Syftet med arbetet har varit att utreda vilka lösningar det finns vid en standardavtalskollison i både svensk och utländsk rätt. Samt vilken lösningsmodell som är den mest lämpliga. I Sverige saknas relevant lagstiftning på området. Någon träffande rättspraxis finns inte heller att tillgå och diskussion i doktrinen har med några få undantag varit väldigt begränsad. Detta innebär att rättsläget i Sverige fortfarande är oklart. I utländsk rätt har däremot ”battle of forms” fått betydligt större utrymme i doktrinen, lagstiftning har utvecklats i ett antal länder och intressant rättspraxis finns att tillgå. I den utländska rätten har det sedan länge varit den part som sänder över sina standardvillkor sist som går vinnande ur ”the battle of forms”. Ett antal yngre rättsfall tyder dock på att utvecklingen alltmer går i en riktning mot ”knock-out” modellen.

Resumé: Standardized forms of concluding contracts in international trade The contemporary international trade is defined by the standardized approach to commercial transactions. The purpose of my thesis is to analyse legal issues concerning contract formation by means of standardized legal forms in international trade. Chapter One describes the development of standardization in international trade. It introduces and defines basic terminology covering standardized forms of contract formation: standard terms, standard clauses, boilerplate terms, form and model contracts and legal manuals. Chapter Two addresses the process of contract formation under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods (CISG) in comparison with the regulation in the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UNIDROIT Principles, UPICC), Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law (CESL). The emphasis is placed on the incorporation of standard terms into a contract, i.e. into an offer or an acceptance. It is followed by an analysis of the battle of forms and its possible solutions including last shot rule, first shot rule, knock-out rule and...

<p>Abstract</p><p>The use of standard agreements can hardly be overestimated in the society of today. The amount of standard agreements should barely decrease. One of the standard agreement’s main purposes, to make the concluding of the contract more effective, strongly agrees with the companies will to accomplish fast concluding of agreements using as small resources as possible A dispute that can arise in these contexts is that dissimilar standard agreements collide. Between nations this is called Battle of Forms. It is a situation of practice which is difficult to solve through the basic rules of contract law. The aim of the essay is to bring clarity into how the legal problems concerning Battle of Forms is solved in Sweden respectively Germany. Also CISG, Unidroit and PECL’s solutions of the same problem is going to be mentioned. A critical examining of the different solutions that the system of rules has in disposal will also be done. In the context of the situation an examination will show if there is any resistance towards these. If that is the case some parts of the critic will be presented. To be able to answer my questions at issue a traditional method of legal-dogmatism has been used together with comparative strains.</p><p>Sweden lacks a direct law-prescribed solution of Battle of Forms, nor is there a direct legal usage. Sweden has tried to apply the directions of 6 § AvtL on the problem, but this one suits the context badly. Besides the directions in AvtL some solution models are found which can build the foundation for a settlement. Consequently the problem remains unsolved in the Swedish legal system.</p><p>Neither does Germany have a legal rule which is directly applicable. Some guidance is however given from the German law. According to the German law the settlement should be settled with The knock-out doctrine as its foundation. When harmonising is not possible one should fall back on The Last shot or optional law, it depends on the occurrence of abwehrklauseln (protection clauses).</p><p>Neither has CISG directly pointed on how to solve the problem. CISG’s legal usage also advocates that The knock-out doctrine should build the foundation. What tool that should be used to fill the holes that the harmonising leaves behind is somewhat indistinct. It should be The last shot, optional law or an interpretation of article 7 about “good faith”.</p><p>Unidroit and PECL state that agreed terms shall be applied. Consequently the person applying the law should practise the Knock-out doctrine. However the rules give no guidance about how the arising holes should be filled after the harmonising.</p><p>Above all Swedish literature directs strong criticism towards the different solutions. The criticism is especially pointed at the lack of predictability and also at the risk of making arbitrary settlements. This of course depends on what kind of solution model that is discussed.