- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
- Posts
HI Sir,
this is a question from bpp revision kit, can you please tell me how to resolve this?
which of the following statements concerning the sphere of application of the UNCISG is correct?
a)For the convention to apply to a state, the state must ratify the convention in full
b)states may declare that certain parts of convention do not apply to it and declare that the convention does not apply to contracts between itself and particular other states
c)states may declare that certain parts of convention do not apply to it but must agree that the convention applies to contracts between itself and all other states
Chapter 4, sub-section 2.1 (in my 2018 edition of the BPP study text) explains the position
a) where a state fails to ratify the Convention in full, the state is not considered to be a contracting state. However, contrary to the provisions of the Convention, one state may insist that a contract should be in writing (for example, to satisfy the national legal requirements of that state) so it is possible to vary the provisions of the Convention and still be governed by that Convention
c) doesn’t make any sense. If a state dis-applies part of the Convention, what logic lies behind the requirement “… but must agree that the Convention applies to contracts between itself and all other states”
b) I believe that Article 94 of the Convention covers the scenario on part b) of the question. Two or more states may opt out of the Convention in relation to contracts between themselves – for example Israel and Saudi Arabia potentially could opt out of the Convention in relation to transactions involving those two states but, for the purposes of other international trade (for example Israel with USA or Saudi Arabia with Tanzania) the Convention would apply
OK?
- The topic ‘SPHERE OF APPLICATION OF UNCISG’ is closed to new replies.