Harmonization of private law on a global level
AbstractThe Vienna Sales Convention (1980) follows in large measure the American Uniform Commercial Code: Article 2 on Sales. Is this to imply that the Contracting States to the Vienna Sales Convention really prefer American sales law? This paper answers this question in the negative, and argues instead that the United States' economic leverage with other countries is the key factor influencing developments pertaining to private law on a global level. We explain why it may be useful to harmonize rules of private law on a global level and which rules should be chosen for a uniform law. We show that the choice between two legal arrangements may lead to a coordination problem. Next we argue that the coordination problem is solved in favor of the jurisdiction whose economy is less dependent upon the economies of other jurisdictions than the other way around. We use our model to discuss the harmonization of sales law on a global level in the twentieth century.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal International Review of Law and Economics.
Volume (Year): 28 (2008)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle
Unification Harmonization Private law Economic interdependencies Game theory;
Other versions of this item:
- K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)
- D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Edward P. Lazear, 1999.
"Culture and Language,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(S6), pages S95-S126, December.
- Rubinstein, Ariel, 1985. "A Bargaining Model with Incomplete Information about Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1151-72, September.
- Wolfgang Kerber, 2006.
"An Optional European Contract Law Code: Advantages and Disadvantages,"
Marburg Working Papers on Economics
200607, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
- Wolfgang Kerber & Stefan Grundmann, 2006. "An optional European contract law code: Advantages and disadvantages," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 215-236, May.
- Rafael LaPorta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silane & Cristian Pop-Eleches & Andrei Shleifer, 2003.
"Judicial Checks and Balances,"
NBER Working Papers
9775, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Mahoney, Paul G, 2001. "The Common Law and Economic Growth: Hayek Might Be Right," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(2), pages 503-25, Part I Ju.
- Mattei, Ugo, 1994. "Efficiency in legal transplants: An essay in Comparative Law and Economics," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-19, March.
- Garoupa, Nuno & Ogus, Anthony, 2003.
"A Strategic Interpretation of Legal Transplants,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
4123, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Emanuela Carbonara & Francesco Parisi, 2007. "The paradox of legal harmonization," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 367-400, September.
- Van Den Bergh, Roger, 1996. "Economic criteria for applying the subsidiarity principle in the European community: The case of competition policy," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 363-383, September.
- John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, January.
- Andrzej Baniak & Peter Grajzl, 2010.
"Interjurisdictional Linkages and the Scope for Interventionist Legal Harmonization,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
3085, CESifo Group Munich.
- Baniak Andrzej & Grajzl Peter, 2011. "Interjurisdictional Linkages and the Scope for Interventionist Legal Harmonization," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 405-434, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.