Ch.1 General Provisions, General Provisions III: Arts 1.6–1.12—Application of the PICC, Art.1.10

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vogenauer Stefan
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Consequences

This commentary focuses on Article 1.10, which deals with the effectiveness of notices provided under the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC). A notice refers to any communication of intention. By way of example, the paragraph lists declarations, demands, and requests. The notice must be ‘required’ under the PICC; that is, a provision of the instrument must attach certain legal consequences to the giving of the notice. Art 1.10 establishes a single regime for all types of notice which has two main features. In order to be effective, notices are not subject to any requirement as to form. However, they must be received by the addressee. Art 1.10 also explains the burden of proof concerning the party that relies on the effectiveness of its own notice and the party that relies on the effectiveness of the other party's notice.

Ch.7 Non-performance, s.1: Non-performance in general, Art.7.1.2

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schelhaas Harriet
Keyword(s):  
Performance Art ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other ◽  
Partial Interference ◽  
Venire Contra Factum Proprium ◽  
Legal Consequences

This commentary analyses Article 7.1.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning interference by the other party. Art 7.1.2 deals with the situation known as mora creditoris — the obligee's failure to perform its duty to co-operate in order to allow the performance of the other party. It also addresses the situation in which the obligor's failure to perform is not due to a lack of co-operation by the obligee, but to another event for which the obligee bears the risk. The obligee that is responsible for the other party's resulting failure to perform is estopped from invoking non-performance. Art 7.1.2 is thus a particular instance of the general principle of the prohibition of venire contra factum proprium. This commentary also discusses partial interference, legal consequences of failure to perform, and the burden of proof relating to interference.

Ch.5 Content, third party rights and conditions, s.1: Content, Art.5.1.3

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vogenauer Stefan
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
General Duty ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
Legal Consequences

This commentary focuses on Article 5.1.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning co-operation between the parties. Art 5.1.3 imposes a general duty of co-operation on the parties. The duty applies to all types of contract, although it is particularly important in long-term contractual relationships where the parties have to collaborate throughout the life of the contract to make it work. Art 5.1.3 requires each party to cooperate with the other party when such co-operation may reasonably be expected for the performance of that party's obligations. This commentary discusses limits to the duty of co-operation, legal consequences of a violation of the duty of co-operation, and burden of proof relating to the duty of co-operation.

scholarly journals Peralihan Harta Bersama Melalui Hibah Tanpa Izin Salah Satu Pihak Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 dan Kompilasi Hukum Islam

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-94
Author(s):  
Agustina Dewi Putri ◽  
Darmawan Darmawan ◽  
Teuku Muttaqin Mansur
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Shared Property ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Husband And Wife

Menurut Pasal 36 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 1 tahun 1974, mengenai harta bersama, suami atau isteri dapat bertindak atas persetujuan kedua belah pihak. Adanya ketentuan Pasal tersebut di atas, menunjukkan bahwa jika seorang suami atau isteri, bermaksud melakukan perbuatan hukum yang objeknya terkait dengan harta bersama (misalnya menjual, menghibahkan dan lain-lain), baik itu berupa barang bergerak atau barang tidak bergerak, maka perbuatan hukum tersebut harus didasarkan pada persetujuan kedua belah pihak (suami dan isteri). Untuk mengetahui dan menjelaskan akibat hukum dari peralihan harta bersama melalui hibah tanpa izin dari salah satu pihak. Metode Penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dan Ketiadaan persetujuan baik suami atau isteri memberi akibat hukum bahwa peralihan harta bersama tersebut menjadi batal demi hukum.As for article 36 paragraph (1) mentions that anything regarded to the shared-property should be with the consent of both parties. It is in line with Article 92 about Compilation of Islamic Law which mentions that either husband or wife without any consent of the other partner is not allowed to sell or transfer the ownerships of the shared-property. Provisionsof the article indicate that if the husband or wife intends to carry out a legal act whose object is related to a common asset (for example selling, granting, etc). whether it is movable or immovable property, the legal action must be based on agreement of both parties (husband and wife). To figure out and explain the legal consequences of share assets transfer throght a grant without permission from one of the parties. Research method used in this is normative juridical legal research. To find out and explain the comparison of provisions on the transfer of property with husband and wife based on Law Number 1 Year 1974 and Compilation of Islamic Law Absence of approval from both husband and wife gives legal consequences that transfer of shared property becomes null and void by law.

The Other Consequences of Conviction

2019 ◽  
pp. 3-31
Author(s):  
Zachary Hoskins
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Criminal Records ◽  
Collateral Consequences ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Legal Consequences

This chapter sets out the numerous different types of collateral legal consequences (CLCs) facing people with criminal records, including restrictions on employment, housing, welfare, and the vote. It distinguishes CLCs from the myriad informal collateral consequences experienced by offenders. Then it discusses various dimensions along which particular CLCs may be distinguished, such as their content, scope, and duration. It makes the case that CLCs raise serious moral challenges, which require greater attention from moral, legal, and political philosophers than they have received to date. The chapter concludes with an overview of the remainder of the book.

