Back to  InterAmSM Directory  /  Mexico  /  Alternative Dispute Resolution  /  Supplementary Materials - Materiales Suplementarios

JAMES E

 

 

 

JAMES E. ROGERS COLLEGE OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

 

 

T H E S I S

For the Degree of Master in Laws in International Trade Law

(Class of 2004)

 

 

 

Principle of Uniformity of CISG: Analysis of International Jurisprudence; Mexico and other Jurisdictions

By: José Iván Loustaunau-Godoy

 

 

 

Thesis Advisor:

PROFESSOR BORIS KOZOLCHYK

 

INDEX

I.                   Introduction

II.                Brief Description of the CISG: The Applicable Law to the International Sale of Goods Contracts

A.     Principle of Uniformity; CISG Article 7 (1)

III.             What is COMPROMEX?

A.     What is COMPROMEX

B.     Functions

1.      Conciliation

2.      Recommendations (non-binding opinions)

3.      Arbitration

C.     COMPROMEX Committee

IV.              Brief Description of the Ordinary Merchantile Trial Process According to the Mexican Code of Commerce

A.     Complaint

B.     Answer by Defendant

C.     Evidence

1.      Burden of Proof

2.      What can be proven?

3.      Types of Evidence

a.       Confessional

b.      Documental

c.       Expert witness

d.      Judicial inspection

e.       Testimonial

f.        Presumptions

1.      Types of Presumptions

4.      Characteristics of proof

D.     Arguments and Sentence

1.      Arguments

2.      Sentence

E.      Differences between the Ordinary Merchantile Procedure and the Executive Merchantile Procedure.

V.                 Analysis of Mexican Cases: Judicial and Non-Judicial resolutions

A.     First Case: Jose Luis Morales and/or Son Export, S.A. de C.V. v. Nez Marketing (see text of recommendation at Appendix A)

1.      Facts

2.      Application of the CISG; Article 1(1)(a)

3.      Written Formality of the Contract; Article 11

4.      Payment of the Price; Article 62

5.      Rationale

B.     Second Case: Conservas La Costeña v. Lanin/Santa Adela (see text of recommendation at Appendix B)

1.      Facts

2.      Application of the CISG; Article 1(1)(a) and the Effects of a Reservation Under CISG Article 96

3.      Exceptions of the Seller; Inapplicability of the CISG, No SpecificWritten Form of the Contract; Articles 11, 12 and 96

4.      Nonconformity of the Goods and Documents; Articles 35, 34

5.      Damage of Goods in Transit; Articles 35 (2)(d), 36 (1), 66

6.      Failure to Determine Fundamental Breach and the Likelihood to Dissolve the Contract

7.      Comment to CMPROMEX recommendation

C.     Third Case: Mexican Judicial Resolution Issued by the Sixth Civil Court of First Instance in the City of Tijuana, Baja California (see text of judicial resolution at Appendix “C”)

1.      Introduction

2.      Comments on the Mexican sentence

a.       Incorrect Use of Mexican Domestic Law

b.      Incorrect Declaration of Specific Performance

VI.              Analysis of Cases From Other Jurisdictions

A.     First Case-Canada: Nova Tool & Mold Inc. v. London Industries Inc.

1.      Introduction

2.      Facts

3.      Issues

4.      Application of Anglo-Canadian case law

5.      Comments on Judge Zalev’s judgment

B.     Second Case-Argentina: Quilmes Combustibles v. Vigan

1.      Introduction

2.      Facts

3.      Issue

4.      Procedural History

a.       First Instance

b.      Appeal

C.     Third Case-Italy: Nuova Fucinati v. Fondmetall International

1.      Introduction

2.      Facts

3.      Non-applicability of CISG

4.      Hardship; a Remedy Not Included in the CISG

VII.           Conclusion

VIII.        Appendix

A”- Text of recommendation issued by COMPROMEX on the case Jose Luis Morales and/or Son Export, S.A. de C.V. v Nez Marketing (English translation)

B”- Text of recommendation issued by COMPROMEX on the case Conservas La Costena v Lanin/Santa Adela (English translation)

C”- Text of judicial sentence issued by the Sixth Civil Court of First Instance in the City of Tijuana, Baja California (English translation)

