1 It must naturally be noted that Part II of the CISG (Arts 14–24) which deals with the formation of contracts does not have to be ratified by contracting states (Art 92). This reservation was created upon the wish of the Nordic legal systems. Accordingly, to date only Dnk, Fin, Nor, and Swe have declared a reservation under Art 92 CISG and it is rumoured that first steps have been taken to withdraw the reservation. Isl has made a reservation under Art 94 CISG which allows for states to not be bound by provisions of the CISG where they have the same or closely related legal rules on sales contracts or their formation. See on this reservation Schlechtriem/Schwenzer/Schwenzer/Hachem, Art 92, para 3.
2 See Fra Arts 1162, 1169 CC, Chénedé para 23.271.
3 See Gtm Art 1251 CC, Salazar, pp 156–57.
4 See Jpn Art 557 CC, Sono, H et al, p 57, para 93.
5 See para 9.03, Fra under former Art 1108 CC: ‘Quatre conditions sont essentielles pour la validité d’une convention: Le consentement de la partie qui s’oblige; Sa capacité de contracter; Un objet certain qui forme la matière de l’engagement; Une cause licite dans l’obligation.’ However, this article was abolished and the current conditions required by French law under Art 1128 CC are: consent, capacity to contract, and that the contract has lawful and certain content, Rowan p 10.
6 Bel Art 1108 CC; Esp Art 1261 CC; Ita Art 1325 CC; Lux Art 1108 CC; Rom Arts 1179 (1)(4), 1235–39 CC.
7 Arg Art 1013 CCC, Caramelo, pp 410, 411, different from the previous regulation, cause is now considered an essential element of the contract; Bol Art 452 CC; Bra Art 166 CC; Cub Art 23 CC; Hnd Art 1552 CC; Pan Art 1112 CC; Per Art 140(3) CC, Supreme Court, Sala Civil permanente, Cassation 003657-2012, 1 December 2014, para 3.3; Ury Art 1261CC; Ven Art 1.141 CC.
8 Ben Art 1108 CC; Bfa Art 1108 CC; Civ Art 1108 CC; Cmr Art 1108 CC; Caf Art 1108 CC; Cog Art 1108 CC; Gab Art 1108 CC; Gin Art 1108 CC; Mdg Art 1108 CC; Mli Art 1108 CC; Ner Art 1108 CC; Sen Art 47 CO; Tcd Art 1108 CC; Tgo Art 1108 CC.
9 Afg Arts 592, 593 CC; Bhr Art 111 CC; Irn Art 217 CC; Jor Art 165(2) CC; Kwt Art 177 CC; Lbn Art 196 CO; Lby Art 136 CC; Mar Arts 62, 63 CO; Safi, Al Qanun Al Madani, p 451; Qat Art 155(1) CC; Syr Art 137 CC; Tun Arts 67, 68 CO. This is no longer the case for Egy, where the current practice states that the omission of stating the cause of an obligation does not render it invalid, see Egy Art 137 CC, Cass Civ, challenge no 4502, session dated 18 February 2016, JY 68.
10 USA (La) Arts 1887 et seq CC.
11 Can (Qué) Art 1485 CC.
12 Idn Bell, Formation of Contract, p 373, Arts 1320, 1335 CC; Phl de Leon, p 633.
13 Fra Art 1169 CC, see eg Civ 1, 25 May 1988, Bull civ I, no 149: ‘la cause des obligations d’une partie réside, lorsque le contrat est synallagmatique, dans l’obligation de l’autre’; see also Civ 1, 7 February 1990, no 88-18.441, Bull civ I, no 38, Defrénois 1990, art 34837.1018, note Aubert): ‘lorsque l’obligation d’une partie est dépourvue d’objet, l’engagement du cocontractant est nul faute de cause’. cf also Drobnig, General Principles of European Contract Law, p 314.
16 See Fra Art 1143 CC, Colaiuta, p 38, since this new provision now refers to cases where a party’s consent to enter into an agreement is impaired by economic duress, which existed already in French case law.
18 Fra Art 1143 CC; see Civ 1, 4 July 1995, no 93-16.198, Bull civ I, no 303, Contrats, conc, consom 1995, comm 181, note L Leveneur, RTD civ 1995.881, obs J Mestre, held valid a contract for the sale of a jewel for a price of 101 556 F, whereas the real price was 460 419 (former article).
19 Fra Art 1143 CC, see Civ 3, 7 February 1996, no 93-17.873, RTD civ 1996.606, obs J Mestre; Civ 1, 14 October 1997, no 95-14.285, Defrénois 1998, art 36860.1041, obs D Mazeaud, held that in the case of an agreement between a supplier and a reseller on an exclusive basis, the benefit for the reseller seemed trivial (‘dérisoire’) (former article); Beale et al, p 137.
