Prescription in the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law
The rules on prescription in Part VI!I, Chapter 18, of the Proposa! for a Connnon European Sales Law (CESL) follow the provisions of the Principies of European Contract Law (PECL) and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), which, in general, have deserved favourable comments. Yet, a number of r...
| Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Status: | Published version |
| Publication Date: | 2013 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | Universitat de Lleida (UdL) |
| Repository: | Repositori Obert UdL |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositori.udl.cat:10459.1/48109 |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1515/ercl-2013-0002 http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/48109 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | Dret comparat Derecho civil Dret civil Comparative law Civil law |
| Summary: | The rules on prescription in Part VI!I, Chapter 18, of the Proposa! for a Connnon European Sales Law (CESL) follow the provisions of the Principies 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. !t 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-contractuai 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 !hem; secondly, because neither period is suitable in case of non-conformity. There are also some interpretation problems due to missing, ambiguous or defective defini tions. The systematic approach demands clarification too. |
|---|