General terms and conditions: battle of the forms, Vienna Convention and civil code.
To understand whether, when and to what extent the general terms and conditions apply to the sales relationship is the purpose of this article, in which an attempt will be made to outline the differences between the civil law and the Vienna Convention rules.
In commercial negotiations it is far from uncommon for the buyer, while expressing to the seller his willingness to accept the proposal received, to include in his declaration additional or different conditions to those used by the other party.
It sometimes happens that the purchaser merely accepts the proposal, enclosing its general terms and conditions within the communication. Sometimes, the general terms and conditions are not even attached to the order confirmation, but only referred to (e.g. by means of a link which links to a page on the site where they are uploaded). It still happens that both parties enclose their "general terms and conditions" to all the documentation they exchange in the course of negotiations for a particular sale, or even in the course of their much broader business relationship (in purchase orders, emails, invoices, website, delivery notes, delivery notes, etc.).
To understand whether, when and to what extent the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) apply to the sales relationship is the purpose of this article, in which an attempt will be made (as far as possible) to outline the differences between the civil law and the Vienna Convention (CISG).
With the aim of giving the article a systematic approach and hoping that this will make an issue that is certainly far from easy more understandable, we prefer to proceed by stepFirstly, analysing what happens if only one of the contracting parties has referred to its GTC at the stage of the conclusion of the contract, and then moving on to the more complex situation where both parties have referred to their GTC (so-called ".battle of the forms").
1. Proposal and acceptance: Art. 1229 of the Civil Code and Art. 19 CISG.
Although the Vienna Convention does not contain a rule expressly regulating general terms and conditions, since its Part II (Art. 14-23) comprehensively regulates the "formation of the contract", it will be necessary to refer to the rules contained therein in order to understand what formal requirements the GTC are subject to.[1]
- Read also: Proposal, acceptance and pre-contractual responsibility. Vienna Convention and the Civil Code compared.
In particular, Art. 19(1) of the Convention provides that a reply to a contractual proposal purporting to be an acceptance, but which contains additions, limitations or other modifications, is to be considered as a rejection of the proposal and is therefore to be considered as a counter-proposal.
From a first reading of this provision, it would appear that the CISG also adopts the principle transposed by the civil law system in the fifth paragraph of Art. 1326 of the Civil Code, under which "an acceptance not in conformity with the proposal is equivalent to a new proposal".
In fact, the Civil Code very strictly accepts the so-called '.mirrow image rule", i.e. the need for a fully corresponding relationship between the content of the proposal and the acceptance, even considering it necessary that the meeting and merging of proposal and acceptance should involve not only the main clauses, but also the ancillary ones. The case law reads:
"On the subject of the parties' agreement, the hypothesis provided for in the last paragraph of theArticle 1326 of the Civil Code. also occurs when the changes requested at the time of acceptance are of secondary value; therefore, in progressive training contractsin which the agreement of the parties on all the terms is reached gradually, the moment of finalisation of the transaction is normally that of agreement final on all main elements and accessoriesunless the parties intended to bind themselves in the agreements reached on individual points by reserving the regulation of secondary elements. "[2]
La CISG, on the other hand, knows an exemption to the "mirrow image rule"contained in Art. 19(2). In particular, the response to an offer received, which has a different content, but not to such an extent as to substantially alter its terms (c.d. immaterial modifications), constitutes an acceptance of the offer unless the offeror, without undue delay, contests such discrepancies either orally or by serving a notice to that effect on the other party.
But what are the immaterial modifications introduced by Article 19(2)?
International jurisprudence has considered not substantiale.g. a change in the acceptor favourable to the proposer[3] or for these irrelevant[4]an amendment to the packaging clause[5]an amendment to the clause on the time limit for reporting defects[6]a warning that the price might fluctuate due to changes in market prices[7].
The third paragraph of the aforementioned Art. 19 comes to the interpreter's rescue, indicating the variations that instead are substantial and which therefore, if made in the answer, transform it into a rejection of the proposal, so that it necessarily becomes a counter-proposal. These are the modifications:
"the price, the payment, the quality and quantity of the goods, the place and time of delivery, the limits of one party's liability to the other or the settlement of disputes."
