| ||1. Parties using different standard terms
It is quite frequent in commercial transactions for both the offeror when making the offer, and the offeree when accepting it, each to refer to its own standard terms. In the absence of express acceptance by the offeror of the offeree’s standard terms, the problem arises as to whether a contract is concluded at all and if so, which, if either, of the two conflicting sets of standard terms should prevail.
2. “Battle of forms” and general rules on offer and acceptance
If the general rules on offer and acceptance were to be applied, there would either be no contract at all since the purported acceptance by the offeree would, subject to the exception provided for in Article 2.1.11(2), amount to a counter-offer, or if the two parties have started to perform without objecting to each other’s standard terms, a contract would be considered to have been concluded on the basis of those terms which were the last to be sent or to be referred to (the “last shot”).
3. The “knock-out” doctrine
The “last shot” doctrine may be appropriate if the parties clearly indicate that the adoption of their standard terms is an essential condition for the conclusion of the contract. Where, on the other hand, the parties, as is very often the case in practice, refer to their standard terms more or less automatically, for example by exchanging printed order and acknowledgement of order forms with the respective terms on the reverse side, they will normally not even be aware of the conflict between their respective standard terms. There is in such cases no reason to allow the parties subsequently to question the very existence of the contract or, if performance has commenced, to insist on the application of the terms last sent or referred to.
It is for this reason that this Article provides, notwithstanding the general rules on offer and acceptance, that if the parties reach an agreement except on their standard terms, a contract is concluded on the basis of the agreed terms and of any standard terms which are common in substance (“knock-out” doctrine).
1. A orders a machine from B indicating the type of machine, the price and terms of payment, and the date and place of delivery. A uses an order form with its “General Conditions for Purchase” printed on the reverse side. B accepts by sending an acknowledgement of order form on the reverse side of which appear its own “General Conditions for Sale”. When A subsequently seeks to withdraw from the deal it claims that no contract was ever concluded as there was no agreement as to which set of standard terms should apply. Since, however, the parties have agreed on the essential terms of the contract, a contract has been concluded on those terms and on any standard terms which are common in substance.
A party may, however, always exclude the operation of the “knock-out” doctrine by clearly indicating in advance, or by later and without undue delay informing the other, that it does not intend to be bound by a contract which is not based on its own standard terms. What will in practice amount to such a “clear” indication cannot be stated in absolute terms but the inclusion of a clause of this kind in the standard terms themselves will not normally be sufficient since what is necessary is a specific declaration by the party concerned in its offer or acceptance.
2. The facts are the same as in Illustration 1, except that A claims that the contract was concluded on the basis of its standard terms since they contain a clause which states that “Deviating standard terms of the party accepting the order are not valid if they have not been confirmed in writing by us”. The result will be the same as in Illustration 1, since merely by including such a clause in its standard terms A does not indicate with sufficient clarity its determination to conclude the contract only on its own terms.
3. The facts are the same as in Illustration 1, except that the non-standard terms of A’s offer contain a statement to the effect that A intends to contract only on its own standard terms. The mere fact that B attaches its own standard terms to its acceptance does not prevent the contract from being concluded on the basis of A’s standard terms.