Ch.6 Performance, s.1: Performance in general, Art.6.1.1

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atamer Yesim
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Default Rule ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
Performance Time ◽  
Contractual Obligations

This commentary focuses on Article 6.1.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the time of performing a contractual obligation. Art 6.1.1 determines when a party has to perform its contractual obligations. This is the time, or within the period of time, explicitly or impliedly stipulated in the contract within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the contract. This commentary discusses the notion of timely performance and the consequences of untimely performance, time of performance fixed by the parties, time of performance according to the default rule, obligee's failure to co-operate in regard to timely performance, changes in time of performance, and the burden of proof relating to time of performance.

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.6 Performance, s.1: Performance in general, Art.6.1.6

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atamer Yesim
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Default Rule ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
Performance Problems ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Wrong Place

This commentary analyses Article 6.1.6 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the place of performance of a contractual obligation. The place of performance is the place at which the obligor has to perform the acts necessary to honour its obligation. According to Art 6.1.6, monetary obligations must be discharged at the place of business of the obligee and non-monetary obligations at the place of business of the obligor. This commentary discusses the relevance of place of performance, problems related to interpretation of stipulations regarding place of performance, default rule for determining place of performance, place of performance for non-performance and restitution claims, the notion of place of business and consequences of a change in place of business or a change of parties, legal consequences related to performance at a wrong place, and burden of proof relating to place of performance.

Ch.6 Performance, s.1: Performance in general, Art.6.1.3

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atamer Yesim
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Consequences

This commentary focuses on Article 6.1.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning partial performance of a contractual obligation. Art 6.1.3 addresses the question of whether the obligee has the right to reject partial performance or, conversely, whether the obligor has the right to discharge itself at least partly when the time of performance is due. This commentary discusses the content and scope of application of Article 6.1.3, definition of partial performance with regard to contractual obligations, right of the obligee to reject partial performance and obligation to accept partial performance, and legal consequences of acceptance or rejection of partial performance. It also considers the right of rejection in case of only partly possible performance, defective performance, and performance in excess. Finally, it looks at burden of proof as it relates to partial performance.

Ch.6 Performance, s.1: Performance in general, Art.6.1.2

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atamer Yesim
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
Legitimate Interest ◽  
Single Moment ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
The Right

This commentary focuses on Article 6.1.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning performance of a contractual obligation at one time or in instalments. Whenever the obligor is given the right to perform its contractual obligations during a certain period of time, the question arises whether the obligor has to perform at one single moment during this period or whether it may choose to perform in lots. According to Art 6.1.2, the principle is performance at one time. The legitimate interest of the obligee not to be disturbed repeatedly for the same obligation seems to prevail over the interest of the obligor to offer its obligation in portions. This commentary discusses performance at one time as a rule, performance in instalments as an exception to the rule, effect of performance in instalments on counter-performance, and burden of proof relating to performance of a contractual obligation at one time or in instalments.

scholarly journals Terms of fulfillment of the contractual obligation: law enforcement problems

2021 ◽  
pp. 330-340
Author(s):  
Maryna Venetska
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
Contractual Obligations

The article is devoted to the issues of legal regulation and law enforcement practice of determining the terms of performance and termination of contractual obligations, in particular, given the ambiguity of interpretation in practice of terms of termination of contract and terms of termination of obligations, including security. The urgency of the problem lies in the ambiguity of the interpretation in practice of the terms of termination of the contract and the terms of termination of obligations, which, as can be seen, is a consequence of the insufficiently successful legal regulation of this issue by law. The issue of extension of the obligation after the expiration of the contract is analyzed from the standpoint that the contract and the obligation are not identical concepts. Contracts are the basis for the occurrence and form of existence of obligations, which simultaneously constitute the content of the contract, but the civil obligation is not covered only by the concept of contract. Discussion issues of certainty of the period (moment) of execution are considered, as the civil turnover is aware of the obligations with a definite and indefinite term (term) of execution, terms of fulfillment of obligations with regular payments. The problematic issues of determining the terms of fulfillment of security obligations, in particular, guarantees, are also analyzed. The practice of application by courts of the provisions of the legislation on the terms of fulfillment of contractual obligations has been analyzed and a number of proposals have been made to improve the current civil legislation.