Arguably, the choice of having adopted a "mirrow image rule" is not rigid, it is dictated by the need to prevent one of the parties, who, in the presence of changed factual circumstances, intends to escape from its contractual obligations, from achieving this result by pointing out a non-substantial discrepancy between the proposal and acceptance and, therefore, the non-conclusion of the contract.[8]
Thus, in any hypothesis in which the adherent's general terms and conditions involve non-substantial modifications, the contract, in the absence of an objection on the part of the proposer, must be deemed to have been concluded and will be governed by the clauses contained in the acceptor's form (again, it should be noted that only the hypothesis in which it is only the adherent who has invoked the GTC and not both parties are being analysed at present).
2. When the GTC apply to the contract: Civil Code and CISG compared.
Taking the reasoning further, in the event that the adherent's GTC contain significant changes with respect to the proposal, the application of the civil law rules, as opposed to the Vienna Convention rules, has obvious practical impacts.
In fact, if only the civil law rules apply to the relationship, the problem will (mainly) be solved by using the tools provided by Art. 1341 of the Civil Code, which provides, in a very condensed form, (para. 1) that the GTC are effective vis-à-vis the party who received them, if they were known or knowable by him using ordinary diligence at the time of the conclusion of the contract, with the exclusion (para. 2) of the clauses "vexatious" the validity of which is, however, subject to specific written acceptance by the recipient.
With regard to non-'vexatious' clauses, there are essentially two limits to the enforceability of the GTC imposed by law:
- the reference to the time of the conclusion of the contract, the purpose of which is to exclude the effectiveness of general terms and conditions that the adherent has had the opportunity to become aware of at a time subsequent to the perfection of the contract (e.g. a text inserted in the invoice[9]);
- As for the criterion of ordinary care, this must refer to a concept of normalitywhich must be calibrated according to the type of economic transaction, it being however excluded that the adherent may be required to make a special effort or expertise in order to know the general terms and conditions used by the predisposing party.[10]
- Read also: General terms and conditions in national and international online sales. When are they valid?
If the Vienna Convention applies to the relationship, in addition to Art. 19, Arts. 14 and 18, which govern the "formation of the contract", as well as Arts. 7 and 8, which govern the criteria of interpretation, will come to the rescue.
Indeed, according to much of the doctrine[11] and case law[12]In the event of the application of the CISG to the relationship, the above rules are the only ones that must be adopted in order to understand the formal requirements to which the CISG must be subject, with the consequent inapplicability of the rules of Art. 1341 of the Civil Code.
- Read also: General Terms and Conditions, 1341 of the Civil Code and the Vienna Convention.
Like already analysed in a previous article, Art. 14 provides that a proposal addressed to one or more persons, in order to be such, must be sufficiently precise (sufficiently defined) and indicate its author's willingness to be bound.
In adopting this principle to the general terms and conditions of sale, the German Supreme Court stated that it must be apparent at the formation of the contract:
- expresses the offeror's intention to incorporate the GTC into the offer;
- the text must have been transmitted or, in any event, made available to it prior to the conclusion of the contract.[13]
The actual 'availability' of the GTC must be bilaterally assessed in each case, in the sense that it is also incumbent on the receiver, at the negotiation stage, to ascertain and understand whether or not the GTC are applicable to the relationship, using the diligence of the 'general terms and conditions of sale'.reasonable person"imposed on him by Art. formerly Article 8(2).[14]
It would seem, therefore, that the Convention imposes a higher degree of diligence on the entrepreneur in ascertaining and verifying by what contractual terms the relationship is governed; this is certainly in line with the spirit of the Convention, designed to regulate international sales relationships between operators in the sector who are required, necessarily, to have a level of competence appropriate to the activity they perform.
Similarly to civil law, the time at which the GTC are made known to the recipient is essential, which is why case law has held that GTC that have been submitted to the recipient once the relationship has already been concluded, i.e. by means of a reference thereto in the sales invoice, cannot form part of the contract.[15]
3. Implied acceptance by conclusive facts.
Once it has been established that the conditions were known or knowable to the recipient, the Convention being characterised by the principle of freedom of form (and evidence) under Art. 11, in the absence of express acceptance, it must be understood whether they were accepted implicitly, in accordance with the combined provisions of Art. 11 and Art. 11.Article 18 (acceptance of the proposal) and Article 8.
