Q8-2a) How are Art. 8(1) and (2) CISG to be distinguished from each other? b) Do the UP 2004 and the PECL make the same differentiation? Cf. Arts 4.1, 4.2 UP 2004, Art. 5:101 PECL. Q8-3a) What is the interaction between Art. 8(2) and (3) CISG? b) Do you find a similar mechanism in the UP 2004 and the PECL? c) Which respective provisions in the UP 2004 and the PECL correspond to Art. 8(3) CISG? Q8-4a) Match the interpretation rules of the UP 2004 to the corresponding provisions of the PECL. b) Does either of these two sets of rules have a greater scope than the other? c) Which general principle do Art. 4.5 UP 2004, Art. 5:106 PECL reflect? d) Which questions left open by Art. 8 CISG are explicitly addressed by the UP 2004 and the PECL? Q8-5 Which facts did the Bezirksgericht St. Gallen (C 8–1) rely on in holding that the buyer had shown that it considered itself bound? Q8-6 Whether it makes a difference that the standard terms are written in a language different to the one in which the rest of the contract is held is open to debate. Discuss this, taking into consideration Art. 4.7 UP 2004, Art. 5:107 PECL. Q8-7a) Why are the provisions governing the conclusion of the contract (arts 14 et seq. CISG) apparently inadequate to conclusively deal with the inclusion of standard terms? b) What differences do you see between the UP 2004 and the PECL, on the one hand, and the CISG, on the other hand, regarding the interpretation of standard terms? Applicability of other rules of interpretation and evidence?

DOI link for Q8-2a) How are Art. 8(1) and (2) CISG to be distinguished from each other? b) Do the UP 2004 and the PECL make the same differentiation? Cf. Arts 4.1, 4.2 UP 2004, Art. 5:101 PECL. Q8-3a) What is the interaction between Art. 8(2) and (3) CISG? b) Do you find a similar mechanism in the UP 2004 and the PECL? c) Which respective provisions in the UP 2004 and the PECL correspond to Art. 8(3) CISG? Q8-4a) Match the interpretation rules of the UP 2004 to the corresponding provisions of the PECL. b) Does either of these two sets of rules have a greater scope than the other? c) Which general principle do Art. 4.5 UP 2004, Art. 5:106 PECL reflect? d) Which questions left open by Art. 8 CISG are explicitly addressed by the UP 2004 and the PECL? Q8-5 Which facts did the Bezirksgericht St. Gallen (C 8–1) rely on in holding that the buyer had shown that it considered itself bound? Q8-6 Whether it makes a difference that the standard terms are written in a language different to the one in which the rest of the contract is held is open to debate. Discuss this, taking into consideration Art. 4.7 UP 2004, Art. 5:107 PECL. Q8-7a) Why are the provisions governing the conclusion of the contract (arts 14 et seq. CISG) apparently inadequate to conclusively deal with the inclusion of standard terms? b) What differences do you see between the UP 2004 and the PECL, on the one hand, and the CISG, on the other hand, regarding the interpretation of standard terms? Applicability of other rules of interpretation and evidence?

Q8-2a) How are Art. 8(1) and (2) CISG to be distinguished from each other? b) Do the UP 2004 and the PECL make the same differentiation? Cf. Arts 4.1, 4.2 UP 2004, Art. 5:101 PECL. Q8-3a) What is the interaction between Art. 8(2) and (3) CISG? b) Do you find a similar mechanism in the UP 2004 and the PECL? c) Which respective provisions in the UP 2004 and the PECL correspond to Art. 8(3) CISG? Q8-4a) Match the interpretation rules of the UP 2004 to the corresponding provisions of the PECL. b) Does either of these two sets of rules have a greater scope than the other? c) Which general principle do Art. 4.5 UP 2004, Art. 5:106 PECL reflect? d) Which questions left open by Art. 8 CISG are explicitly addressed by the UP 2004 and the PECL? Q8-5 Which facts did the Bezirksgericht St. Gallen (C 8–1) rely on in holding that the buyer had shown that it considered itself bound? Q8-6 Whether it makes a difference that the standard terms are written in a language different to the one in which the rest of the contract is held is open to debate. Discuss this, taking into consideration Art. 4.7 UP 2004, Art. 5:107 PECL. Q8-7a) Why are the provisions governing the conclusion of the contract (arts 14 et seq. CISG) apparently inadequate to conclusively deal with the inclusion of standard terms? b) What differences do you see between the UP 2004 and the PECL, on the one hand, and the CISG, on the other hand, regarding the interpretation of standard terms? Applicability of other rules of interpretation and evidence?