D”- Section III “Arbitral Proceedings” of the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission Rules of Procedure

 

 

I.                   Introduction

Despite countless differences between legal systems of countries around the world, companies all over the world accomplished the principle of uniformity to a great extent in regard to commercial transactions dealing with exportation and importation of goods. These commercial transactions and the common sense on which they are based are generally governed by the commercial law of each country as well as by international conventions and by what is called private international law. Thus, the commercial terms regarding the allocation of risk for loss and damage of goods, bill of lading clauses, certificates and maritime insurances in the letters of credit, arbitration clauses and some other instruments used in exportation-importation generally relate to enterprises operating in the international trade area and are regulated by similar rules in all countries.

Such general similarities in commercial transactions are due in part to the common commercial needs shared by all those countries participating in international commercial transactions. As compared to domestic commerce, international trade usually requires transportation of goods through long distances, frequently by sea, and involves a considerable number of parties located in different countries. Because of such complexity, international commercial transactions inevitably increase the possibility of complaints before a judicial or arbitral tribunal in a foreign country if something goes wrong in a transaction. For this reason, parties in an international commercial transaction are strongly encouraged to use universally understood commercial terms indicating which risks and which party will bear them in respect of time and location.

The uniformity of international trade law is due not only to the fact that persons participating in international trade all around the world face common problems but also because such merchant-persons, ship owners, insurance companies, bankers and others either acting as individuals, entities or governmental agencies are part of an international community of merchants with a continuous history of negotiations.

Within international trade and the international sale of goods, a contract is the most important factor to be considered in an exportation-importation transaction. However, such transaction is supported by other related contracts reflecting the complexity of the transaction and number of parties involved. Such supporting contracts include the following: first, a transportation contract whether it is by sea, land or air; second, an insurance contract by which parties protect themselves from risks of loss and damage of goods in transit; third, payment on the goods carried out through a bank transaction frequently made by a letter of credit.

For purposes of this paper, I will focus on analysis of the international sale of goods contracts in the light of the CISG[1] and resolutions rendered by judicial and non-judicial agencies particularly made by Mexico and other jurisdictions.

 

II.                Brief Description of the CISG: The Applicable Law to International Sale of Goods Contracts

A great number of international sales of goods contracts entered into by parties domiciled in Mexico, the United States and many other countries are regulated by the CISG. In 1980, when the final text of the CISG was adopted, the international community was given a uniform legal instrument that establishes the rights and obligations of the parties to an international sale of goods contract. In order to achieve these purposes, the UNCITRAL [2] had to take into account important elements from the common law legal system as well as elements from roman-civilist countries in Europe and Latin America[3]. The whole idea of the CISG is about “a marriage of different legal systems[4] with all the inherent combination of two legal systems that do not even match their definition of contract. [5] Today, a total of sixty-two countries have adopted the CISG as their applicable law to international sale of goods contracts[6]. Canada, United States and Mexico have ratified the CISG which gives the CISG the authority to regulate international sale of goods contracts within the free trade area of NAFTA. In addition, most of the European countries have adopted the CISG with notable exceptions of Great Britain and Portugal. In Russia most of the countries are members; in Asia, China, Singapore, Mongolia are members; in Latin America, several countries including Argentina, Chile, Cuba and Ecuador are members. The result of the creation of CISG was a treaty immediately applicable (“self-executing”) becoming the domestic law governing international sales for those countries that have adopted and ratified the CISG, in other words, the principle “pacta sunt servanda[7] must be first taken into consideration in order for the CISG to be completely self-executing.

Thus, for instance, if an international sale of goods contract is silent in regard to the applicable law or it is stated that the domestic law of a country is to be applied; such contract will be governed by the CISG and not by the domestic sales law per-se. If the Argentinean lawyer thinks that he has won the negotiation with his counterpart lawyer by having inserted a clause in the international sale of goods contract stating that Argentinean law will be applicable, he may be very surprised when he discovers that the Argentinean law is precisely the CISG rather than any rules provided by the Argentinean, Civil and Commercial Codes. [8]

The same situation occurs in Mexico since it is a member of the CISG. For instance, when a Mexican party files a complaint before a Mexican court derived from a international sales contract with a party domiciled in another member country, it is very likely that such dispute will be settled by the CISG, disregarding the application of the Mexican Commercial Code and the supplementary application of the Mexican Civil Code.