In fact, Article 18(1) states firstly that "a statement or other conduct of the recipient indicating consent to an offer constitutes an acceptance."Furthermore, Art. 18(3) states that "the recipient of the offer may indicate consent by performing an act relating, for instance, to the shipment of goods or payment of the price."
On this point, a US court ruled that:
"under the CISG, acceptance does not require a formal signature or acceptance of the offer. [...] The investigation showed that at the time STS had sent sales quotations to Centrisys, including general terms and conditions as an annex to the communication. By adopting the sales quotation, Centrisys accepted the contractual proposal for the sale of the centrifuge, including the general sales conditions."[16]
It is thus inferred that if the GTC were known or knowable (using the diligence of the reasonable man set forth in Art. 8) by the receiver and have been accepted by the latter by implication, they will form part of the contract unless the parties agree or the usages and customs applicable to the relationship make their validity conditional on a form which the parties have not complied with.
- Read also: International trading and the importance of customs and traditions: Vienna Convention and Civil Code compared.
4. Language of the CGC.
A very brief digression on the subject of the obligations of diligence of the receiving party, there are divergent orientations as to the validity of general terms and conditions written in a language not known to the receiving party; part of the case law, in fact, considers that the GTC written in a foreign language are in any event valid, precisely by virtue of the obligations under Art. 8(2), it being held that an entrepreneur or in any event an international operator, before signing a contract, is bound to verify what he is signing even (trivially) by having a simple translation made.[17]
5. Battle of the forms: knock-out and last shot rules.
At present, the scenario where only one of the two parties has sent its general terms and conditions has been analysed.
What happens, on the other hand, if one party sends a proposal to the other party, enclosing its own GTC, and the other party responds, albeit accepting the proposal, by enclosing its own GTC that differs from those received, and then both commence performance of the contract?
Considering that the parties have executed the contract, the need arises to understand from which clauses standard the relationship is regulated and two main approaches are used to do this: the last shot rule and the knock-out rule.
As an advocate of "last shot rule"it is deemed appropriate to refer to the most authoritative doctrine:
"if the general terms and conditions of the acceptor substantially alter the terms of the proposal, the contract cannot be considered to have been concluded, not even by excluding the conflicting general terms and conditions, as would be the case in part of the doctrine and case law which favour the so-called "Rechtsgültigkeitslösung" o "knock-out rule'. In our view, if the contract is performed, this must be considered as acceptance by the (original) offeror of the acceptor's counter-proposal - of which the general terms and conditions that substantially modify the original proposal also form part; in doctrine it has been referred to as the "knock-out rule".last shot rule'[18]
According to the different theory of 'knock-out rule"In the event that the parties have exchanged conflicting forms, the fact that the contract has been executed should be interpreted as the intention of the parties, not so much that they have not reached an understanding (otherwise the execution of the contract would not be explained), but rather that they have reached a consensus regardless of the conflicting clauses, which clauses must instead be removed from the contract.
The German Federal Court espoused this theory, justifying it on the basis of the criteria of good faith and fair dealing (Art. 7(1) CISG), stating that clauses contained within general terms and conditions become part of the agreement (only) if they do not conflict with each other.[19]
Certainly, this theory has implications that are far from easy to execute and difficult to apply in practice, if one thinks of the fact that it will have to be left to the judge to reconstruct the actual will of the parties pursuant to Art. 8, going so far as to delete the clauses on which there was no actual meeting of wills between the contracting parties.
[1] Bortolotti F. ''Handbook of International Commercial Law'' vol. II L.E.G.O. Spa, 2010; Ferrari F. ''General terms and conditions of contract in contracts for the international sale of movable goods'' in Obb. e Contr., 2007, 4, 308; Bonell M.J. ''The general terms and conditions in use in international trade and their evaluation at the transnational level'' in ''Le condizioni generali di contratto'' edited by Bianca M., Milan, 1981); Larry A. DiMatteo, International sales law. A global challenge, Cambridge, 2014.
