Looking for help by English-speaking lawyers (and/or interpreters)

[Egres]

This provision may give rise to the mistaken belief that an agreement between the parties on the application of the Convention will result in setting aside mandatory provisions of national law also in the case of domestic sales contracts without any connexion to a foreign country. In any case, the provision is superfluous.

Hi there.

I have a simple question for you, waaay-better-than-me English interpreters: the text quoted means:

1) that the Convention never sets aside mandatory rules of nationals laws;

2) that the Conventions sets aside mandatory rules of nationals laws, but only if there is a connexion to a foreign country.


A 1000 thanks for those of you who will spend time to help.

 

[Dioltach]

Hi Egres,

I'm not an interpreter, but a legal translator; I'm sure you won't mind my input, though.

What the text says is this: people may think that the provision may sometimes mean that provisions of national law are set aside; however, it is a mistake to think so (i.e. no, the Convention does not supercede national law). As the text goes on to say, the provision has no meaning.

I hope this helps. Is the text a comment on Terms & Conditions or something like that?

 

[Egres]

Thank you very, very much Dioltach.

That was a remark of the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany during the development of the United Nations Convention On Contracts For The International Sale Of Goods, 1980, that can be found in the UNCITRAL yearbook 1977.

I'll admit my interpretation was quite different.

I read it as: "the convention can set aside mandatory provisions of national law, but not in the case of domestic sales contracts without any connexion to a foreign country.

In that case, setting aside mandatory rules can't be accepted."

My interpretation is due to that "also".

This interpretation would put the delegate remark in line with German authors like Peter Schlechtriem, that participated at the Conference as a member of the delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany too.

In my opinion, the Uniform Law for International Sales would take precedence in the Federal Republic of Germany because it is the more recently ratified and enacted law, and it is more specialized than the domestic consumer-protection law.

Edit: I have found another passage that repeats the quoted text with different words, and integrates it with another delegation point of view: maybe this could help.

 

[moritheil]

My reading is: People who read this might get the idea that it contravenes national laws, and obviates those laws even for issues that are not international. This is not a good thing. We should remove that clause.

I read it as: "the convention can set aside mandatory provisions of national law, but not in the case of domestic sales contracts without any connexion to a foreign country.

In that case, setting aside mandatory rules can't be accepted."

My interpretation is due to that "also".

I don't think your interpretation is that far off, though you seem to have come at it from the other side of things. I don't think it has to do with the powers of the convention itself, though, and I don't understand why you distinguish the rules as "mandatory."

 

[Egres]

My reading is: People who read this might get the idea that it contravenes national laws, and obviates those laws even for issues that are not international. This is not a good thing. We should remove that clause.

Help me better understand your interpretation: by your reading, the quoted text means:

1) that the Convention never sets aside mandatory rules of nationals laws;

2) that the Conventions sets aside mandatory rules of nationals laws, but only if there is a connexion to a foreign country.

3) something else.

I don't think your interpretation is that far off, though you seem to have come at it from the other side of things. I don't think it has to do with the powers of the convention itself, though, and I don't understand why you distinguish the rules as "mandatory."

Because the conflict between national mandatory rules and the united nation convention was one of the main point of debate.

No one argued about the conflict between ordinary national laws and the convention, cause all nations agree that they will be superseded.

But problems arise when you start talking about mandatory rules.