OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [ubl] Naming of the Order Response document type



> mm1: In addition, a party has the capability to either accept or 
> reject an order. In business, that does not seem to indicate that 
> rejection is a counter-offer?
> Tell: Monica, I think you read my comment somewhat strange, as 
> commented a counter-offer usually corresponds to rejection+new offer. 

mm2: The rejection of an offer may or may not result in a new offer. The 
buyer may go to another supplier.

>> mm1: Anders, can you articulate what differences in format what you 
>> call an Order Acceptance or Rejection would be, if any?
>
> Tell: Could you elaborate on format? 

mm1: My point was to ask if the only difference between the Order 
Acceptance and Rejection was 'yes' (accept) or 'no' (reject) and if the 
format or information was basically the same otherwise. If that is true 
(and I would tend to think it is), then is it worthwhile to have 
separate business messages?

> I suggest you reread
> 1.United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of 
> Goods (Vienna 1980) ("CISG")
> <http://www.ebxml.nu/en/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=15>
> 2. UN/CEFACT Recommendation 31: ELECTRONIC COMMERCE AGREEMENT
> <http://www.ebxml.nu/en/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=14>
>
> and UN Rec 26 and UN/CITRAL Model law for eCommerce for normative 
> references. I hope find you most answers there. They constitute good 
> 'n easy reading. Without checking I belive that US has signed of on a 
> few of above conventions.
>
> Are you suggesting that above referenced conventions and model law are 
> not relevant for Global eCommerce?

mm1: No, that was not said or inferred.

> If so then it would beneficial for us all to be informed of your 
> hierachy of legal sources so we can consider them for standardization 
> work?

mm1: As has been indicated in UBAC and other venues including multiple 
groups within CEFACT, there is much more to be learned by all 
communities - legal, business and technical experts alike - to continue 
to evolve those references to account for capabilities, constraints, and 
new concepts and technologies available to the business. Thanks.

>
> Thanks
> /anders
>




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]