[2] Cass. Civ. 2003, no. 16016.
[3] Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, 20.3.1997.
[4] China Internationale Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission, 10.6.2002.
[5] Oberlandesgericht Hamm, Germany, 22.9.1997.
[6] Landgericht Baden-Baden Germany, 14.8.1991.
[7] Cour d'Appel de Paris, France, 22.4.1992.
[8] Bellelli, sub. art. 19, Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, commentary coordinated by Bianca, CEDAM, 1992.
[9] Cass. Civ. 1962, 2890.
[10] Bianca, Civil Law, The Contract, 1987.
[11] Bortolotti F. ''Handbook of International Commercial Law'' vol. II L.E.G.O. Spa, 2010; Ferrari F. ''General Terms and Conditions of Contract in Contracts for the International Sale of Goods'' in Obb. e Contr., 2007, 4, 308; Bonell M.J. ''Le condizioni generali in uso nel commercio internazionale e la loro valutazione sul piano transnazionale'' in ''Le condizioni generali di contratto'' edited by Bianca M., Milan, 1981).
[12] Trib. Rovereto 24.8.2006; Cass. Civ. 16.5.2007, no. 11226.
[13] Bundesgerichtshof, Germany, 31.10.2001; on this point also Zeller, The CISG and the Battle of the Forms, in Di Matteo, op. cit.
[14] Zeller, The CISG and the Battle of the Forms, in Di Matteo, op. cit.
[15] Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté USA, Sabaté S.A.
[16] Golden Valley Grape Juice and Wine, LLC v- Centrisys Corporation, 22.10.2011.
[17] MCC.Marble Ceramic Centre v. Ceramica Nuova D'Agostinoin the opposite direction, Oberlandesgericht Celle, Germany, 2.9.1998.
[18] Ferrari, sub art. 19, Vendita internazionale di beni mobili, op. cit. in Mastromatteo, La Vendita internazionale, Giappichelli, 2013.
[19] Bundesgerichtshof, Germany, 9.1.2002.
General conditions of contract in national and international online sales. What if the Vienna Convention applies?
The regulation of general terms and conditions in e-commerce involves not a few insignificant complexities.
If on the one hand it seems easy enough from a practical point of view to ensure that the general terms and conditions of sale are knowable by means of certain expedients, it is certainly more complex and less easy to ensure that vexatious clauses are expressly approved in writing in accordance with the dictates of the second paragraph of Art. 1341 of the Civil Code.
The notion of general terms and conditions of contract ("GTC") is included in our legal system in Art. 1341 of the Civil Code. General Terms and Conditions of Contract are to be understood as a set of contractual clauses, which are by their nature generalitiesas they are intended to apply to all contracts of a given series, and of one-sidednessas they are only prepared by a contractor, the so-called predisponent.
The formula general terms and conditions thus expresses the practical phenomenon of the prior and unilateral formulation of a uniform negotiating content intended to be used to regulate an indefinite series of relationships belonging to the predisposer.[1]
1) When are they valid?
Art. 1341 of the Civil Code lays down, in relation to the content of general terms and conditions, two different requirements of effectiveness. It provides, in para. (1), for the general requirement of effectiveness of knowledge or cognizability and, in para. (2), for the particular requirement of effectiveness of specific approval in writing in the case of so-called vexatious or so-called onerous clauses.
1.1. Knowability and knowledge.
Knowability consists in the possibility for the adherent to acquire knowledge through the use of ordinary diligence. Therefore, for all contracts that are concluded by means of uniform contractual terms and conditions prepared by the contracting party, the favourable principle dictated by the first paragraph of Art. 1341 of the Civil Code applies, according to which the actual content of such clauses is enforceable against the other contracting party even if the latter, without having knowledge of them, should nevertheless have known them by using ordinary diligence.[2]
This, however, presupposes an activity on the part of the predisposing party that is appropriate to permit knowledge, taking into account the diligence that is normal to expect of the average adherent with reference to the type of economic transaction performed.[3]