</p><p>In Germany there has been, and still is, a solution which the person applying the law can use. In Germany protection clauses has an important role of the settlement. Even in these cases criticism is directed towards the solution. However the criticism is not as hardly directed towards the lack of predictability. Instead the criticism is pointed at the unsuitability of applying the optional law in some commercial relationships. And also that the applicability of the last shot results in a “ping pong” similar situation of passing terms back and force. Also in the international world of law some criticism has been delivered that agrees with both the Swedish and the German criticism.</p> / <p>Sammanfattning</p><p>Användningen av standardavtal kan knappast överskattas i dagens samhälle. Mängden standardavtal torde knappast avta. Ett av standardavtalets huvudsyftesyften, att effektivisera avtalsslutet, stämmer väl överens med företagens vilja att genomföra snabba avtalsslut med så liten resursåtgång som möjligt. En tvist som kan uppkomma i detta sammanhang är att olikartade standardavtal kolliderar. Detta kallas, internationellt sett, Battle of Forms. Det är en praktisk situation som med de grundläggande avtalsrättsliga reglerna är svårlöst. Syftet med uppsatsen är att bringa klarhet i hur den rättsliga problematiken kring Battle of Forms löses i Sverige respektive Tyskland. Även CISG, Unidroit och PECL’s lösningar på samma problem kommer att beröras. Det ska även göras en kritisk granskning av de olika lösningar som regelsystemen tillhandahåller. I sammanhanget ska det undersökas om det finns motstånd till dessa och om så är fallet ska delar av kritiken presenteras. För att kunna besvara mina frågeställningar, har det huvudsakligen, använts en traditionell rättsdogmatisk metod med komparativa inslag.</p><p>Sverige saknar en direkt lagstadgad lösning på Battle of Forms, inte heller finns någon direkt rättpraxis. Sverige har försökt applicera bestämmelserna i 6 § AvtL på problemet, men denna passar illa i sammanhanget. Utöver bestämmelsen i AvtL återfinns det ett antal lösningsmodeller som kan läggas till grund för ett avgörande. Problemet är således fortfarande olöst i svensk rätt.</p><p>Inte heller Tyskland har en rättsregel som är direkt tillämplig. Den tyska lagen ger dock viss vägledning. Avgörandet enligt tysk rätt ska ske med The knock-out doctrine som grund. När harmonisering inte är möjlig ska rättstillämparen falla tillbaka på The Last shot eller dispositiv rätt, det beror på förekomsten av abwehrklauseln (skyddsklausuler).</p><p>Inte heller CISG har direkt reglerat hur problemet ska lösas. Även rättspraxis i CISG förespråkar att The knock-out doctrine ska ligga till grund. Vilket redskap som ska hjälpa till att fylla de luckor som harmoniseringen efterlämnar är något oklart. Det torde vara The last shot, dipositiv rätt eller en tolkning av artikel 7 om ”good faith”.</p><p>Unidroit och PECL anger att överrensstämmande villkor ska tillämpas. Således ska rättstillämparen praktisera The knock-out doctrine. Reglerna ger dock ingen vägledning om hur luckorna som uppstår efter harmoniseringen ska fyllas.</p><p>Det finns speciellt i den svenska litteraturen en stark kritik mot de olika lösningarna. Framförallt riktas kritiken mot bristande förutsebarhet och även mot risken för godtyckliga avgöranden. Det beror givetvis på vilken lösningsmodell som diskuteras.</p><p>I Tyskland har det funnits och finns en lösning som rättstillämparen har att tillämpa. Skyddsklausuler har i Tyskland stor betydelse för avgörandet. Det finns även i dessa fall en kritik mot lösningen. Den riktar dock inte lika hård kritik mot bristande förutsebarhet. Kritiken riktas istället mot att tillämpningen av dispositiv rätt i vissa kommersiella förhållanden kan passa väldigt illa, samt att tillämpningen av The last shot leder till ett ”ping-pong” liknande översändande av villkor. Även i den internationella rättsvetenskapliga världen har viss kritik framkommit som stämmer överens med den svenska och tyska kritiken</p>

The topic of this thesis is the international sales contract and its formation under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG or the Vienna Convention). The Vienna Convention is the most significant and widely used legal instrument governing the international sales contract. The aim of this thesis is to highlight interesting aspects of the contract, carry out a deeper analysis of the regulation contained in the Vienna Convention, and to point out and clarify problematic areas. The thesis is composed of two major parts, with the first part essential to the understanding of the second. The first part deals with the basic provisions of the Vienna Convention. It briefly describes its creation, then its sphere of application. Within this part the term "international sales contract" is defined and distinguished from its domestic counterpart and also from the contract for services. The term "goods" is discussed in the context of this regulation. It then deals with the consequences of freedom of contract, the issue of gaps in the regulation and their filling and the interpretation of the regulation. Finally it discusses the question of trade usages, when the CISG differentiates between the usages and practices established between the parties on the one hand and...