Obligatio in Roman Law and Society

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Ibbetson
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Law And Society ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Abstract Nouns ◽  
Legal Thinking ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Legal Consequences

Obligatio is defined in Justinian’s Institutes as a tie of law, a legal relationship between two persons whereby one is constrained by the other to do or refrain from doing something. It brings together relationships arising out of contract or delict, though the Digest shows it used more generally wherever a personal bond was created. Its roots lie in the verb ligare, to bind; but although Roman lawyers preferred the use of verbs over abstract nouns, here the noun form is almost as common as the verb. As a noun obligatio describes either the active or the passive aspect of the relationship or the relationship itself, allowing flexibility in legal thinking. Originally, obligatio may have been related to actio, so that only enforceable relationships were included within the word, but by classical law it applied to any relationship with legal consequences, whether or not the relationship was enforceable.

Ch.6 Performance, s.1: Performance in general, Art.6.1.4

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atamer Yesim
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
Bilateral Contract ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Legal Consequences

This commentary focuses on Article 6.1.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning order of performance of a contractual obligation. Art 6.1.4 deals with the sequence of performance and counter-performance if the parties have undertaken reciprocal obligations in a bilateral contract. This commentary discusses the content and scope of application of Art 6.1.4, the role of Art 6.1.4 in determining the time of performance for the counter-performance and in determining the order of performance of due contractual obligations, performances to be taken into consideration when determining the time and order of performance, legal consequences of disregarding the order of performance, and burden of proof relating to order of performance.

Ch.3 Validity, s.2: Grounds for avoidance, Art.3.2.16

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huber Peter
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other

This commentary focuses on Article 3.2.16 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning damages. Art 3.2.16 adopts a ‘neutral’ approach to the issue of damages by simply stating under which conditions a claim for damages may arise and what kinds of damages are recoverable. It does not distinguish between the case where the avoiding party seeks damages and the inverse case where the other party seeks damages. Irrespective of whether or not the contract has been avoided, the party who knew or ought to have known of the ground for avoidance is liable for damages so as to put the other party in the same position in which it would have been if it had not concluded the contract. This commentary discusses the liability of the party entitled to avoid and of the other party in cases where contract is avoided and not avoided, along with the allocation of the burden of proof.

Ch.11 Plurality of obligors and of obligees, s.1: Plurality of Obligors, Art.11.1.10

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meier Sonja
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other

This commentary analyses Article 11.1.10 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the extent of contributory claim of the performing obligor against its co-obligors. In a contractual setting, joint and several obligations arise because the obligors obliged themselves by a common commitment towards the obligee or by separate commitments in the knowledge of the commitments of the other obligors. Contribution between joint and several obligors is a generally accepted principle. Art 11.1.10 provides for a personal claim of the performing obligor against its co-obligors. According to this provision, a joint and several obligor who has performed more than its share may claim the excess from any of the other obligors to the extent of each obligor's unperformed share. This commentary considers the obligor's contractual claim to contribution, performance of more than its share, and contribution in money. It also addresses the amount of the contributory claim, costs and interest, duties before performance, and burden of proof relating to contributory claim.

Ch.2 Formation and authority of agents, s.2: Authority of agents, Art.2.2.2

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krebs Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other ◽  
The One

This commentary focuses on Article 2.2.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the establishment and scope of the authority of the agent. Art 2.2.2 contains two paragraphs that distinguish between the conferral or establishment of authority on the agent on the one hand, and the extent or scope of that authority on the other. While Art 2.2.2(1) provides that authority can be granted expressly or impliedly (establishment), Art 2.2.2(2) explains how the extent that authority is to be determined. Generally, it is for the person relying on an agent's authority to bear the burden of proof that it existed at the time the agent acted.

Part II Burden and Standard of Proof in International Investment Arbitration, 3 Shifting the Burden of Evidence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sourgens Frédéric Gilles ◽  
Duggal Kabir ◽  
Laird Ian A
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
International Investment ◽  
The Other ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Burden Of Persuasion

This chapter explains the process of ‘shifting the burden of evidence’, otherwise known as the ‘shifting principle’. This is the proposition which occurs when the party who bears the initial burden puts forward evidence to support its initial claim. Here, the burden of evidence (or alternatively also termed as the ‘burden of production’, ‘burden of persuasion’, or ‘burden of proceeding’) shifts to the other party to rebut the evidence put forward. Shifting the burden of evidence is to be read in conjunction with the burden of proof principle discussed in the previous chapter. This is because it is only when the initial burden of the party making an allegation is met that the burden is shifted to the other party.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document