1.2. Written proof and unfair terms.
Para. (2) regulates the specific situation in which the terms themselves are vexatious and provides that they, in order to be binding on the other contracting party, must be approved particularly in writing, in the knowledge that an objectively onerous obligation is being undertaken.[4] The list of unfair terms (which is exhaustive and not subject to extensive interpretation)[5] is specifically concerned with:
- limitations of liability (Art. 1229);
- power to withdraw from the contract (Art. 1373) or to suspend its performance (Art. 1461), or impose forfeitures on the other contracting party (Art. 2965);
- limitations on the right to raise objections (Art. 1462);
- Restrictions on freedom of contract in relations with third parties (arts. 1379, 1566, 2596), tacit extension or renewal of the contract (arts. 1597, 1899), arbitration clauses (art. 808 of the Code of Civil Procedure) or exceptions to the jurisdiction of the courts (arts. 1370; 6, 28, 29, 30, 413 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
Since one of the characteristics of the GTC is their unilateral nature, the need for written approval of unfair terms is excluded whenever the conclusion of the contract was preceded by a negotiation which specifically addressed the terms that would otherwise require an independent signature, whereas the signature remains indispensable for terms with vexatious content to which the party has adhered without any discussion.[6]
As to the manner of approval, it is generally held that there is no need for a specific signature for each vexatious term and that the requirement of specific approval in writing is also fulfilled in the case of numerical references to terms provided that they are accompanied by an indication, albeit summary, of their content.[7]
2) 1341 of the Civil Code and electronic commerce.
Applying the principles summarised above to the electronic marketplace entails not a few insignificant complexities: in particular, the double signature of vexatious clauses in telematic contracts is a very complex problem that has been debated both in doctrine and in jurisprudence.
If in a sale onlineOn the one hand, it seems quite easily solvable from a practical point of view to ensure the cognizability under Art. 1341 para. 1 of the Civil Code of the general terms and conditions of the contract by means of certain expedients (e.g. the insertion of link on the site or within the order, which refer to the GTC), it is certainly more complex and less straightforward to ensure that vexatious clauses are expressly approved in writing in accordance with the dictates of the second paragraph of the aforementioned article.
The solution that is normally adopted on e-commerce is to set up two form separate, one of which is intended for the approval of the general terms and conditions as a whole (by ticking a box and accepting with a "click"so-called "click-wrapping") and one of the vexatious clauses, which are then separately accepted (albeit by means of a "click").
Jurisprudence has had several occasions to pronounce on whether acceptance by click complies with the formal requirements imposed by Art. 1341(2) of the Civil Code, recording for the time being quite opposing positions.
There is a ruling by the Justice of the Peace of Trapani stating that:
"checking a box by clicking cannot be equated with the double signature requirement of Art. 1341 of the Civil Code, since it cannot be equated with the signature of the contracting party who has not prepared the text of the agreement."[8]
This guidance echoed a somewhat less recent decision of the Court of Catanzaro in 2012,[9] in which the plaintiff had complained of the vexatious nature of the clause contained in the terms of use of the principal's (eBay's) website, which allowed the company to suspend or delete at any time, even without justification, theaccount with which the seller could use the platform.
The Court had upheld the application, finding the abusive nature of the clause and noting that eBay had not set up a valid double acceptance mechanism pursuant to Art. 1341(2) of the Civil Code, through specific approval of the adherent of the GTC by means of digital signaturesince only the latter would have guaranteed the actual acceptance of the provision and the identifiability of the subscriber.
In the writer's opinion, given that the text of Art. 1341(2) of the Civil Code does not require the specific signing of the unfair terms, but rather their approval, the digital signature should not be considered a necessary element to ensure the fulfilment of this requirement, but rather to overcome a different (and further) obstacle, i.e. relating to the proof of the traceability of the signing of an electronic contract to a well-identified person.[11]
To this end, given that such 'identification' can also be carried out in a more streamlined manner and more in line with the business needs of both parties, it could be considered that the validity of the acceptance of the general terms and conditions by click and their traceability to a particular party could be more 'strengthened' if this is collected, for instance, following a login with insertion of user name e password by the member.[12]
It should be noted, however, that more recently, in 2018, the Court of Naples, in a similar case (still concerning eBay's terms of use), instead adopted a very different orientation, considering it unnecessary to introduce the requirement of a digital signature to accept the vexatious clauses, since this solution would have led to:
"transforming all telematic contracts into binding form contracts as a matter of pretext, requiring for their conclusion the use of a sophisticated instrument, not yet massively widespread among the public, and thus effectively paralysing the development at national level of an entire sector of trade that is becoming increasingly important at planetary level".