 

A. Principle of Uniformity; CISG: Article 7 (1)

One of the most important principles of the CISG is the principle of uniformity included in its Article 7 (1) which reads as follows:

      In the interpretation of this Convention, regards is to be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade”.

In other words, the CISG aims to promote its uniform application by judges all around the world. It is not sufficient that parties to a contract have a uniform law internationally valid, if at the moment of its application, judges from different countries give the CISG their own interpretation without following what is established Article 7 (1). In such case the CISG purposes will be frustrated. [9]  In this order of ideas, in order to apply the CISG uniformly, judges and lawyers must analyze what other courts in other jurisdictions have resolved [10] as well as taking into consideration opinions made by experts in this area.[11]

One of the reasons for the topic of this paper is because of the following questions: how have Mexican and other jurisdictions courts performed when applying the CISG?; has the principle of uniformity provided in Article 7 (1) been met?, In the case of Mexico the answer to these questions is not easy since only one judicial resolution has been rendered by a court in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico. However, the Mexican Commission for the Protection of Foreign Trade (COMPROMEX) has had at least three opportunities to apply the CISG; nevertheless, its resolutions have been merely non-binding recommendations. In the opinion of those who have made comments in respect of such recommendations the performance of COMPROMEX has been deficient. However, its recommendations can serve as a guide to the type of controversies that many Mexican judges will face in the future when applying the CISG.

 

III.             What is COMPROMEX?

The Mexican Commission for the Protection of Foreign Commerce (COMPROMEX) is a Mexican organism which in 1976 it became a subdivision of the Mexican Bank for Foreign Trade (BANCOMEXT). COMPROMEX was created by The Law which creates a Commission for The Protection of International Trade of Mexico hereinafter the Compromex Law. Such Law was published in the “Diario Oficial de la Federacion” (Federal Official Gazette of Mexico) on December 31, 1956.

 

A. Functions

In addition to its advisory role on matters of foreign trade, COMPROMEX has the ability to act as a conciliator and arbitrator in foreign trade disputes. Services provided by COMPROMEX focus specifically in foreign trade dispute resolutions arising from importation-exportation transactions to which companies domiciled in Mexico and their counterparts domiciled overseas are part. Claims may be submitted by either the Mexican or non-Mexican party directly to COMPROMEX, or through Mexican trade representatives at Mexican embassies and consulates. The claim procedure is divided into two stages. First, COMPROMEX tries to reach a settlement through a conciliation hearing, and if no settlement is reached, the parties are urged to accept arbitration administered by COMPROMEX.[12] If these attempts fail, COMPROMEX may render a recommendation based on the evidence submitted by the parties.[13] This decision is rendered without prejudice to the parties' rights to resort to any judicial authority to settle the dispute.[14]

 

1.      Conciliation.

This is a method of amicable dispute resolution between the parties to an international commercial transaction. In this process COMPROMEX acts as conciliator which assists the parties in reaching a settlement in their dispute.

Process

Filing a claim before COMPROMEX. In the event the claimant party is Mexican and the defendant party is domiciled in a country where the original language is not spanish then such claim shall be presented in Spanish and English. The claim must include the following supporting documents:

a.       Full name of corporation and/or its representative (s)

b.      Address of both parties. In the case of the Mexican party, the address must be accompanied by the Federal Taxpayer Registry number

c.      Detail description of the facts on which the claim is based

d.      Photocopy of documents on which such action is based, i.e. international contract of sale (if it exists), commercial invoices, purchase orders, custom documents, transportation documents (bill of lading, certificate of origin, letters of credit, packing list, interchange of communication in writing (emails, letters, faxes, etc)

e.      Amount claimed in US legal tender

f.       Letter by claimant indicating his acceptance to pay ($3600.00 pesos Mx. Cy. or its equivalent in US dollars, approx. $300.00) the non-refundable service fee taking into consideration the corresponding rate

 

