The Latin American Principles of Contract Law (PLACL) are the result of a laudable academic initiative. One of the features that makes this endeavour fascinating is that their drafters claim that it is not an iteration of other harmonisation processes. Rather, it is argued, the PLACL draw on Latin American legal culture, tradition, and identity. From a methodological standpoint, this suggests that the PLACL’s drafters adopted a culturalist approach to comparative legal studies. However, unlike other culturalist approaches, such as Pierre Legrand’s, the drafters do not emphasize the differences or particularities between the different legal systems under consideration – instead they focus on similarities. I submit that presenting this project as one that embraces the Latin American legal culture is quite demanding. The drafters should provide an account of what the Latin American legal culture is, and then show how the PLACL are rooted in that legal culture. This is critical, because the existence of a unique Latin American legal identity may be called into question. But more importantly, because it is one of the foundations of the project. Against this background, I argue that there is a perplexing indefiniteness regarding the legal culture that the PLACL would express. I shall proceed in three parts. First, I shall identify a methodological problem concerning representation. Second, I shall highlight a problem that stems from a method that focuses only on legal rules, doctrinal analysis, and case law. Finally, I shall question the inexistence of an analysis that identify the Latin American cultural identity.