Again in this sense, we read in a decision of the Justice of the Peace of Partanna,[10] which had held that the requirement of written form under Article 1341(2) of the Civil Code was sufficient through
"a double assent, by pressing the appropriate button: one of adhesion and the other of approval of the so-called vexatious clauses."
3) 1341 Civil Code and international trade
3.1. Waiver of Jurisdiction.
After having, albeit very briefly, analysed the main issues concerning the limits of the usability of the GTC in the context of e-commerce, we go on to examine the possibility of waiving jurisdiction in favour of the judicial authority of a Member State by simply inserting an extension clause in the general terms and conditions, to be submitted to the adherent for acceptance by a simple click.
Article 23 of the Regulation Brussels I bisprovides that the agreement conferring jurisdiction must be concluded:
- "In writing or orally with written confirmation,
- or in a form permitted by the practices established between the parties, or
- in international trade, in a form permitted by a usage which the parties knew or ought to have known [...].
- The written form includes any electronic communication that allows for a durable record of the clause conferring jurisdiction"
The European Court of Justice[13] was asked to answer whether the click-through procedure, by which a buyer has access to the general terms and conditions of sale appearing on an internet site by clicking on a hyperlink opening a window, fulfils the requirements of Article 23(2) of the Brussels I Regulation.
The case concerned a car dealer established in Germany who, after having purchased on the defendant's (a Belgian-based company's) website, sued the seller in the German court of Krefeld. The seller entered an appearance arguing that the German courts did not have jurisdiction, since Article 7 of the GTC contained a clause conferring jurisdiction in favour of the court in Leuven (Belgium).
The European Court of Justice confirmed the jurisdiction of the Leuven court, holding that the procedure of acceptance by clicking on the general terms and conditions of a contract of sale concluded electronically, which contain a clause derogating from jurisdiction, constitutes an acceptance in writing of those terms and conditions, since they are electronic communications that do not open automatically upon registration on the website, can be saved or printed before the conclusion of the contract and therefore constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of Article 23(2) of the Regulation.
This issue was also recently submitted to the United Sections of the Supreme Court,[14] which have held that an extension of jurisdiction clause (pursuant to Article 23 of the Regulation) is valid even if it is contained in the general terms and conditions of a contract, expressly referred to in the purchase order signed by the customer and accessible from the web address referred to therein, and that prior to the conclusion of the contract, the text of those terms and conditions can be printed and saved.
The waiver of jurisdiction, therefore, does not require the specific written approval of the adherent, pursuant to Article 1341(2) of the Civil Code, since it does not fall within the vexatious clauses exhaustively listed therein. It should be noted that, according to a well-established jurisprudential orientation,[16] Article 1341 of the Civil Code dictates a criterion of jurisdiction and that this does not affect the different criteria of jurisdiction applicable to international disputes. The United Sections themselves[15] have recently pronounced themselves on this point, stating that:
"The requirement of written form, prescribed by Art. 23 of the Regulation [...], is fulfilled if the clause itself appears in the general terms and conditions of the contract, if the contractual document signed by both parties contains an express reference to the aforesaid general terms and conditions bearing that clause, without the need for a specific approval in writing pursuant to Art. 1341 of the Civil Code.
3.2. General Terms and Conditions and the Vienna Convention.
In the event that the general terms and conditions of the contract regulate international purchase and sale relations, the Vienna Convention (if any) is applicable,[17] the question arises whether or not the double signature requirement of Article 1341 of the Civil Code can be invoked.
Indeed, the Vienna Convention, like any other uniform contract law convention, does not regulate all questions that may arise in connection with the contracts it regulates; this is of no little importance if one considers that the questions that are not regulated will have to be resolved on the basis of the law applicable to the contractual relationship.[18]
On the contrary, all matters that are expressly regulated by the Convention will prevail over the rules of domestic law, which will be derogated from by it; in order to understand whether Art. 1341 of the Civil Code can be invoked in such a case, it is essential to understand whether or not the GTC are governed by such rules of uniform law.
