Albert H. Kritzer, 1928-2010

My recent posts about the status of the CISG and CUECIC and the possible CISG implications of the McDonald's glassware recall sent me, as is almost always the case when I want to refresh my recollection of CISG text or catch up on recent cases and commentary, to the Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law's expansive, free, and always helpful online CISG Database.

Revisiting the site yesterday, I read the sad news that Albert H. Kritzer, the Institute's founder and godfather of the CISG Database, passed away June 1, while in Egypt to receive the 2010 Arab Conference for Commercial and Maritime Law Career Achievement Award. Pace Law School's notice, including comments from Dean Michelle Simon, is available here.

I met Al Kritzer only once, and briefly, in person, during a break in a conference at Pace Law School that his colleague Jim Fishman hosted commemorating Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon. However, Al and I corresponded (mostly by e-mail) and he was kind enough to introduce me (again, via e-mail) to Joseph Lookofsky (another CISG luminary) and to introduce much of the domestic and international CISG community (via the CISG Database) to my work analyzing the then-entire corpus of published U.S. CISG case law in the chapter on the CISG that I comprehensively revised and greatly expanded a few years ago for Howard O. Hunter's Modern Law of Contracts. Al subsequently invited me to contribute substantive case commentaries to the CISG Database, in which I have been largely remiss for a variety of reasons. I hope that his successor will allow me to honor Al's invitation -- and his life's work.

Would you like some cadmium with your soft drink?

Yesterday, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in conjunction with fast-food giant McDonald’s®, voluntarily recalled about 12 million Shrek Forever After™ collectible drinking glasses sold or awaiting sale at McDonald’s® locations throughout the U.S. after someone in Representative Jackie Speier's (D-CA) office alerted the CPSC that the movie-character illustrations on the glasses contained cadmium, prolonged exposure to which may pose a serious long-term health risk.

Millville, NJ-based Durand Glass Manufacturing Co. (DGMC), a subsidiary of Arques, France-based Arc International, manufactured the movie-themed glasses, which another Arc International subsidiary, Millville-based Arc International North America, distributed exclusively to McDonald's. McDonald's locations nationwide sold the glasses in May and early June 2010.

McDonald's web site addresses the recall through a series of FAQs (and answers). (For the benefit of those with short attention spans, every answer to which the statement would be germane includes the statement "the CPSC has said the glassware is not toxic.") Arc International deployed a press release. Representative Speier posted a statement on her web site, which also includes a link to a Los Angeles Times article about the recall. Only DreamWorks™ appears to be mum on the subject -- so far, at least. (Perhaps the Shrek-iverse's creators didn't retain all of the product licensing-rights like George Lucas did, not so long ago and not so far away, with the original Star Wars™ trilogy or they made McDonald's pay a non-refundable lump sum to market the glassware.) Rumors of a replacement glass featuring an image of McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner that transmogrifies into a Shrek-alike when filled with any non-Coca-Cola® brand soft or sport drink appear to be completely unfounded.

All fun aside, why is a commercial law blog interested in allegedly cadmium-contaminated glassware products introduced into the stream of commerce without any warning about or disclaimer regarding the possibility that they might contain an alleged carcinogen?

If this were a tort law or products liability blog, we might opine about the inevitable class-action product liability lawsuit against some combination of McDonald's, Arc International, Arc International North America, Durand Glass Manufacturing Co., the as-yet undisclosed supplier(s) of the cadmium-contaminated paint or other ingredient Durand used to commemorate Shrek™, Fiona™, Donkey™, and Puss in Boots™ (okay, Puss is probably not trademarked, given that the character's name dates from the late Seventeenth century, but we want to minimize our exposure to IP liability because most of us teach at public universities and neither we nor our employers can afford, in the current fiscal climate, to defend any infringement claim that survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion) on the glassware (and, perhaps, DreamWorks -- for making a movie about which McDonald's predicted sufficient interest that it undertook to procure the offending glassware for resale).

If this were a civil procedure blog we might weigh whether the terms and conditions (no doubt, conveniently located somewhere on the Internet) purportedly governing McDonald's sale of the collectible glassware unconscionably compel non-class arbitration (assuming facts not in evidence) in light of the Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (cert. granted May 24, 2010), about which my friend and UNLV colleague Jean Sternlight and my friend and ContractsProf Blog colleague Meredith Miller have recently blogged here and here, respectively.

If this were a consumer law blog, we might wring our hands or cluck our tongues at yet another clear example of Corporate America's crass exploitation of our children and squeeze-the-last-penny sellers who outsource production of low-priced, lower-cost consumer goods to Third World outposts like ... New Jersey. (Just kidding, Jay.)

But, again, what's the commercial law angle on collectible glassware manufactured for and sold to McDonald's for resale to McDonald's retail customers?

It should go without saying that the most interesting legal issues arising out of this scenario involve (1) what express and implied UCC Article 2 warranties each seller in the chain from DGMC (or DGMC's ingredient supplier) to McDonald's made to anyone who purchased or used the glassware; (2) to what extent, if any, each seller in that chain may have disclaimed some or all of its warranty liability, limited the remedies available to the buyer, user, or other person affected by the glassware's use, or both; (3) whether one or more warranty-making sellers breached one or more warranties to one or more buyer, user, or other person affected by the glassware's use; and (4) what remedies Article 2 affords any person to whom any seller is liable for breach of warranty.

For those wanting to add some international spice to the mix, the CBC reports here that the recall has spread to include all Canadian McDonald's restaurants. Information from the Associated Press and Reuters, reported here, indicates that recalling the glassware sent to Canadian McDonald's restaurants raises the total number of recalled glasses to 13.4 million. Both the U.S. and Canada are parties to the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). To the extent that the Canadian McDonald's restaurants purchased their Shrek Forever After™ collectible glassware from New Jersey-based DGMC or New Jersey-based Arc International North America, that transaction constituted a sale of specially-manufactured goods (CISG art. 3(1)), purchased for resale, rather than personal, family, or household use (CISG art. 2(a)), by a buyer located in one CISG "contracting state" from a seller located in a different "contracting state" (CISG art. 1(1)(a)). Therefore, unless the Canadian McDonald's buyers and New Jersey-based DGMC or New Jersey-based Arc International North America effectively opted out of the CISG (CISG art. 6), any breach of warranty claim the Canadian buyers might have (CISG art. 35), the extent to which any U.S. seller disclaimed any warranty or limited its liability for breaching any warranty (CISG arts. 6 & 35), and the available remedies (CISG arts. 45-52 & 74-78), will be matters for the CISG to resolve.

Meanwhile, on the UNCITRAL Front

Having recently updated you on the status of the various official UCC revisions and amendments (nothing new to report on that front, by the way), I thought it would be worthwhile to take UNCITRAL's pulse and see how the U.N. Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) and on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracting (CUECIC) are faring.

Both strike me as profoundly relevant to anyone teaching Contracts, Sales (or a UCC survey course that includes sales), International Sales (or an International Commercial Transactions survey course), or -- at least in the CUECIC's case -- an Electronic Commerce course. The CUECIC's fortunes might also shed some light on the likelihood that the ALI Principles of the Law of Software Contracts will influence contracting practices, contracting disputes, and the evolution of contract law outside the U.S.

CISG

The U.N. first approved the CISG 30 years ago, and it had gathered the requisite ten ratifications and accessions to take effect ("enter into force" to use the U.N.'s terminology) on January 1, 1988. As of June 1, 2010, when Albania's accession entered into force, the CISG was in effect in 74 countries, including Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Russian Federation and ten of the other fourteen former Soviet republics, Singapore, and South Korea. Great Britain and most of OPEC's member-states are notable non-signatories.

CUECIC

The U.N. General Assembly adopted the CUECIC in November 2005. Despite the International Chamber of Commerce's endorsement, only 18 countries have signed the convention, and none has acceded to, accepted, approved, ratified, or succeeded to it. Consequently, it is not yet in effect anywhere. Moreover, nearly 2-1/2 years have passed since Honduras became the most recent signatory in January 2008. The United States and most of its major trading partners -- excluding China, the Russian Federation, Singapore, and South Korea -- have not signed the CUECIC.

