well as the Principles of European Contract Law (1995), 926 the latter hoping to advance the Lando Commission’s impossible dream of a hard-core European Code. 927

In other comparative contexts, however, the ‘postmodern’ tendency has been to debunk (or at least tone down) such ‘universals’ – this reflecting the view that differences between legal systems and constructs often trump the similarities. 928 This is not to say that there are no (near) equivalents, nor that unification is doomed to remain illusory, but rather that even within the most successful supra-national codifications, subtle differences in the language and content of underlying domestic conceptions deserve our continuing attention.

During my tenure as an academic at the University of Copenhagen (1981-2015), I focused – not on comparative studies as such – but rather on Danish domestic Obligations, Contracts and Sales. Still, having studied two legal systems from top to toe, 929 each in its original language, I often saw one system’s rule or construct in light of the other system’s pendant. I also often compared domestic sales law with the 1980 Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), 930 the rule set that became an integral part of American law (in 1988) and Danish law (in 1990). 931

In some of these contexts, I found that even hard-to-translate rules and constructs ultimately lead to similar substantive solutions. In other instances, where a given rule or construct in one system might at first appear to ‘translate’ readily into something similar in the other, the results upon closer analysis proved very different.