According to more authoritative doctrine,[19] although the general terms and conditions of contract are not expressly regulated by the Vienna Convention, since in Part II thereof the "formation of the contract" is exhaustively regulated. it will be necessary to refer to the rules of the Vienna Convention in order to understand what formal requirements the GTC must comply with.
On the assumption that Article 11 of the Vienna Convention establishes the principle of the freedom of formpart of the doctrine[20] and case law[21] therefore held that in the event of the application of the Convention, the requirement under Article 1341 of the Civil Code that any vexatious clause drafted by one of the contracting parties be subject to specific written approval must be regarded as waived.
Following this principle and applying it to online sales, it can therefore be considered that, in the event of the application of the Vienna Convention, unfair terms included in general terms and conditions would not require specific approval, and could therefore also be accepted by 'click'; it would still be the duty of the originator (pursuant to Art. 9) to ensure that the adherent has been put in a position to become aware of them, by means of a 'proactive' attitude by virtue of a general obligation of good faith and commercial cooperation.[22]
[1] Bianca, Civil Law, Giuffrè, Third Edition, p. 340.
[2] Court Milan 18.6.2009.
[3] Bianca, The General Conditions of Contract, 1979, p. 2.
[4] Cass. civ. 2003, no. 1833.
[5] Cass. Civ. 2013, no. 14038.
[6] Cass. civ. 2020, no. 8268.
[7] Trib. Rimini, 4.4.2020; Cass. Civ. 2018, no. 17939.
[8] Giudice di pace Trapani, 14.10.2019, with note by Quarta La conclusione del contratto di albergo per via telematica: pagamento anticipato e revoca della prenotazione, Danno e responsabilità, 2020, 2; Giudice di pace Milano 28.01.2019, Tribunale di Catanzaro 30.4.2012, in Res. Civ. e prev., 2013, 2015 ff.
[9] Trib. Catanzaro 30.4.2012, in Contratti, 2013, 1, 41, with a note by V. Pandolfini, Contratto on line e clausole vessatorie: quale firma (elettronica)?
[10] Justice of the Peace Partanna 1.2.2002.
[11] The Court of Catanzaro itself argues that the contract is invalid because only the digital signature would have guaranteed the actual acceptance of the provision and the identifiability of the signatory.
[12] On this subject, see also Cerdonio Chiaramonte, Specific written approval of unfair contract terms, NGCC, No. 3, 2018.
[13] Court of Justice of the European Union, 21.5.2015, No. 322/14.
[14] Cass. Civ. Sec. Un. 2017, no. 21622.
[15] Cass. Civ. Sec. Un. 2020, no. 1871.
[16] On this point see Cass. Civ. Sec. Un. 1982, no. 6190, Cass. Civ. 2003, no. 17209, Cass. Civ. 2010, no. 14703.
[17] Article 1 of the Convention that it "shall apply to contracts of sale of goods between parties having their place of business in different States: a ) where those States are Contracting States; or b ) where the rules of private international law refer to the application of the law of a Contracting State."
[18] According to Italian case-law, issues relating to e.g. representation and prescription are not governed by the Convention (Trib. Padua 25.2.2004; Trib. Vigevano 12.7.2000).
[19] Ferrari, International Sale of Goods,
[20] Bortolotti F. ''Handbook of International Commercial Law'' vol. II L.E.G.O. Spa, 2010; Ferrari F. ''General Terms and Conditions of Contract in Contracts for the International Sale of Goods'' in Obb. e Contr., 2007, 4, 308; Bonell M.J. ''Le condizioni generali in uso nel commercio internazionale e la loro valutazione sul piano transnazionale'' in ''Le condizioni generali di contratto'' edited by Bianca M., Milan, 1981).
[21] Trib. Rovereto 24.8.2006; Cass. Civ. 16.5.2007, no. 11226.
[22] On this subject, Ferrari, General Terms and Conditions in Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Obbligazioni e contratti, 2007, 308.