Mkthodologicai, changes in international trade law 157 University in 1988 when, indeed, he indicated a return of the principle in the form of what he called a “new right” more or less meaning a controlled freedom of contract.’’ You may well ask if there is any real freedom of contract in the area governed by standard contracts. True, we do accept to enter into such contracts but could we truly say that the provisions to be found in a standard contract are really accepted voluntarily by persons having to choose between “package deals” represented by standard contracts or not to contract at all? How many of us would ever read the terms of a standard contract? The contract is ready-made either by the individual contract party wishing to protect himself against certain risks following fromhis particular trade or by organizations taking care of his interests.Further, the introduction of electronic trading to the effect that you must speak to a computer with a codified language that the computer could understand — a so-called standardised EDI message — would effectively remove most of the contents of the contract from the minds of the contracting parties themselves. In Sweden, and certainly in other countries as well, law firms could subscribe to electronic schemes whereby they could obtain ready-made electronic contracts in a matter of seconds merely by extracting the text froma centrally based computer whereupon the text is offered for signature to the contracting parties. Where, one might ask, is the famous principle of the intention of the contracting parties as a basic for contract interpretation to be found in this situation? It is not surprising that mandatory legislation has been required in order to improve particularly the position of persons contracting for their own private purposes with enterprises using standardized contracting techniques. Further, it may also be necessary to depart from the principle that the effects of the contract is limited in the sense that the contract as such cannot be used as a basis for a legal action directed to other parties, the so-called principle of privity of contract. But, nevertheless, the ambition to protect the consumer would in some jurisdictions allow him to penetrate this shield set up by contract law in order to reach e. g. a producer having tendered goods for sale and resale." By the same method, the interest to protect the victims of damage to the environment may well cause the corporate veil to be lifted so that claims can be directed against '' P. S. Atiyali, Freedom ot Contract and the New Right, Juridiska fakultetens i Stockholm skriftserie No. 20, Stockholm 1989. Interventions bv the legislator have taken place in most countries either by administrative control of standard contracts or bv specific contract law legislation prohibiting certain clauses or permitting the setting-aside or mitigation ot unreasonable contract terms or by a combination of both these methods. " This is evidenced bv the 1985 EF.C-Directive (85/374 EEC) requiring the member States to enact product liability legislation based upon the principle of strict liability for tbe protection of the victims of personal iniuries or damage to “household” property. Sweden, although not being a member of EEC, has enacted such legislation which came into force 1 January 1993 (produktansvarslagen).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=