2.      Recommendations (non-binding opinions)

With respect to the claim procedure Article 14 of COMPROMEX states that: When the parties did not submit expressly to arbitration and a claim exists filed by one of them or when without the existence of a claim the Commission shall intervene according to Article 2, the process described in the two aforementioned Articles shall be firstly exploited. The Commission will render a recommendation which immediately after, shall be forwarded to the Secretary of Economy with the objective that the latter orders its publication in the Federal Official Gazette of Mexico and considers the possibility of adopting administrative measures that may be suggested by such recommendation

This procedures begins by petition of the interested party, however we should not forget the non-binding character of the recommendation since under such situation the parties have not agreed to submit to what is said by the recommendation. If the parties agree to such submission then we would be talking about arbitration same that is legally recognized and accepted within the international context. [15]

In that order of ideas, Article 12 of COMPROMEX LAW states that “all claims to which Article 2 III refers shall be filed in writing including a detailed description of the facts on which it is based”. Upon reception, the Commission will ask the parties to appear before such Commission, (when they or their representatives reside in the Federal District) to an adevenience meeting in which a satisfactory settlement and the compliance of the parties’ obligations will try to be reached.[16]

If such satisfactory settlement is not successful the parties will be advised to settle their dispute under arbitration which will be conducted by the COMPROMEX Permanent Committee.

Such recommendations shall be published in the Federal Official Gazette of Mexico, when the parties did not agreed in the contract to resolve their differences under arbitration by the Commission, but when the parties did agree to resolve their differences under arbitration, the Commission may settle their dispute issuing an arbitral award.

 

3.      Arbitration

As established in its law COMPROMEX may act as arbitrator when the parties in a controversy so indicate, as long as, one of them is Mexican.

Part of COMPROMEX’s job is to serve as a liaison between the parties and try to help them in reaching a satisfactory settlement, by using different offices that COMPROMEX have all over the world. It is important to mention that COMPROMEX relies on the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration (IACAC) rules of procedure when it renders an arbitral award. [17] The arbitral procedure is regulated by Section III (articles 12-26) of the IACAC rules of procedure. [18]

 

B. COMPROMEX Committee

Compromex has set up a committee composed of representatives of various official bodies involved in foreign commerce, to which Mexican parties and their foreign trading partners submit commercial disputes.

COMPROMEX is comprised by 10 representatives from the following agencies:

-Secretary of Economy

-Ministry of Foreign Affairs

-Ministry of Finance and Public Credit

-Secretary of Hydraulic Resources and Agriculture

-Bancomext

-National Confederation of Chambers of Commerce

-National Chamber of the Industrial Transformation

-Mexico City Chamber of Commerce

-National Association of Importers and Exporters

However, the analysis of the described and other faculties of COMPROMEX is not a specific concern of this paper. The purpose of this paper is the analysis of COMPROMEX performance applying the CISG when resolving the cases mentioned in this paper.

Up to date COMPROMEX has not issued one single binding opinion, but three non-binding recommendations where it applied the CISG. In any of these resolutions other resolutions from other neither jurisdictions nor citations by experts were analyzed.

IV.              Brief Description of the Ordinary Merchantile Trial Process According to the Mexican Code of Commerce [19]

Ordinary merchantile trials are regulated by Article 1055 of the Mexican Code of Commerce (hereinafter the C.c.), such legal provision establishes the formality on which such trials have to be filed. Article 1055 reads as follows: “Ordinary, executive or special merchantile trials which are regulated by merchantile law are subject to the following rules:

1.      All petitions must be presented in Spanish, clearly and legibly written and signed by the parties involved

2.      Documents written in a foreign language must include their corresponding Spanish translation

3.       All petitions must include dates and quantities in letters as opposed to numbers and, no abbreviations must be used

4.      All petitions must be authorized (under sanction of nullification) by the public officer who certified or gave public faith to the act(s) included in the petitions

5.      The tribunal may order the petitioners to correct any omission

In addition to Article 1055, Article 1377 states that: “Every dispute between parties which has not a special procedure will be settled through ordinary trial”.

