The Right of a Defaulting Party to Restitution When a Contract has not Been Rescinded

1974 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 352-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Friedmann ◽  
Asher Maoz
Keyword(s):  
Contract Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Satisfactory Solution ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

Is a party who breaks his contract entitled to restitution? This is one of the most difficult problems in the law of contracts. Williston, for instance, remarks:Few questions in the law have given rise to more discussion and difference of opinion than that concerning the right of one who has materially broken his contract without legal excuse to recover for such benefit as he may have conferred on the other party by part performance of an indivisible contract or by the performance of an indivisible fraction of a divisible portion of a contract. A satisfactory solution is not easy.We shall examine this question in light of the provisions of the Contracts (Remedies for Breach of Contract) Law, 1970.Sec. 9 of the Law reads as follows:(a) Where the contract is rescinded, the person in breach shall restore to the injured party what he has received thereunder, or, if restitution is impossible or unreasonable or the injured party so chooses, shall pay him the value thereof; and the injured party shall restore to the person in breach what he has received under the contract, or, if restitution is impossible or unreasonable or the injured party so chooses, shall pay him the value thereof.(b) Where part of the contract is rescinded, the provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to what the parties have received under that part.

Part I Introduction, 1 The Nature of Termination

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stannard John E ◽  
Capper David
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Right To Refuse

This chapter discusses the nature of termination for breach. Termination for breach can be seen both as a process and as a remedy. Traditionally, the topic has been dealt with under the broader umbrella of ‘discharge’, alongside such topics as performance, frustration, and agreement. Problems arise, however, when the notion of discharge is pressed too far; in particular, the idea of the contract ‘coming to an end’ can be a misleading one, and has given rise to various errors and misconceptions. For this and other reasons, more emphasis is now given to termination in the context of remedies. Termination can be one of the most useful weapons in the armoury for the victim of a breach of contract, not least because, unlike many other remedies, it does not require recourse to the courts. However, this notion of termination as a remedy should not obscure the close relationship between termination and the other modes of discharge, most notably frustration. The chapter then looks at the problems in this area of the law, including problems of terminology, the different ways in which common law and equity have approached the question, and the relationship between discharge and damages. It also considers the most important aspects of the right to terminate, including the right to refuse performance.

15. Breach of contract

Contract Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 429-466
Author(s):  
TT Arvind
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
The Core ◽  
Anticipatory Breach ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines how English law defines breach of contract and what the immediate effect of breach is on the validity of the contract, along with the obligations of the parties under the contract. It first considers the core principles underlying the law’s approach to defining breach before explaining how the courts assess performance and the consequences of breach, with particular emphasis on cases involving repudiation. It then discusses three types or classes of contractual terms: conditions, warranties, and innominate terms. It also looks at how the law deals with situations of anticipatory breach and concludes with an analysis of the scope and limits of the right of a party to terminate the contract following a repudiatory breach by the other party.

15. Breach of contract

Contract Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
TT Arvind
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
The Core ◽  
Anticipatory Breach ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines how English law defines breach of contract and what the immediate effect of breach is on the validity of the contract, along with the obligations of the parties under the contract. It first considers the core principles underlying the law's approach to defining breach before explaining how the courts assess performance and the consequences of breach, with particular emphasis on cases involving repudiation. It then discusses three types or classes of contractual terms: conditions, warranties, and innominate terms. It also looks at how the law deals with situations of anticipatory breach and concludes with an analysis of the scope and limits of the right of a party to terminate the contract following a repudiatory breach by the other party.

remedies which the law provides for breach of contract supposedly serve to place the party not in breach in the position he would have been in had the promise been performed. In contrast, many reliance based obligations arise by operation of law through the medium of tortious duties to exercise reasonable care. Here the basis of any award of damages is to return the injured party to the position he was in before the defendant’s wrong was committed. As such, the interest protected is not one of expectation of performance, but instead the status quo interest – the claimant is compensated so as to restore the status quo before the defendant committed his wrong. While many reliance based obligations do involve the protection of the status quo interest, it should not be assumed that this is always the case. In particular, it should not be assumed that expectations of performance are entirely irrelevant where a promisee has reasonably relied upon the promise of the other party. Statements other than purely contractual promises are also capable of engendering expectations in another person. Much of the difficulty associated with identifying the interest protected when promises which induce reliance are enforced arises from the view in Combe v Combe that the doctrine of promissory estoppel operates as a shield rather than as a sword. However it has been seen that there may be circumstances in which the courts may allow certain varieties of estoppel to be used as a means of creating new rights where none previously existed, so as to adequately protect the equity raised in favour of the promisee resulting from his reasonable reliance on the promise of the other party. Thompson identifies the main arguments in support of the view that reliance upon a non-contractual promise may now protect the promisee’s expectation interest:

