International Business Law and Its Environment 9th Edition by Richard Schaffer,Filiberto Agusti,Lucien Dhooge

تمرين 1

Most commentators agree that nonpecuniary injuries resulting from breach of a sales contract (such as reputational harm, injury to goodwill, pain and suffering, and emotional distress) cannot be compensated under the damages provision of the CISG. However, other efforts to unify or harmonize contract law on an international or regional level have considered allowing monetary compensation for nonpecuniary injuries. This has caused a minority of commentators to advocate a similar interpretation of the CISG on the basis that some breaches of contract cannot be adequately addressed if only economic losses can be awarded as damages. Such a circumstance may arise in cases involving "ethically tainted" goods, such as those which are the product of child or forced labor or are produced under circumstances that pose grave health hazards to workers.
In an article published in the Pace International Law Review in 2007, noted scholar Peter Schlechtriemdenounces any such interpretation of the CISG on severalgrounds. Schlechtriem contends that the CISG was notthe proper instrument to promote moral convictions. Rather, adequate remedies addressing such convictionsmay exist in other areas of international law as well as indomestic law (such as causes of action for fraud andmisrepresentation and mandatory production andmanufacturing standards). Parties could also establishstandards with respect to the goods for which they havecontracted in their agreements, the violation of whichgives rise to a cause of action for breach of contract. Second, there are few if any shared ethical values across and within populations. Similar problems exist with respect to product lines. For example, one may object to the animal testing in the development of cosmetics but not in the development of life-saving pharmaceuticals. Third, any ethics-based damages award pursuant to the CISG would circumvent the burden of proof for pecuniary losses "by reverting to the 'penal' sanction of nonpecuniary damages, which could result in extremely diverging awards around the globe and, in some instances, in 'hometown justice.' " Finally, any such interpretation could impose one party's social, religious, and ideological beliefs on other parties. The consequence of such interpretation would be irreparable harm to the CISG's neutrality, objectivity, and uniformity on which its worldwide acceptance rests.
Do you agree with Schlechtriem? Is the CISG "ethically challenged"? Is the CISG the proper tool by which to address trade in "ethically tainted" goods? Why or why not?