Prescription in the proposal for a common european sales law
The rules on prescription in Part VIII, Chapter 18, of the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law (CESL) follow the provisions of the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), which, in general, have deserved favourable comments. Yet, a number of ru...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2013 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de la UB |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:diposit.ub.edu:2445/61168 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/61168 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Compravenda (Dret romà) Sales (Roman law) |
| Sumario: | The rules on prescription in Part VIII, Chapter 18, of the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law (CESL) follow the provisions of the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), which, in general, have deserved favourable comments. Yet, a number of rules contained in those texts have been omitted. It is necessary to ascertain whether the CESL rules only apply to provisions on rights and claims resulting from sales or related services contracts, or whether they are also applicable to any other contractual right or claim and also to rights or claims of non-contractual origin. One of the most problematic issues concerns general prescription periods: firstly, because there are two general periods, a short one and a long one, without any specification about the claims or rights covered by each one of them; secondly, because neither period is suitable in case of non-conformity. There are also some interpretation problems due to missing, ambiguous or defective definitions. The systematic approach demands clarification too. |
|---|