Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do trade usages – as factual practices – transition from is to ought, from fact to norm? In the hierarchy of governing rules in contract law, the position occupied by trade usages is ambiguous: they can theoretically be regarded as deriving authority from incorporation into a contract or, conversely, as freestanding legal norms. In the context of transnational arbitration, this issue is particularly salient: the parties are free to agree upon the ‘rules of law’ of their choosing; usages, however, will most often trump provisions of the governing law if they are seen as (in most cases, tacitly!) implied contract terms.The treatment of usage as either fact or norm varies across jurisdictions, as the comparatist Ernst Rabel mapped out as early as 1936. Today, the differences he identified still reverberate in the wording of article 9(2) CISG. Notably, while legislative records indicate that most delegations struggled with this article’s wording for predominantly ideological reasons, Germany’s concerns were rooted in theory. This is because, as Rabel had earlier diagnosed, German law took a dual approach to trade usages, treating them neither as an independent source of objective law nor as merely contractual content. Nowadays, German jurists commonly agree that usages generate binding force only via the normativity of contract, yet remnants of the ambivalence described by Rabel can still be observed. This paper traces the history and continuing effects of this tension, at the heart of which lies the interpretation of 'Verkehrssitte', a word that is usually translated as ‘customary practice’ (i.e. fact), but that has strongly normative overtones in German. Informed by recent comparative law scholarship on contract interpretation in the common and civil law, I explore the interplay between the notion of 'Verkehrssitte' (of which trade usages are a subset), ‘subjective’ will theory, and the ‘objective’ theory of contract, also deriving insight from the position occupied by ‘good faith’ in German law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".