This research analyses the impact and materiality of South Africa’s choice not to ratify the CISG on its trade as well as relations with other states. As the point of departure, the broader events leading up to the creation of the CISG will be examined as well as UNCITRAL’s mandate and the development of trade in the local and global context. At present, the CISG has been ratified by 85 states. The decisions by common law jurisdictions such as the UK and India not to ratify the CISG as well as the delay by Brazil and Japan will be discussed. The legal, business and political or policy reasons for and against the ratification of the CISG are investigated which focuses on aspects such as legal certainty, uniformity of laws and the reduction of legal costs. An investigation is carried out regarding the historical foundations of the South African law of contract to this framework sets the tone for a comparison between the South African law and the provisions of the CISG. Lastly, a comparison is drawn between the provisions of the CISG and the South African law with specific emphasis on the remedies of specific performance and the right to claim damages which culminates in an overall conclusion that the South African law is compatible with the CISG insofar as remedies for breach of contract are concerned. / Mercantile Law / LL. M. (International Economic Law)
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:unisa/oai:uir.unisa.ac.za:10500/22989 |
| Date | 20 February 2017 |
| Creators | Van der Merwe, Leoni |
| Contributors | Jobodwana, Zingisile Ntozintle |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Dissertation |
| Format | 1 online resource (37 leaves) |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds