Parol Evidence Under the CISG: The Homeward Trend Reconsidered, 68 Ohio St. L.J. 133 (2007)

The CISG has been described as one of history \u27s most successful attempts to harmonize international commercial law. Consistent with its goal of harmonizing the law of international sales, Article 7(1) of the CISG instructs courts and arbitrators to interpret the Convention in light of its international character and the need to promote uniformity in its application. MCC-Marble v. Ceramica Nuova D\u27Agostina is a U.S. decision that has been praised for its adherence to Article 7(1). In contrast with conventional academic commentary, which praises MCC-Marble and criticizes the tendency of courts to interpret the CISG in light of their respective domestic legal traditions (the homeward trend\u27), this Essay critiques MCC-Marble as a decision that emphasizes uniformity at the expense of other important considerations. Notwithstanding Article 7(1), uniformity was not the exclusive goal of the CISG project. Although it may result in some inconsistency in the Convention\u27s implementation, the homeward trend also should enhance the CISG\u27s legitimacy and acceptability over the long term. MCC-Marble is examined to illustrate how its interpretative approach to the CISG\u27s provisions regarding parol evidence may exacerbate the tendency of US. parties to opt out of the CISG. This Essay argues for an interpretation of the CISG that allows greater weight to be afforded the terms of a final written agreement