20 Following the Chronopost ruling, the Cour de Cassation considered that the lease back and the advertising agreement, were part of a contractual whole and were interdependent, notwithstanding a term to the contrary, and held as a result, that the termination of the lease back caused the advertising agreement to terminate (Cass Com, 15 February 2000, no 97-19-793, Bull civ IV, no 29) The loan and sale, being connected and having one single cause, it was held that the termination of the sale resulted in the termination—in this case, the caducity—of the loan (Civ 1, 1 July 1997, no 95-15642).
21 Civ 1, 3 July 1996, D 1997.499 with note P Reigne.
22 See Latin America Hionestrosa, pp 212, 213; Afg Art 592 CC; Are Art 207(2) CC; Arg Art 1014 CCC; Bhr Art 111 CC; Bol Supreme Court, Felipe Orozco Cabrera v Hugo Aguirre Calderón y María Paz Villalba de Aguirre, reported by Muñoz, p 84, fn 32; Bra Art 166(3) CC; Chl Art 1467 CC; Col Art 1524 CC; Dza Art 97 CC; Ecu Art 1483 CC; Egy Art 136 CC; Esp Art 1.275 CC; Gtm Art 1301 CC (object as cause); Hnd Art 1570 CC; Idn Bell, Formation of Contract, p 373, Arts 1320, 1335, 1337 CC; Irn Art 132(1) CC; Jor Art 165(2) CC; Lbn Art 198 CO; Mar Art 62 CO; Nic Art 1874 CC; Pan Art 1126 CC; Qat Art 155(1) CC; Rom Art 1236–37 CC (what counts as illicit or immoral cause) and Art 1238 CC (sanction); Slv Art 1338 CC, Second Civil Chamber, First Section, San Salvador, Mr JAVB v Mr VB, case N° 45-3CM-17-A, 9 October 2017; Syr Arts 136, 137 CC; Tun Art 67 CO; Ury Art 1288 CC; Yem Art 195 CC.
23 French case law used to follow an objective approach, with courts assessing whether the obligation has a cause corresponding to the type of contract concerned, this by using different methods (looking at the subject matter, the objective interest in performing the contract, the coherence, the essential elements or fundamental obligation of the contract). Yet this approach was only fit for standard contracts (contrat nommé) such as sale. Where the contract is not a contrat nommé or where the objective cause is not immediately apparent, courts came to search the motives of the parties, to the extent that they were made part of the contract. Under this ‘subjectivation of the objective cause’, courts verify the existence of a cause having regard to the general economy of the contract (économie générale du contrat), drawing on what the parties intended, expressly or implicitly, to regard as cause. Furthermore, the French Civil Code no longer requires a lawful cause, instead, Art 1128 CC establishes that a contract is valid if its content is lawful, having regard to a subjective and objective approach, see Cass Civ 1, 7 October 1998, no 96-14359, Méndez Sierra, p 4.
24 Penda Matipé, pp 66 ff.
25 Latin America Hionestrosa, p 213.
26 Arabic/Middle East (Egy) Al Sanhuri/Al Maraghy, pp 164–5; Afg Art 591 CC; Are Art 207(1) CC; Dza Filaly, Al Nazria Al Ama Lil Aqd, pp 190–1, 197–9; Jor Art 165(1) CC; Mansour, pp 134–6; Kwt Art 176 CC; Abdel Reda/Al Nakas, p 117; Mar Safi, Al Qanun Al Madani, pp 445, 448–9; Qat Art 155(2) CC.
27 See Fra Art 1128, 1162 CC, in the same line of thought, in French case law: a contract is voidable for illicit or immoral cause even where one party did not have knowledge of the illicit or immoral character of the motive essential for the conclusion of the contract (Civ 1, 7 October 1998, Bull civ I, no 285) (former article); also Rom Art 1238(2) CC, where an illicit or immoral cause results in absolute nullity of the contract where the other party should have been aware of it.
28 See Afg Art 594 CC; Bhr Art 112 CC; Dza Art 98 CC; Egy Art 137 CC; Irq Art 132(2), (3) CC; Jor Art 166(2) CC; Kwt Arts 177, 178 CC; Lbn Art 199 CO; Lby Art 137 CC; Mar Arts 64, 65 CO; Qat Arts 156, 157 CC, Qatari COC, challenge no 22, session dated 20 June 2006, Rom Art 1239 CC; TO, year 2, 2006, p 152; Syr Art 138 CC; Tun Arts 69, 70 CO; Yem Arts 195, 197 CC. See also Arabic/Middle East Hafez, p 66.
29 See Aus The Laws of Australia/Davis, para 7.1.1190; Can Waddams, para 119: ‘something must be given’; Ind s 2 Contract Act (1872); USA § 17(1) Restatement (2d) of Contracts.
