유엔국제물품매매법(CISG)상의 계약성립 규정과 그 보충가능성에 관한 검토 - 국제상사계약원칙(PICC) 및 계약법원칙(PECL)과의 비교를 통해 -

CISG leaves a number of aspects concerning commercial sales untouched. That is, CISG presents lots of significant gaps. This is especially due to two characters of CISG; the binding nature and the results of compromise. With regard to the formation of contract in CISG, there are no provisions on the battle of forms, liability of breaking off the negociations, professional's written confirmation and merger clauses. Thus, there are arguments, that the corresponding provisions of UNIDROIT Principles and European Contract Law Principles may serve as a gap-filler in CISG. However, CISG in itself has paragraph 2 of Art. 7 in oder to fill in gaps. According to it, questions concerning matters governed by CISG which are not expressly in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which it is based or, in the absence of such principles, in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law. I think, that the above-mentioned provisions of two Principles do not correspond to "the general principles on which CISG is based". Therefore, these provisions should be refused to be the gap-filler in CISG, unless two parties comprise to apply the provisions for their contract according to Art. 6 CISG.