; see also S Balthasar, ‘The draft Common European Sales Law – Overview and Analysis’ (2013) International Company and Commercial Law Review 24(2), 43; A Stadler, ‘Anwendungsvoraussetzungen und Anwendungsbereich des Common European Sales Law’ (2012) Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 473, 498 et seq.; N Konecny, Der Verordnungsentwurf über ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht: Meilenstein der europäischen Integration oder Irrlicht der europäischen Politik? (Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 2014) 266 et seq.
- 8.
The different gap-filling techniques will be discussed further below, see Sect. 4.3.
- 9.
See Art 4(2) CESL; see also Recital 29 which refers to “questions concerning matters falling within the scope of the Common European Sales Law”.
- 10.
Solomon (n 7) 130.
- 11.
Gsell (n 7) 110.
- 12.
See eg Arts 2-5, 30, 54 CISG.
- 13.
See especially Eidenmüller et al., ‘The Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law: Deficits of the Most Recent Textual Layer of European Contract Law’ (2012) Edinburgh Law Review 301, 308 (“astonishing assumption”); see also Solomon (n 7) 159.
- 14.
The same applies according to Recital 28 for information duties under the Service Directive 2006/123/EC. Further limitations of scope follow from Art 5 Reg-CESL which limits the material scope of the CESL to contracts for the sale of goods or digital content and related service contracts. In addition, Art 6 Reg-CESL excludes mixed-purpose contracts linked to a consumer credit from the field of application.
- 15.
U Magnus, ‘Interpretation and gap-filling in the CISG and in the CESL’ Journal of International Trade Law and Policy (2012) 266, 276.
- 16.
See Art 4 Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, OJ 1999 L 171/12.
- 17.
See especially M Illmer and JC Dastis, ‘Redress in Europe and the Trap under the CESL’ (2013) European Review of Contract Law 109.
- 18.
In this vein Illmer and Dastis (n 16) 136 et seq.
- 19.
European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs, Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law, 26 September 2013, (COM(2011)0635 – C7-0329/2011 – 2011/0284(COD)).
- 20.
For further details see G Dannemann, ‘Interactions between CESL and National Legal Systems’ (2014) Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 250, 253.
- 21.
See also Sec. 4.3.2. below.
- 22.
C Wendehorst, ‘Art 11 RegCESL’ in R Schulze (ed) Common European Sales Law (CH Beck, Munich, 2012) para 5.
- 23.
Solomon (n 7) 130.
- 24.
On this two-step approach see P Perales Viscasillas, ‘Comment on Art 7 CISG’ in S Kröll, L Mistelis and P Perales Viscasillas (eds), UN-Convention on the International Sales of Goods (Munich, CH Beck, 2011) paras 47 et seq; see also D Martiny, ‘Comment on Art 7 CISG’, in Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, vol. 5 (Munich, CH Beck, 6th edn 2015) paras 86 et seq.
- 25.
Solomon (n 7) 130.
- 26.
COM(2011) 635 final, p 4 (emphasis added).
- 27.
On the role of functionalism in European private law see HW Micklitz, ‘The Visible Hand of European Regulatory Private Law—The Transformation of European Private Law from Autonomy to Functionalism in Competition and Regulation’ (2009) Yearbook of European Law 3.
- 28.
See the documents available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/expert-group/index_en.htm.
- 29.
S Whittaker, ‘Identifying Legal Costs of the Operation of the Common European Sales Law: Legal Framework, Scope of the Uniform Law and National Judicial Evaluations’ (2013) Common Market Law Review 85, 93.
- 30.
On such ‘general principles’ see generally S Vogenauer “General Principles’ of Contract Law in Transnational Instruments’ in L Gullifer and S Vogenauer (eds) English and European Perspectives on Contract and Commercial Law: Essays in Honour of Hugh Beale (Oxford, Hart, 2014) 291.
- 31.
A different approach is suggested by Magnus (n 14) 276, who advocates for an “international, CISG-like interpretation”.
- 32.
Vogenauer (n 29) 310.
- 33.
See eg Recital 11, Art 1(3) RegCESL (consumer protection) and Art 28(2), 32(3)(c), 51(a), 100(a) CESL (protection of legitimate expectations). See also C Herresthal, ‘Die Chancen und die Risiken eines optionalen Gemeinsamen Europäischen Kaufrechts’ (2012) Wirtschaft und Verwaltung 140, 150.
- 34.
On these ‘general principles’ see T Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2nd edn. 2006); see also A Metzger, Extra legem, intra ius: Allgemeine Rechtsgrundsätze im Europäischen Privatrecht (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009).
- 35.
For a brief account of the legislative background of the CESL H Schulte-Nölke ‘Vor- und Entstehungsgeschichte des Vorschlags für ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht’ in H Schulte-Nölke, F Zoll, N Jansen and R Schulze (eds) Der Entwurf für ein optionales europäisches Kaufrecht (Munich, Sellier, 2012) 1 et seq; see also G Dannemann and S Vogenauer, ‘Introduction: The European Contract Law Initiative and the ‘CFR in Context’ Project’ in G Dannemann and S Vogenauer (eds) The Common European Sales Law in Context (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013) 1 et seq.
- 36.
Magnus (n 14) 276.
- 37.
A helpful tool might also be the Synopsis of the CESL and the Feasibility Study contained in H Schulte-Nölke, F Zoll, N Jansen and R Schulze (eds) Der Entwurf für ein optionales europäisches Kaufrecht (Munich, Sellier, 2012), 297 et seq.
- 38.
European Commission, ‘European Contract Law: Work in Progress, Version of 19 August 2011’, Introduction, p 5, available at http://EC.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/feasibility-study_en.pdf.
- 39.
Whittaker (n 28) 94; see also HP Mansel, ‘Der Verordnungsvorschlag für ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht, Teil I’ (2012) Wertpapiermitteilungen 1253, 1267.
- 40.
See especially H Eidenmüller et al., ‘The Common Frame of Reference for European Private Law – Policy Choices and Codification Problems’ (2008) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 659, 674 et seq.
- 41.
S Vogenauer, ‘Drafting and Interpretation of a European Contract Law Instrument’ in G Dannemann and S Vogenauer (eds) The Common European Sales Law in Context (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013) 82, 112.
- 42.
On this aspect see C Busch, ‘Kollisionsrechtliche Weichenstellungen für ein Optionales Instrument im Europäischen Vertragsrecht’ (2011) Zeitschrift für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht 655, 660.
- 43.
See also Gsell (n 6) 151 et seq.
- 44.
S Balthasar, ‘The draft Common European Sales Law – Overview and Analysis’ (2013) International Company and Commercial Law Review 24(2), 43 at 46; see also M Stürner, ‘Kollisionsrecht und optionales Instrument: Aspekte einer noch ungeklärten Beziehung’ (2001) Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht 236, 241.
- 45.
For a detailed analysis see G Dannemann, ‘Choice of CESL and Conflict of Laws’ in G Dannemann and S Vogenauer (eds) The Common European Sales Law in Context (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013) 21–81.
- 46.
S Balthasar, ‘The draft Common European Sales Law – Overview and Analysis’ (2013) International Company and Commercial Law Review 24(2), 43 at 46 et seq.; see also F Faust, ‘Der Vorschlag für ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht’ (2012) Bonner Rechtsjournal 123, 129.
- 47.
In the words of C Wendehorst, ‘Art 11 RegCESL’ in R Schulze (ed) Common European Sales Law (CH Beck, Munich, 2012) para 5.
- 48.
See eg BGH (2003) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift-Rechtsprechungs Report Zivilrecht 558 (regarding the sale of a horse).
- 49.
A major disproportion may, however, be an indication for fraud or defective consent, see Chitty on Contracts (2008) para 3-014.
- 50.
In this vein T Pfeiffer, ‘Art 51 CESL’ in R Schulze (ed) Common European Sales Law (CH Beck, Munich, 2012) paras 28 et seq.
- 51.
G Danneman, ‘The CESL as Optional Sales Law: Interactions with English and German Law’ in G Dannemann and S Vogenauer (eds) The Common European Sales Law in Context (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013) 708, 728.
- 52.
C Busch, ‘Scope and Content of an Optional European Contract Law’ (2012) Contratto e Impresa Europa 193, 202; see also G Dannemann, ‘Interactions between CESL and National Legal Systems’ (2014) Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 250, 253.
- 53.
See eg U Magnus, ‘CISG and CESL’ in MJ Bonell et al. (eds) Liber Amicorum Ole Lando, Michael Joachim Bonell (Copenhagen, Djøf Forlag, 2012) 225–255, 236.
- 54.
On the role of this concept under German Law see P Hellwege and L Miller, ‘Control of Standard Contract Terms’ in G Dannemann and S Vogenauer (eds) The Common European Sales Law in Context (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013) 423, 442 et seq.; see also W Wurmnest, ‘Comment to § 307 BGB’ in Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, vol. 2 (Munich, CH Beck, 6th edn 2012) para 65.
- 55.
For the terminological distinction between internal and external clauses see B Gsell ‘Interne und externe Lücken des GEK – Die Rolle des EuGH und der mitgliedstaatlichen Gerichte bei der Lückenfüllung’ in M Gebauer (ed), Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht – Anwendungsbereich und kollisionsrechtliche Einbettung (Munich: Sellier, 2013) 105, 111.
- 56.
W Ernst, ‘Das AGB-Recht des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Kaufrechts’ in O Remien, S Herrler and P Limmer (eds), Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht für die EU? (CH Beck, Munich, 2012) 93, 104.
- 57.
For a summary of the different views see Konecny (n 6) 281 et seq.
- 58.
See eg Ernst (n 6) 105; see also P Hellwege and L Miller, ‘Control of Standard Contract Terms’ in G Dannemann and S Vogenauer (eds) The Common European Sales Law in Context (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013) 423, 455 et seq. (with regard to retention of title clauses).
- 59.
Case C-237/02 Freiburger Kommunalbauten [2004] ECR I-3404, paras 21–23.
- 60.
In this vein Gsell (n 54) 111.
- 61.
F Möslein, ‘Kontrolle vorformulierter Vertragsklauseln’ in M Schmidt-Kessel (ed) Ein einheitliches europäisches Kaufrecht? Eine Analyse des Vorschlags der Kommission (Munich, Sellier, 2012) 255, 280.
- 62.
For a critical view see Gsell (n 54) 112; see also Faust (n 43) 130 et seq.
- 63.
Möslein (n 60) 282.
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
Busch, C. (2016). Identification of Gaps and Gap-Filling under the Common European Sales Law – A Model for Uniform Law Instruments?. 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_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28074-5_4
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)