Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>>> The application of the >>>> United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale >>>> of Goods is expressly excluded. >> Well actually, in most countries part of the UN, the convention >> applies by default to international contracts. So it is quite >> relevant to exclude it, otherwise it may seriously be contended that >> it is applicable. > Yes, but what does it *say*? There are thousands and thousands of words in the CISG. They cover much ground in many areas of contract law. It is impossible to tell which specific one of the CISG's 101 articles Mozilla's lawyers were afraid of. The context of the exclusion suggests that the target might be default choice-of-law and choice-of-venue principles, but such rules are not to be found in the CISG. The very curious may read the full text of the convention at <http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/saleofgoods1980.html> > What are the consequences of it being applicable? The effect of the exception is probably very different in different jurisdictions. The CISG is a treaty between *governments*; some governments may have implemented it by adjusting their national law such that it matches the principles of the CISG (in which case the explict exclusion of CISG is likely a no-op). Others may have special rules for international contracts in their national law which "just happen" to be compatible with the CISG (in which case the exclusion is probably still a no-op). Still others have incorporated the CISG by reference into their body of law. In the latter case only, the exclusion probably means that a party is barred from appealing to the CISG to justify an interpretation of the license text with which the pther party does not agree. He can still try to argue his interpretation based on other sources than CISG, of course. One readily imagines that the exclusion has some well-defined meaning under California law. However it is quite likely that it becomes pure nonsense when somebody outside USA creates a MPL-derived license and substitutes his own local jurisdiction for "California". > And for my education: Does it apply to "international" intra-European > contracts? That varies. For example, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland have opted out of part II of CISG (pursuant to Article 92) and do not recognize it for trade between the Nordic countries. In principle the CISG would apply unless a "better" source of law claims otherwise and takes precedence. Conflicting EU regulations could be one such better source of law, but isn't necessarily - there are several classes of EU regulations, and some of them may have weaker force in some member states than a strongly implemented CISG. (Isn't law fun?) For the record, my own favourite piece of legalese is | The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in | 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer | software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such | terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995). Consistent with 48 | C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (June | 1995), all U.S. Government End Users acquire Covered Code with only | those rights set forth herein. I have managed to find out what "C.F.R." means and to locate the text of the referenced sections, completely without becoming wiser about what that text is supposed to achieve (and whether a private party *can* at all stipulate a different application of the U.S. federal administration's _internal_ purchasing regulations than would otherwise be used) ... -- Henning Makholm "I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much-needed new car." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]