The CISG and the Vis International Moot: Twin Ideas for Effective Lawyering in a Globalized World

This year marks the 17th anniversary of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot (The Moot.) The Moot takes place annually in the Spring in Vienna, Austria with participants from over 100 law schools hailing from civil and common law countries. The journey is not only a milestone for the student participants, but a bridge to international understanding through the rule of law. The Moot engages students in the art of effective advocacy, and conveys the important message that the adversarial process is not necessarily an arena for gladiators.

The stated goal of the Moot is "to foster the study of international commercial law and arbitration for the resolution of international business disputes through its application to a concrete problem of a client and to train law leaders of tomorrow in methods of alternative dispute resolution." (www.cisg.law.pace.edu/vis.html).

I was privileged to participate in the Ninth Moot in 2001-2002, while a student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. One year later, I served as coach to a group of students at the Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo, Japan. Both events galvanized the premise that law schools in the United States need to engage students in this level of competition to enhance legal education. Specifically, participation in the Moot will bolster legal writing and advocacy skills. The message is being heard as each year, more law schools are discovering the Moot. Some law schools in the United States and Europe have incorporated the Moot into the curriculum. For example, Touro Law School and the University of Pittsburgh have collaborated with schools in Central and Eastern Europe to offer a summer program structured around the Moot. (www.law.pitt.edu/academics/cile/jdprogram/studyabroad).

In the area of advocacy, preparation for the Moot will be extremely beneficial, even to first year law students. In this critical area, the Moot provides students with skills in the art of persuasion. Not only do particpants learn to write persuasive arguments, but they develop, and hone the nuances of rhetoric on the international stage. The Moot is organized around a contractual problem, which asks students to analyze the articles of the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (www.uncitral.org). As such, students are exposed to the work of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and acquire the added bonus of exposure to comparative legal systems. Specifically, for U.S. law students comparing the rules of Article 2 of the UCC with the CISG is both challenging and exciting. As a result, participants in the Moot develop critical skills in international commercial law that even seasoned lawyers lack.

Moreover, the CISG is at the heart of the Moot. This treaty espouses the theory that economic rights are human rights. The treaty provides uniform rules governing certain aspects of the making and performance of everyday commercial contracts for the sale of goods. Article 7 of the CISG provides that "the adoption of uniform rules, which govern contracts for the international sale of goods should take into account the different social, economic and legal systems." The CISG was created to foster the development of international trade on the basis of equality and mutual benefit as an important element in promoting friendly relations among states. The CISG aims to promote international trade by removing legal barriers in international trade, and to unify the sales law of international trade.

Although the focus of the moot is commercial arbitration, the format of the Moot serves several pedagogical needs. Foremost among them is a focus on the representation of clients from diverse backgrounds and diverse legal systems. In this age of globalization and multiculturalism, the Moot provides ample opportunity for students' exposure to crucial interpersonal lawyering skills. Participation in the Moot exposes students to principles of fairness in international contracts, which will instill an awareness of multiculturalism and widen the lenses of their worldview. In addition, the Moot provides students with the opportunity for research and writing, oral adovacy and treaty interpretation.

Each year, the Moot problem focuses on issues of contract drafting, which helps students understand choice of law issues. In the practical context, students learn the importance of effective drafting. These issues allow students to grapple with civil and common law systems of procedure. Although the advocacy space is based primarily on arbitration principles, this forum provides participants with the rhetorical skills needed for effective advocacy, albeit in a non-confrontational and less adversarial manner. In addition, preparation for the Moot can bolster student confidence, and help prepare them for oral advocacy.

Finally, the tenets of multicultural lawyering form the bedrock of the CISG. As outlined in its preamble, the overarching goal of the CISG is to erase disparities in international trade. The CISG espouses the principles of effective lawyering through its emphasis on the use of simpler, clearer language in international contracts. According to Professor Harry Flechtner, the CISG seeks the "ommission of awesome relics through its push for a unified language in the drafting of international contracts." See John Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales Under the 1980 United Nations Convention 30 (Harry Flechtner ed., 4th ed. 2009). This transformative capacity of the Vis Moot and the CISG to improve communication across cultures and transfer the rule of law around the globe will enhance the law school experience, and add value to the lawyering process for law students and practitioners.