{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013663220088626292, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033234859675036928, 'mean_word_length': 4.901960784313726, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interpretation of Article 8: Is it Consistent with the Function of the Global Jurisconsultorium?

At the heart of every contract are the agreed rights and obligations of sellers and buyers.While the contract is performed to the satisfaction of both parties the content of the contract – or whether a legally binding contract was actually formed – is never tested. Once a dispute arises, courts and tribunals invariably turn their attention to the interpretation of the contractual terms. Questions such as was a contract formed or was the contract breached and by whom are not novel in the history of contract law. However the answers depend in most cases on the interpretation of the contractual arrangement. The crucial issue is what tools are used to interpret contracts as legal systems such as the common law and civil law vary in their approach. In addition with the advent of international conventions such as the CISG a third approach has been created. It is an area where many domestic laws and international conventions differ greatly. The greatest variation between legal systems and the CISG can be found when comparing the CISG with common law. Common law courts refer to the parol evidence rule as well as the plain meaning rule which were not incorporated into the CISG. In brief the parol evidence rule can be summarised as follows: The Parol Evidence Rule refers to the principles which common law courts have developed for the purpose of determining the role and weight to ascribe to contractual writings. The basic purpose of these principles is “to preserve the integrity of written contracts by refusing to allow the admission of [prior] oral statements or previous correspondence to contradict the written agreement. In order to allow the intent of the writing to prevail, the judgemay exclude what is known as extrinsic or parol evidence, particularly statements made during the negotiations. The Parol Evidence Rule applies to the general law of contracts, including the sale of goods law of common law jurisdictions.5 This paper is not comparative in nature, it is concerned with the international approach to contract interpretation which is governed by the CISG article 8 and supported by articles 9, 11 and 6. Courts are charged with the proper application of the CISG and crucially in this context the interpretative mandate. This mandate is derived from article 7: “International conventions cannot be subject to interpretation. If everyone were to interpret conventions in their own way, there would be no point in having common rules for international sales. The Supreme Court must ensure that judges avoid the temptation to accept small exceptions to an international rule.”7