Abstract The use of standard agreements can hardly be overestimated in the society of today. The amount of standard agreements should barely decrease. One of the standard agreement’s main purposes, to make the concluding of the contract more effective, strongly agrees with the companies will to accomplish fast concluding of agreements using as small resources as possible A dispute that can arise in these contexts is that dissimilar standard agreements collide. Between nations this is called Battle of Forms. It is a situation of practice which is difficult to solve through the basic rules of contract law. The aim of the essay is to bring clarity into how the legal problems concerning Battle of Forms is solved in Sweden respectively Germany. Also CISG, Unidroit and PECL’s solutions of the same problem is going to be mentioned. A critical examining of the different solutions that the system of rules has in disposal will also be done. In the context of the situation an examination will show if there is any resistance towards these. If that is the case some parts of the critic will be presented. To be able to answer my questions at issue a traditional method of legal-dogmatism has been used together with comparative strains. Sweden lacks a direct law-prescribed solution of Battle of Forms, nor is there a direct legal usage. Sweden has tried to apply the directions of 6 § AvtL on the problem, but this one suits the context badly. Besides the directions in AvtL some solution models are found which can build the foundation for a settlement. Consequently the problem remains unsolved in the Swedish legal system. Neither does Germany have a legal rule which is directly applicable. Some guidance is however given from the German law. According to the German law the settlement should be settled with The knock-out doctrine as its foundation. When harmonising is not possible one should fall back on The Last shot or optional law, it depends on the occurrence of abwehrklauseln (protection clauses). Neither has CISG directly pointed on how to solve the problem. CISG’s legal usage also advocates that The knock-out doctrine should build the foundation. What tool that should be used to fill the holes that the harmonising leaves behind is somewhat indistinct. It should be The last shot, optional law or an interpretation of article 7 about “good faith”. Unidroit and PECL state that agreed terms shall be applied. Consequently the person applying the law should practise the Knock-out doctrine. However the rules give no guidance about how the arising holes should be filled after the harmonising. Above all Swedish literature directs strong criticism towards the different solutions. The criticism is especially pointed at the lack of predictability and also at the risk of making arbitrary settlements. This of course depends on what kind of solution model that is discussed. In Germany there has been, and still is, a solution which the person applying the law can use. In Germany protection clauses has an important role of the settlement. Even in these cases criticism is directed towards the solution. However the criticism is not as hardly directed towards the lack of predictability. Instead the criticism is pointed at the unsuitability of applying the optional law in some commercial relationships. And also that the applicability of the last shot results in a “ping pong” similar situation of passing terms back and force. Also in the international world of law some criticism has been delivered that agrees with both the Swedish and the German criticism. / Sammanfattning Användningen av standardavtal kan knappast överskattas i dagens samhälle. Mängden standardavtal torde knappast avta. Ett av standardavtalets huvudsyftesyften, att effektivisera avtalsslutet, stämmer väl överens med företagens vilja att genomföra snabba avtalsslut med så liten resursåtgång som möjligt. En tvist som kan uppkomma i detta sammanhang är att olikartade standardavtal kolliderar. Detta kallas, internationellt sett, Battle of Forms. Det är en praktisk situation som med de grundläggande avtalsrättsliga reglerna är svårlöst. Syftet med uppsatsen är att bringa klarhet i hur den rättsliga problematiken kring Battle of Forms löses i Sverige respektive Tyskland. Även CISG, Unidroit och PECL’s lösningar på samma problem kommer att beröras. Det ska även göras en kritisk granskning av de olika lösningar som regelsystemen tillhandahåller. I sammanhanget ska det undersökas om det finns motstånd till dessa och om så är fallet ska delar av kritiken presenteras. För att kunna besvara mina frågeställningar, har