Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
THE CHINESE FOREIGN ECONOMIC CONTRACT LAW OF 19 OCTOBER 1987
Xu Guojian*
Adam Samuel †
This article considers the Responses of the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China to questions arising out of the application of the Foreign Economic Contract Law of 19 October 1987. A translation of the court’s responses is followed by commentaries from a Chinese, then a Western, perspective.
A. THE RESPONSES OF THE PEOPLE’S SUPREME COURT TO QUESTIONS ARISING OUT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE FOREIGN ECONOMIC CONTRACT LAW OF 19 OCTOBER 1987
1. The scope of application of the Foreign Economic Contract Law
(1) The Foreign Economic Contract Law shall apply to economic contracts concluded between enterprises or other economic entities of this country and foreign enterprises, other foreign economic entities or individuals. Such contracts include contracts for the sale of goods, equitable and contractual joint-ventures, joint-ventures for prospecting for and the extraction of natural resources, loans of money, contracts for the leasing of property and the transfer of technology, construction contracts, contracts for the supply of machinery, the processing of raw materials, the provision of services, barter contracts, contracts for the provision of scientific or technological advice or designs and contracts of guarantee, insurance, bailment and agency. However, excluded from the scope of this law are contracts for the international carriage of goods by sea, air, railway or multimodal transport.
(2) It is possible that the Foreign Economic Contract Law will also apply to economic contracts (as defined herein)
(i) concluded between enterprises, other economic entities or individuals from Hong Kong and Macao and enterprises or other economic entities from the mainland of China; or
(ii) to be performed or which have been concluded in China between
* University of Beijing; van Calker scholar, Swiss Institue of Comparative Law, Lausanne.
† Barrister; collaborateur scientifique, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law.
This article is a joint project, and the authors acknowledge each other’s assistance throughout, but there was a clear division of responsibilities. Xu Guojian is responsible for the Chinese law aspects of the work and Adam Samuel for the quality of the English presentation. In particular, Part B of the article was prepared by Xu Guojian and Part C by Adam Samuel: the views expressed in each of these commentaries are those of its author alone.
476