Proof of International Commercial Contracts in Egypt

International commercial contracts constitute the cornerstone of regulating cross-border international trade, as they form the legal framework governing contractual relationships between parties operating under different legal and economic systems.

However, the distinctive nature of these contracts does not stem solely from the identity of the parties or the subject matter of the agreement, but is more clearly reflected in the rules of evidence that govern them.

Accordingly, the international commercial contract is not necessarily subject to the same formal constraints or traditional rules of evidence applicable under national laws. Rather, it is governed by a distinct legal philosophy based on procedural flexibility, the speed of commercial transactions, and the facilitation of the circulation of obligations, in a manner consistent with the requirements of modern international trade. Moreover, the multiplicity of legal systems and the diversity of legal sources among contracting states necessitate the adoption of a more open and expansive evidentiary regime.

In this context, national courts and international commercial arbitration, together with international conventions, have played a pivotal role in establishing specialized principles for the proof of international commercial contracts. These principles allow reliance on non-traditional means of evidence and alleviate formal rigidity, thereby achieving a balance between the stability of commercial transactions and the protection of the parties’ legitimate expectations, while keeping pace with the rapid evolution of international dealings.

The Principle of Freedom of Proof in International Commercial Contracts

The principle of freedom of proof in international commercial contracts is one of the well-established principles governing cross-border commercial transactions. This principle is based on allowing proof by all legally admissible means—whether written, electronic, oral, or derived from commercial correspondence and the conduct of the parties—unless there is an explicit agreement between the contracting parties requiring a specific method of proof, or unless the law applicable to the contract imposes a mandatory form that may not be contractually waived. This approach is grounded in the distinctive nature of international contracts, which are characterized by complexity and the interaction of multiple legal systems, making it impractical to subject them to the traditional formal constraints imposed by domestic laws.

Most comparative commercial legislations, as well as national courts and international commercial arbitration tribunals, have moved toward firmly entrenching this principle, recognizing the particular nature of international trade, which largely relies on remote contracting, electronic communications, negotiations conducted through modern means of communication, multiple currencies and languages, and varying legal positions of the parties. Excessive rigidity in formal rules of proof would inevitably hinder the flow of international trade and undermine the principles of speed and stability of commercial transactions.

In this context, jurisprudence has consistently held that international commercial contracts are subject, for evidentiary purposes, to the principle of freedom of proof once their commercial character and connection to international trade are established, regardless of the value of the obligation in dispute, even if it exceeds the financial thresholds prescribed for proof under civil laws. This judicial approach reflects a clear intent to strike a balance between protecting the legitimate expectations of the parties and ensuring the effectiveness and reliability of international commercial dealings, in a manner consistent with the requirements of the contemporary global economy.

Practical Means of Proof in International Commercial Contracts in Light of the Vienna Convention (CISG)

The principle of freedom of proof in international commercial contracts becomes even more evident when examining the practical means of evidence recognized by judicial practice, legal scholarship, and international commercial arbitration. Foremost among these are the commercial correspondences exchanged between the parties—whether conducted via email, letters, fax, or professional communication platforms such as WhatsApp Business—provided that such correspondences demonstrate the existence of a genuine contractual relationship and contain the essential elements of the agreement. Judicial practice has consistently held that the exchange of correspondence between two companies located in different states, where it reflects the concurrence of offer and acceptance and identifies the subject matter of the obligation, constitutes sufficient evidence of the existence of an international commercial contract, even in the absence of a single, formally executed written instrument. This approach is fully consistent with the practical reality of international trade, which often evolves through a series of accumulated understandings and reciprocal dealings.

International invoices and purchase orders also carry significant evidentiary value in the context of international commercial contracts, particularly where they are performed without objection, implicitly accepted through execution, or relied upon in shipping procedures or banking transfers. Commercial courts have regarded the failure to object in a timely manner to invoices or purchase orders as a strong presumption of acceptance of the contract’s content and terms, reflecting the parties’ implicit intent to be bound.

Equally important is the pivotal role played by judicial presumptions in proving international commercial contracts. The full or partial performance of the contract, the opening of a documentary credit, the transfer of advance payments, the receipt of goods, or the existence of a consistent prior course of dealing between the parties are all considered strong indicia of the existence of a contractual relationship, even in the absence of a written instrument. Jurisprudence has firmly established that the commencement or continuation of performance constitutes judicial evidence of the existence and valid formation of an international commercial contract.

The role of international commercial customs (lex mercatoria) is likewise of substantial importance in the interpretation and proof of international contracts. These include the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Incoterms, transport and shipping customs, and international banking practices. Courts and international arbitration tribunals have recognized such customs as a supplementary source that fills evidentiary gaps and determines the content of contractual obligations, particularly in cross-border commercial environments.

This practical evidentiary framework is further reinforced by the provisions of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), to which the Arab Republic of Egypt is a contracting state. The Convention establishes a fundamental principle whereby no particular form is required for the conclusion or proof of an international sales contract, and permits proof by any means, including witness testimony and reliance on the subsequent conduct of the parties. This approach reflects a coherent international legislative and judicial trend aimed at achieving flexibility, transactional efficiency, and stability in international trade, free from formal rigidity that is incompatible with the nature of the contemporary global economy.

Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration and the Role of the IBA Rules

International commercial arbitration is characterized by broad procedural flexibility in matters of evidence, which fundamentally distinguishes it from national judicial proceedings. The arbitral tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of evidence prescribed under domestic laws; rather, it operates on the basis of the principle of free conviction and enjoys wide discretionary powers in admitting evidence and assessing its probative value. This flexibility serves to ensure the speed of proceedings and the effective resolution of international commercial disputes.

In this context, the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration have emerged as a widely used international practical reference. These Rules constitute an indicative framework that balances the traditions of civil law and common law systems, and aim to organize the evidentiary process before arbitral tribunals without undermining their independence or the parties’ autonomy.

The IBA Rules grant arbitral tribunals flexible authority to manage the evidentiary process, allowing the admission of various forms of evidence, including paper and electronic documents, digital correspondence, expert reports, witness testimony, and practical presumptions, provided that such evidence is relevant and material to the dispute. This is carried out in compliance with the principles of equality of the parties and the right to be heard.

The Rules also regulate the mechanism for document production through the use of the Redfern Schedule, which prevents abusive or disproportionate disclosure requests while ensuring access to essential evidence, with due regard to considerations of confidentiality and legal privilege.

Recognizing the realities of modern commerce, the IBA Rules expressly acknowledge the evidentiary value of electronic evidence in international arbitration, and permit reliance on the parties’ subsequent conduct as a presumption of the existence or interpretation of contractual obligations. This further reinforces the practical and flexible character of evidentiary rules governing cross-border commercial relationships.

The IBA Rules are not binding per se; rather, they apply by express agreement of the parties or by decision of the arbitral tribunal as a set of internationally recognized best practices in evidentiary matters. Their widespread adoption by leading arbitral institutions such as the ICC, LCIA, and UNCITRAL has contributed to their establishment as a practical benchmark that achieves a balance between procedural efficiency and the guarantees of due process and fairness.

Limitation of Actions in International Commercial Contracts in Light of the Vienna Convention and Egyptian Law

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) does not regulate the issue of limitation periods, as its scope of application is confined to the formation of the international sales contract, the core obligations imposed on the seller and the buyer, and the consequences of breach, without addressing the extinction of claims or their lapse by limitation. International legal doctrine and jurisprudence have consistently held that limitation of actions falls outside the scope of the CISG and must therefore be governed by the law applicable to the contract, as determined by conflict-of-laws rules or by the parties’ express agreement. An exception arises only where the contractual relationship is expressly subjected to the United Nations Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods of 1974, as amended by the 1980 Protocol, which establishes a uniform limitation period of four years for claims arising out of international sales.

Within this framework, where Egyptian law is the applicable law, limitation in commercial contracts is governed— as a general rule—by the provisions of the Egyptian Civil Code, unless a special provision provides otherwise. Under the general rules, claims arising from obligations are subject to a limitation period of fifteen years, representing the long limitation period. However, in order to ensure the stability of transactions and the rapid circulation of commercial rights, the Egyptian legislator has prescribed shorter limitation periods for certain transactions of a specific commercial nature, through explicit provisions set out in the Commercial Code No. 17 of 1999 and other special laws, as applicable to claims relating to traders, carriage, brokerage, and commercial agency.

It follows that the limitation regime applicable to commercial contracts, whether at the international level or under Egyptian law, is based on the principle of referral to the law governing the contract, with the application of the general long limitation period in the absence of a special provision, and the precedence of special statutory limitation rules where they exist. This approach strikes a balance between the protection of rights and the stability of legal positions in cross-border commercial transactions.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, it is evident that international commercial contracts are governed by a flexible legal framework with respect to rules of evidence and limitation periods, one that is well-suited to the nature of cross-border trade and the plurality of legal systems. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) has enshrined the principle of freedom of evidence and the absence of any formal requirements, while leaving matters of limitation periods to the applicable law or, where the parties so intend, to the Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods. This approach strikes a careful balance between the harmonization of substantive rules and respect for national legislative sovereignty.

Egyptian law further reinforces this approach by subjecting commercial contracts, as a general rule, to the limitation rules set out in the Egyptian Civil Code, while providing for specific limitation periods under the Commercial Code and related legislation, in pursuit of transactional stability and the expeditious resolution of commercial disputes. In parallel, international commercial arbitration offers a more flexible procedural environment for evidentiary matters, supported by international best practices, most notably the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, which allow for reliance on electronic correspondence, invoices, practical presumptions, and the subsequent conduct of the parties.

Accordingly, a thorough understanding of the rules of evidence and limitation periods applicable to international commercial contracts constitutes a fundamental element in effective legal risk management, the drafting of international contracts, and the efficient resolution of commercial disputes. Such an integrated approach contributes to enhancing legal certainty, safeguarding contractual rights, and achieving fairness and predictability within the contemporary international trading system.

Frequently Asked Questions

To find out more, please fill out the form or email us at: info@eg.Andersen.com

Contact Us