det huvudsakligen, använts en traditionell rättsdogmatisk metod med komparativa inslag. Sverige saknar en direkt lagstadgad lösning på Battle of Forms, inte heller finns någon direkt rättpraxis. Sverige har försökt applicera bestämmelserna i 6 § AvtL på problemet, men denna passar illa i sammanhanget. Utöver bestämmelsen i AvtL återfinns det ett antal lösningsmodeller som kan läggas till grund för ett avgörande. Problemet är således fortfarande olöst i svensk rätt. Inte heller Tyskland har en rättsregel som är direkt tillämplig. Den tyska lagen ger dock viss vägledning. Avgörandet enligt tysk rätt ska ske med The knock-out doctrine som grund. När harmonisering inte är möjlig ska rättstillämparen falla tillbaka på The Last shot eller dispositiv rätt, det beror på förekomsten av abwehrklauseln (skyddsklausuler). Inte heller CISG har direkt reglerat hur problemet ska lösas. Även rättspraxis i CISG förespråkar att The knock-out doctrine ska ligga till grund. Vilket redskap som ska hjälpa till att fylla de luckor som harmoniseringen efterlämnar är något oklart. Det torde vara The last shot, dipositiv rätt eller en tolkning av artikel 7 om ”good faith”. Unidroit och PECL anger att överrensstämmande villkor ska tillämpas. Således ska rättstillämparen praktisera The knock-out doctrine. Reglerna ger dock ingen vägledning om hur luckorna som uppstår efter harmoniseringen ska fyllas. Det finns speciellt i den svenska litteraturen en stark kritik mot de olika lösningarna. Framförallt riktas kritiken mot bristande förutsebarhet och även mot risken för godtyckliga avgöranden. Det beror givetvis på vilken lösningsmodell som diskuteras. I Tyskland har det funnits och finns en lösning som rättstillämparen har att tillämpa. Skyddsklausuler har i Tyskland stor betydelse för avgörandet. Det finns även i dessa fall en kritik mot lösningen. Den riktar dock inte lika hård kritik mot bristande förutsebarhet. Kritiken riktas istället mot att tillämpningen av dispositiv rätt i vissa kommersiella förhållanden kan passa väldigt illa, samt att tillämpningen av The last shot leder till ett ”ping-pong” liknande översändande av villkor. Även i den internationella rättsvetenskapliga världen har viss kritik framkommit som stämmer överens med den svenska och tyska kritiken

The basis of any contract is the agreement of two or more parties. In traditional Swedish and English contract law theory, a contract is formed through the reciprocal exchange of an offer and a corresponding acceptance. Together, these declarations of will represent the common intent of the parties, which binds them to their respective contractual obligations and determines the contents of the contract. In the contemporary commercial sector, the use of standard forms (i.e., sets of terms that have not been individually negotiated) has become more prevalent. This has led to the rise of a particular legal issue, called the “battle of forms”: a situation where both parties refer to their own, conflicting, standard forms during the formation of contract, where after they proceed in fulfilling their contractual obligations. Consequently, the exchanged declarations of will lack conformity in these cases, and there is no discernible common will of the parties. In order to conclude that a contract has been formed, and to decide its contents, this conflict needs to be resolved. The traditional approach to resolving the issue of battle of forms in English law is to regard the last referenced standard terms in the contractual negotiations as an offer (or counter-offer), and the other party’s conduct as an acceptance. This approach largely corresponds with how the issue likely would be resolved according to traditional Swedish contract law principles. However, in the legal scientific environments of both Sweden and England, ideas and concepts of a modern contract law has developed. Included therein is the idea of taking a more flexible stance with regard to the formation of contract. When viewing the contractual relationship holistically, and partly liberated from the offer-acceptance approach, the battle of forms can be resolved by letting the court construe the different sets of terms together, and re-place conflicting terms with suitable substitutes by implication. These modern concepts have partly manifested in recent English precedence regarding the battle of forms. Considering that the patterns of development with respect to the modern law of contract are similar in Swedish and English law, there is reason to believe that a similar “new” approach to the battle of forms might be adopted by Swedish courts as well.