A Comparison of the CISG, Chinese Sales Law, and U.S. Sales Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation will analyze how the CISG works as the governing law in international business contract disputes and how the CISG is applied to achieve globality goals. The basic structure of this dissertation is premeditated by an in-depth assessment of the current state of the research field of CISG. Although many articles and books focus on the CISG, this dissertation follows a unique, novel structure. The dissertation begins by stating the current need for the CISG updated scholarships. Then, it delineates the CISG creation and application. After, it compares the CISG, Chinese Sales Law, and U.S. Sales Law. The dissertation then expands upon the practical use of the CISG application and opt-out, and finally, it closes with a summary and suggestions. Using this structure, readers begin with the latest statistics on international merchandise trade and then move on to the intricacies of CISG. This logical structure will help the reader understand this dissertation and leave them with a better understanding. This dissertation is novel in that it compares the CISG, Chinese Sales Law, and U.S. Sales Law and the improvements of the CISG’s applicability and globality goal. There are not many pieces of scholarship on these two topics. Additionally, it helps understand how the COVID-19 outbreak impacted the global economy by decreasing the amount of international business transactions. However, the WTO statistics on merchandise show that both the merchandise trade volume and value have increased since the 4th quarter of 2020. 19 Those increases indicate that the international economy is recovering, and the increasing trend in international trade is overwhelming. Under such circumstances, the need to understand the CISG is imperative. Lastly, this dissertation is sound, especially the summary and suggestions. The summary lists the reasons for the failure of the CISG applicability and globality goal, which is evident in business activities but usually ignored. The suggestions are practical. They are concrete steps to improve the current application problem.Y
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".