A.     Complaint

The process begins with the stage of the complaint, but it is not until the tribunal admits the answer by the defendant when the actual procedural relation between the parties begins (as explained in the next step). Going back to the complaint, it must be in writing and must meet the requirements[20] provided by Article 1061 and such are:

1.      Power of attorney of representative(s) of the plaintiff

2.      Mention to the private and public documents related to the complaint

3.      Complete names of witnesses who might have been present at the time facts occurred

 

B.    Answer by Defendant

Once the complaint has been admitted, a procedural relation between the parties has been established (fijacion de la litis) and the defendant will be required to answer it within the next nine days after admittance. In this case, the defendant may:

1. Admit or object the complaint

2. Present his defenses

3. Present his evidence

4. Counter sue the plaintiff according to articles 1379-1381 of the C.c. 

 

C.    Evidence

Evidence plays a fundamental role in the process of every trial since it is the instrument through which the parties intend to persuade the Judge about the certainty of the facts presented, in other words, evidence is considered to be the persuasion method by which the plaintiff tries to prove his action and the defendant tries to justify his defenses against the plaintiff’s action.

At the moment of presenting evidence by the parties it must be taken into consideration the following:

 

1.  Burden of Proof

This is the need of the parties to prove their facts in order to receive a satisfactory decision. Evidence is not a legal obligation, but instead a burden of proof which is regulated by Chapter XII of the C.c. (Articles 1194-1196).

Article 1194. – “The party affirming is obliged to prove, consequently, the plaintiff must prove his action and the defendant his defenses

Article 1195. – “The party denying is not obliged to prove unless his denial involves an express affirmation of a fact

Article 1196. – “The party denying is also obliged to prove, when doing so, ignores the legal presumption that his counter part has in his favor”

The following Mexican jurisprudence[21] published by the Semanario Judicial de la Federacion supports the above legal provisions of the C.c.:

EXCEPTION OF PAYMENT. WHEN THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT OBJECT THE DOCUMENTAL EVIDENCE TRYING TO PROVE SUCH EXCEPTION AND STATES THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO COVER A DIFFERENT DEBT THAN THAT CLAIMED THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS CASE IS ON THE PLAINTIFF

Article 1195 of the Code of Commerce establishes as a general rule that the Party denying is not obliged to prove, BUT as an exception he must do it when his denial involves an express affirmation of a fact. In such situation the Plaintiff must bear the burden of proof in order to demonstrate that the payment with which his counterpart intents to defend with is different to the claimed debt, when on the hearing such Plaintiff not only does not object the documental evidence on which the defense is based but states that such payment was made with the purpose of payment of another debt, provided that, at the same time he is denying that the payment used as a defense by his counterpart corresponds to the debt claimed he is affirming expressly that such payment was made to comply with another obligation.

 

2.  What can be proven?

The object of all evidence consists on anything that must be proven, that is, every fact and laws are subject to be proven. However there are some exceptions to such general rule; Article 1197 says: “Only the facts are subject to be proven, the law will be only when it is foreign, the one invoking such foreign law must prove the existence of it and that it is applicable to a case”. Article 1199 reads as follows: “Evidence must be presented clearly expressing the fact(s) that are tried to be proven, as well as the reasons why the offeror thinks such evidence will prove the facts; If the Court considers that the evidence presented does not meet with this requirements they will be dismissed taking into consideration Article 1203 of this code. In no time evidence against the law or good costumes will be admitted”.

This other Mexican jurisprudence[22] will help us to better understand Article 1199 of the C.c., as to evidence that is not properly admitted by the Judge.

MERCHANTILE EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXPRESSLY ADMITTED CANNOT BE EXAMINED BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

From the adequate interpretation of Articles 1205 and 1325 of the C.c., it is understood that in merchantile matters, every type of elements which may be persuasive according to the Judge shall be admitted as evidence giving compliance to Article 1324 of the C.c. which confirms the guaranties of legality and legal security originally included in articles 14 and 16 of the Mexican Constitution, by considering that every sentence must be legally rendered …..However, this does not mean that the corresponding judicial authority can examine evidence that has not been admitted to the trial…

FIRST COLEGIATE TRIBUNAL OF THE TWENTY FOURTH CIRCUIT. XXIV. 1ST., No. 3C

 

Continuing with the admittance of evidence it is worth to say that supervening evidence in an appeal trial will not be admitted and the following jurisprudence[23] explains why.