30 See further Gordon, 75 Cornell L Rev (1989), 1002.
31 Aus Carter/Peden/Tolhurst, para 6-12.
32 See Farnsworth, vol I, §2.2 noting §75 Restatement (1st) of Contracts promulgated in 1933.
33 USA § 71 Restatement (2d) of Contracts. See also Farnsworth, vol I, §2.2.
34 See Farnsworth, vol I, §2.2 providing various examples.
35 See Farnsworth, vol I, §2.11 noting that courts ‘have not lost the habit’ of using terms like valuable.
36 The law does not as a rule investigate the respective value of the promises. For the value of consideration see paras 9.18 et seq.
38 Consideration need not be adequate, see para 9.19.
39 See eg Swain, J Leg Hist (2005), 55–72 (citing numerous references and discussion); see also Denning, Mod L Rev (1952), 1–10; Twyford, pp 8 ff. For the development of assumpsit see paras 41.36 et seq.
40 See eg Milsom, p 357; see also Pollock, pp 183–4.
41 See eg Simpson, p 327.
43 See eg the discussion of Lord Mansfield’s attack on consideration in Burrows/Finn/Todd, para 4.1.2.
44 Common Law (UK) Treitel on Contract, para 3-002 citing references; Chitty on Contracts, para 3-003 (citing references); Can Waddams, para 122 (criticizing use of the word ‘value’).
45 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, para 3-022.
46 Hkg Fisher/Greenwood, para 4.4.2 suggesting economic value is frequently stated as being required but questioning real need. See also Can Waddams, para 122 fn 309.
48 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, paras 3-018 et seq; Aus The Laws of Australia/Davis, para 7.1.1260; Can Waddams, paras 175 et seq.
49 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, para 3-023; Aus The Laws of Australia/Davis, para 7.1.1330.
50 For gross disparity see paras 21.5 et seq.
51 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, paras 3-014 et seq; Can Waddams, para 123; Nzl Burrows/Finn/Todd, p 102, para 4.5.1; USA United States v Stump Home Specialties Manufacturing, US Ct App (7th Cir), 29 June 1990, 905 F 2d 1117.
53 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, para 3-006.
54 See paras 14.2 et seq.
55 Eng Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd  1 QB 1 (CA); Aus Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 723 (NSWSC); Nzl Attorney-General for England and Wales v R  2 NZLR 91 (CA); Sgp Teo Seng Kee Bob v Arianecorp Ltd  3 SLR(R) 1114.
56 See paras 14.15 et seq.
57 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, para 3-008 (citing numerous case and scholarly references); Aus The Laws of Australia/Davis, para 7.1.1210; Can Waddams, para 122; USA Farnsworth, vol I, §2.4.
58 Eng Crears v Hunter  19 QBD 341; Combe v Combe  2 KB 215; Aus Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Le (2007) 240 ALR 204.
59 Aus Wigan v Edwards (1973) 47 ALJR 586.
60 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, para 3-035 (although specifically addressing the Eng and Wal s 29(5) Limitation Act (1980), the rule exists in the common law as well); Aus The Laws of Australia/Davis, para 7.1.1230; Nzl Casey v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (NZ)  NZLR 1052 (SC); but see also USA Farnsworth, vol I, §2.8 suggesting in the USA this should be considered as ‘simply enforceable without consideration, at least as that term is understood under the bargain test’.
61 Eng Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd  1 QB 1 (CA); Aus Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 723; Nzl Attorney-General for England and Wales v R  2 NZLR 91 (CA); Sgp Teo Seng Kee Bob v Arianecorp Ltd  3 SLR(R) 1114; Sea-Land Service Inc v Cheong Fook Chee Vincent  3 SLR 631. In this context see also paras 14.05 et seq.
62 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, para 3-026; Aus Hercules Motors Pty Ltd v Schubert (1953) 53 SR (NSW) 301 (NSWSC); Can Waddams, para 179; Irl Law Society of Ireland v O’Malley  1 IR 162; USA Farnsworth, vol I, §2.7.
63 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, para 3-026.
64 USA Farnsworth, vol I, §2.7
66 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, para 3-027; Aus Breusch v Watts Development Division Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 311 (NSWCA).
67 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, para 3-039; Aus The Laws of Australia/Davis, para 7.1.1210; Can Waddams, para 122; USA § 71(4) Restatement (2d) of Contracts, Farnsworth, vol I, §2.3 (but not using benefit and detriment terminology).
68 Common Law (UK) Chitty on Contracts, para 3-037; USA Farnsworth, vol I, §2.3 (but not using benefit and detriment terminology).
69 Hkg s 4 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Ordinance (2016).
70 For the modern treatment of unfair clauses see paras 21.34 et seq.
71 Cass Com, 22 October 1996, no 93-18.632, Bull civ IV, no 261, D 1997.121 with note A Sériaux (declared unenforceable a term limiting liability for delay since it negated the essential obligation of the express courier) (former Fra Art 1131CC).
72 DiMatteo, 33 New Eng L Rev (1999), 295.
73 Waddams, 3 Erasmus L Rev (2010), 122.