1995 ◽  
pp. 212-213
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
The Other ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Reasonable Care ◽  
The Status ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Law

Part II Breach and Termination, 3 Breach of Contract

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stannard John E ◽  
Capper David
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the significance of breach of contract. A party seeking to exercise the right to terminate for breach of contract must prove that the other party has broken the contract in the first place. Proving that a breach of contract has occurred involves three basic elements: (1) the party in question must have been under a contractual obligation; (2) they must have failed to perform that obligation; and (3) there must be no lawful excuse for that failure. All of these elements involve complex issues of law. Where a breach of contract has occurred, there are various remedies that may be available to the injured party. They will in all cases be entitled as of right to an award of damages, though if the breach has caused no loss these will only be nominal.

13. Damages

Contract Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mindy Chen-Wishart
Keyword(s):  
Contract Law ◽  
Price Reduction ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Significant Time ◽  
Consumer Contracts ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Default Rules

Most contractual disputes are settled out of court to avoid the significant time, money, general aggravation, and uncertainties inherent in litigation. Where the parties have not agreed on the consequences of breach or any agreed remedies are unenforceable, the law supplies default rules to determine the available remedies. This chapter addresses the following questions: (1) What types of loss are recognised and so compensable for breach of contract? (2) How is loss calculated? (3) When and why might contract law allow departures from the expectation measure and allow awards based on reliance, restitution, account of profits, or loss of opportunity to bargain? (4) In consumer contracts, when might the consumer have the right to a price reduction?

Relaxations of Contractual Privity and the Need for Third Party Rights in Chinese Contract Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Lei
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the position of third party beneficiaries in Chinese law. Article 64 of the Chinese Contract Law states that where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached, the debtor is liable to the creditor. The author regards this as leaving unanswered the question of whether the thirdparty has a right of direct action against the debtor. One view regards the third party as having the right to sue for the benefit although this right was ultimately excluded from the law. Another view, supported by the Supreme People’s Court, is that Article 64 does not provide a right of action for a third party and merely prescribes performance in ‘incidental’ third party contracts. The third view is that there is a third party right of action in cases of ‘genuine’ third party contracts but courts are unlikely to recognize a third party action where the contract merely purports to confer a benefit on the third party.

KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA APABILA TERJADI SENGKETA WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dija Hedistira ◽  
' Pujiyono
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to analyze the ownership and mastery of a fiduciary collateral object, in cases that often occur today, many disputes between creditors and debtors in fiduciary collateral agreements are caused because creditors assume that with executive rights as fiduciary recipients, the fiduciary collateral object legally owned by creditors and creditors the right to take and sell fiduciary collateral objects when the debtor defaults unilaterally, as well as the debtor who considers that the fiduciary collateral object is owned by him because the object is registered on his name, so that the debtor can use the object free as  giving to a third party or selling the object of fiduciary guarantee unilaterally. the author uses a normative <br />juridical approach, and deductive analysis method based on the Civil Code and fiduciary law applicable in Indonesia, Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The conclusion of the discussion is the ownership of the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee is owned by the debtor in accordance with the Law, mastery of the object of collateral controlled by the debtor for economic benefits, the procedure of execution The object of Fiduciary Guarantee is carried out in accordance with the Fiduciary Guarantee Act, an alternative mediation in resolving the dispute. There needs to be clarity in the use of language in making a law, so as not to conflict with each other between Article one and the other Articles.<br />Keywords: Ownership; Mastery; Object of Fiduciary Guarantee; Debtor; Creditors.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang kepemilikan dan penguasaan suatu objek jaminan fidusia, dalam kasus yang saat ini sering terjadi, banyak sengketa antara kreditur dan debitur dalam perjanjian jaminan fidusia disebabkan karena kreditur beranggapan bahwa dengan adanya hak eksekutorial sebagai penerima fidusia, maka objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sah dimiliki oleh kreditur dan kreditur berhak mengambil dan menjual objek jaminan fidusia saat debitur cidera janji<br />(wanprestasi) secara sepihak, begitupun dengan debitur yang menganggap bahwa objek jaminan fidusia tersebut dimiliki olehnya karena objek tersebut terdaftar atas namannya, sehingga debitur dapat mempergunakan objek tersebut secara bebas seperti menyerahkan kepada pihak ketiga atau menjual objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sepihak. penulis menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan metode analisis deduktif yang didasarkan pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata<br />dan hukum jaminan fidusia yang berlaku di Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kesimpulan pembahasan adalah Kepemilikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia dimiliki oleh debitur sesuai Undang-undang, penguasaan objek jaminan dikuasai debitur untuk manfaat ekonomis, prosedur eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia, alternatif secara mediasi dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi. Perlu ada kejelasan dalam<br />penggunaan bahasa pada pembuatan suatu Undang-Undang, agar tidak saling bertentangan antar Pasal satu dengan Pasal yang lainnya. <br />Kata Kunci: Kepemilikan; Penguasaan; Objek Jaminan Fidusia; Debitur; Kreditur.</p>

scholarly journals Default and Termination of Contract: A comparative Study between Indonesia and The United Kingdom

Yuridika ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 469
Author(s):  
Akhmad Budi Cahyono
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Contractual Relationship ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Right

Default is something that often occurs in contractual relationship. It can be not perform its obligations in the contract in all or in a part, performing its obligations but not in accordance with was agreed, performing its obligations but not in time, and performing something that is prohibited in the contract. Due to default, the injured party may claim compensation and / or terminate the contract. The problem is, the Indonesian Civil Code does not specify how a contract can be terminated in case of default. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a comparative study in other countries in terms of how a default can terminate the contract. The British which adopt common law tradition where jurisprudence is the main source of law is the right choice for conducting comparative studies. Countries with common law traditions have detailed legal rules based on jurisprudence. As in Indonesia, according to British contract law, defaults also can terminate the contract. However, unlike in Indonesia, according to British contract law, termination due to a default is only allowed in the event that the default is very serious. The very serious forms of default will be elaborated and become a part of the discussion in this paper.

scholarly journals ABUSE OF THE RIGHT TO INITIATE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS

2020 ◽  
pp. 259-264
Author(s):  
В. В. Дутка
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Bankruptcy Procedure ◽  
Good For ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ordinary Citizens ◽  
Legal Entities

The relevance of the article is that society’s attitude to the bankruptcy procedure is ambiguous: ordinary citizens who have never been involved in bankruptcy proceedings often perceive it as a certain negative phenomenon that should be avoided and avoided. On the other hand, for many debtors, bankruptcy becomes the “lifeline” with which they can repay their claims to creditors and start financial life “from scratch”. At the same time, it should be noted that many debtors and creditors use the bankruptcy procedure not for the purposes provided by the legislator in the relevant legal norms, but to satisfy only their own interests, to the detriment of the interests of other parties to the case. In this regard, the study of the abuse of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings becomes relevant. The article is devoted to the study of abuse of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings. The purpose of the article is to study the abuse of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings and highlight the author’s vision of this issue. According to the results of the study, the author concludes that the application to the debtor of bankruptcy procedures can be both good for the debtor and to the detriment of the interests of his creditors. Entities that could potentially abuse the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings are: creditors of the debtor – a legal entity, as well as debtors – legal entities, individuals and individuals – entrepreneurs. The fact of exemption of debtors from the court fee for filing an application to initiate bankruptcy proceedings is not only an unjustified luxury for our state, but also only contributes to the abuse of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings by unscrupulous debtors. In order to reduce the number of cases of abuse of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, the author justifies the need to complicate the conditions for opening bankruptcy proceedings, for example, by returning the conditions provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Restoration of Debtor’s Solvency or Recognition of Debtor’s Bankruptcy”.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document