 

MERCHANTILE APPEAL TRIAL. SUPERVENING EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE BY THE UPPER COURT

According to the legal provisions governing the ordinary merchantile process, supervening evidence will not be admitted by the second instance court since Articles 1061 section IV, 1202 and 1387 of the C.c. regulate events occurred only in the first instance and such articles do not permit the presentation of such evidence in the appeal trial. On the other hand, Articles 1054 and 1342 of the C.c. state that the appellate trial has a special summary substantiation. In other words, the merchantile appeal trial, as a general rule, only admits the recourse, the presentation of only one  writ by the parties and the report available in the tribunal.

SECOND CIVIL COLEGIATE TRIBUNAL OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT. I.2o.C., No. 21C.

The above jurisprudence is in some way similar to the Common Law Parol Evidence Rule[24] which establishes that where the parties have reduced their agreement to final written form, evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements is inadmissible to vary or contradict the terms of the final written agreement. The thrust of the Parol evidence rule is that if the court finds the writing to have been intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the parties' agreement, then the writing alone constitutes the contract and evidence of prior negotiations or "side agreements" will not be resorted to in interpreting the final written agreement.

 

3. Types of evidence

a. Confessional

This type of proof is regulated by Article 1214 of the C.c. which clearly states: “The confessional proof can be presented along with the complaint and its answer, and no later than 10 days before of the hearing, where the parties are obliged to swear under oath that everything they confess is true”

b. Documental

This is also known as “instrumental” and consists of presenting every public or private document where facts (s) are included. Public documents are those issued by public officers representing governmental organisms and by Notaries Public or Commercial Brokers. Private documents are those issued by particular individuals or entities.

The following Mexican jurisprudence[25] shows how documental evidence is treated in practice.

 

DOCUMENTAL EVIDENCE IN THE MERCHANTILE PROCESS. IF ITS INTEGIRTY IS NOT ESTUDIED, THE UNITARY VALORATION PRINCIPLE IS VIOLATED

According to articles 1296 and 1298 of the C.c., private documents presented in trial as evidence constitute full proof which means that such private documents shall be considered as unitary acts, that is, if such documents contain several acts related between each other their perception must be unified associating such acts in order to be jointly appreciated as a indivisible unit which permits the judge give such documents their corresponding provable value, such as in the case where a judge granted the evidence presented by a public accountant partial provable value and such act by the Judge is contrary to the unitary valoration principle.

FIFTH COLEGIATE TRIBUNAL OF THE SEVENTIETH CIRCUIT. XVII. 5TH, No. 1C.

c. Expert witness

Regulated by Article 1252 of the C.c., expert witness must have a degree in the area on which he is serving as witness.

d. Judicial inspection

In this type of proof the Judge is the one who presents evidence based on the examination of a person, real or personal property or documents. [26] This type of evidence can be presented either by petition of an interested party or officially, if the judge consider it necessary.

 e. Testimonial

This evidence is presented by individuals. Oral or written information is expected to be received with respect to the facts occurred.

Article 1261 establishes that: “Any person with knowledge of the facts that must be proven by the parties, are obliged to declare as witnesses”

Each party must present its own witness. Article 1262: “The parties must present their own witnesses. However, when the parties are unable to present them the Judge will be the one to present them”

f. Presumptions

Presumptions constitute a form of evidence in which the Judge valuates an unknown fact resulting from a known fact.

Article 1277 defines presumption as follows: “Presumption is the consequence that the Judge or the law deducts form a known fact in order to investigate the truth of the unknown fact”

1. Types of presumptions

Legal: Article 1278 says that legal presumption will take place when:

a.       It is established by law

b.      The consequence is immediate and direct

Human or natural: Article 1279 defines it as: “Human presumption will occur when from a proven fact another is deducted which is a result form the first”

 

4. Characteristics of the Proof

The proof or evidence must be crucial (very important). According to the law, the proof must be accepted by persons with a decent criteria, that is, the Judge uses his discretional faculties in order to determine how crucial (important) the proof is. Another characteristic of the proof is that it must be precise (exact and certain). This means that there must be a relation between the proven fact and the one that is intended to be proven.

On the other side, there must be no contradiction between the facts presented; otherwise the proof will be dismissed.

 

             

D.    Arguments and Sentence