CISG
number
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1980 Vienna Diplomatic Conference
[Outline of committee proceedings]
Document A/CONF.97/11 [Original: English 7 April 1980]
 9 |
A. UNCITRAL text [1978 draft]
B. Amendments
C. Proceedings in the First Committee
D. Subsequent proceedings
E. Overview comments
1. The text [of the 1978 draft ] of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law provided as follows:
"Article 8 [became CISG article 9 ]
"(1) The parties are bound by any usage to which they have agreed and by any practices which they have established between themselves.
"(2) The parties are considered, unless otherwise agreed, to have impliedly made applicable to their contract a usage of which the parties knew or ought to have known and which in international trade is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade concerned."
[Go to Secretariat Commentary on the above text]
[See also pre-Conference observations and proposals by Governments and International Organizations]
2. Amendments were submitted to article 8 [became CISG article 9 ] by China (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.24), Czechoslovakia (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.40), India (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.34), Sweden (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.19), Pakistan (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.64), United States of America (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.6), France (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.23) and Egypt (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.44).
3. These amendments were to the following effect:
Paragraph (2).
(i) China (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.24):
[Rejected: see Consideration, 6, below.]
(ii) Czechoslovakia (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.40):
[Rejected: see Consideration, 6, below].
(iii) India (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.34):
[Rejected: see Consideration, 6, below.]
(iv) Sweden (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.19):
An alternative would be to reintroduce the provision in article 9, paragraph 3 of ULIS 1964.
[Rejected: see Consideration, 6, below.]
(v) Pakistan (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.64):
[Rejected: see Consideration, 6, below.]
(vi) United States of America (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.6):
[Adopted and referred to Drafting Committee: see Consideration, 6, below.]
Drafting proposal to paragraph (2).
France (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.23):
[Adopted: see Consideration, 7, below.]
New paragraph (3).
Egypt (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.44):
[Rejected: see Consideration, 8, below.]
C. Proceedings in the First Committee 4. The First Committee considered article 8 [became CISG article 9 ] at its [6th meeting and 7th meeting] on 14 March 1980 [see also 35th meeting of First Committee]. (ii) Consideration Paragraph (1). 5. At the 7th meeting, the UNCITRAL text was adopted. Paragraph (2). 6. At the 6th and 7th meetings, the amendment by China (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.24) was rejected by 9 votes in favour, 17 against, with 15 abstentions; the amendment by India (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.34) was rejected by 9 votes in favour and 25 against; the amendment by Sweden (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.19) was rejected by 12 votes in favour, and 23 against; and the amendment by Pakistan (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.64) was rejected by 15 votes in favour and 18 against. The amendment by the United States (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.6) was adopted by 19 votes in favour, 17 against, with 3 abstentions, and referred to the Drafting Committee, and the UNCITRAL text adopted. Drafting proposal to paragraph (2). 7. At the 7th meeting, the drafting amendment by France (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.23 in the French text only) was adopted, and referred to the Drafting Committee. New paragraph (3). 8. At the 7th meeting, the amendment by Egypt (A/CONF.97/C.1/L.44) was rejected by 16 votes in favour, and 21 against. [For subsequent Conference material on the development/approval of the final text of CISG article 9, go to Plenary Conference 6th meeting (continued)]
[English translation of report on the significance of the deliberations on this article at the Diplomatic Conference: prepared by Peter Schlechtriem, based on notes taken at the conference and published shortly thereafter]
(. . .)
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated September 8, 2000