Treatment of silence as misrepresentation in contracts

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-78
Author(s):  
Ridoan Karim ◽  
Imtiaz Mohammad Sifat
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Further Development

Purpose This paper aims to provide a comparative discussion on silence as a misrepresentation in contractual obligations between common law and Islamic law. The objective of this paper is to – from a legal pluralism point of view – highlight the contrasts between the two traditions and provide recommendations for best practices to achieve fairness and equity among the contracting parties. While common law does not treat silence as conscious misrepresentation, in Islamic law, silence does not constitute affirmative will. This has repercussions for the contracting parties because if future disputes arise, the aggrieved party in Islamic law reserves the option to rescind or nullify the contract – an opportunity not afforded by common law. We have discussed and analyzed the implementations of the different contractual terms, such as fraud, misrepresentation, trickery and deception in relation with Islamic law principles and common law practices. This research is an effort to draw the attention for further development in both Islamic law and common law practices on contractual obligation. The notion of misrepresentation – subset of a broader gamut of fraud – is arguably nebulous in Islamic literature as well. We delve into these nuances and provide examples both from common law and Islamic law precedents and provide recommendations for reform in both traditions. Design/methodology/approach This paper operates under qualitative methodological framework and uses secondary sources for analysis. Sources include journal databases, review of cases, classical/medieval Islamic scripts, etc. Findings This paper provides a general comparative study between common law’s principle and practice and Islamic law’s principle to forge a better understanding of fine-tuning existing practice and contribute to the debate on determining the best practices to unify international trade and custom exercise. Common law principle, obviously, holds a historical and traditional reputation as those principles are derived from long years of practice and judicial interpretation. Such historical legal system should accommodate fresh ideas in their repertoire and welcome novel ideas which would positively influence its own practice. This paper affords the freedom to the reader to interpret which general principle is acceptable in terms of contractual obligation. Originality/value Previous works exist on the issue of misrepresentation. However, those are mostly explanations of fraud and deceit in Islamic law or common law. The treatment of silence as affirmative will is seldom touched upon. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt at contrasting the treatment of silence in common and Islamic law. They have also advocated pluralistic practices and argued for legal reform whereby both traditions can benefit from each other.

Fiduciary Law as Equity’s Child

Equity ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 113-151
Author(s):  
Irit Samet
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Fiduciary Duties ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Duty Of Loyalty ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

This chapter challenges the argument that one of Equity’s most distinctive doctrines, fiduciary law, must be fused with a common law doctrine—the law of contract. In particular, it highlights the disadvantages of transforming the equitable duty of loyalty into an ordinary contractual obligation. The chapter first considers the ‘contractarian’ interpretation of fiduciary law according to which fiduciary duties are no more than a species of contractual obligations before explaining why, in contrast with the contractarian argument, Equity was right in claiming that the fiduciary relationship was essentially different from contract. After making the case of why fiduciary law should be treated as a sui generis equitable doctrine, the chapter examines two features of equitable fiduciary law that will change dramatically if the fusion suggestion is adopted (the language in which it is set and the way into the relationship) and shows the adverse consequences of moving in that direction. It concludes with the contention that the concept of ‘conscience’ still has an active role to play in the legal reasoning about fiduciaries.

Ch.9 Assignment of rights, transfer of obligations, assignment of contracts, s.2: Transfer of obligations, Art.9.2.5

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mazza Francesca
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Default Rule ◽  
Joint And Several Liability ◽  
Rights Transfer

This commentary analyses Article 9.2.5 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the circumstances under which the original obligor is discharged. According to Art 9.2.5, the obligee may discharge the original obligor or retain the original obligor as an obligor in case the new obligor does not perform properly. Otherwise the original obligor and the new obligor are jointly and severally liable. As a default rule, Art 9.2.5(3), which provides for the joint and several liability of the original and new obligor, applies unless the obligee has agreed to discharge the original obligor by virtue of Art 9.2.5(1) or (2). Art 9.2.5(3) stipulates that the obligee is not required to express a choice. If it remains silent, the default rule of joint and several liability applies. The burden of proof lies with the original obligor to provide persuasive evidence that it has been fully or partially discharged.

Ch.2 Formation and authority of agents, s.2: Authority of agents, Art.2.2.8

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krebs Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Default Rule ◽  
Agency Relationship ◽  
The Third ◽  
Delegation Of Authority ◽  
The Third Party

This commentary focuses on Article 2.2.8 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning sub-agency. In most countries, the default rule is that the agent is not permitted to delegate its authority. This rule is generally based on the confidential nature of the agency relationship. Art 2.2.8 stipulates that an agent has implied authority to appoint a sub-agent to perform acts which it is not reasonable to expect the agent to perform itself. This commentary discusses the requirements of sub-agency, the consequences of delegation of authority, cases where the sub-agent affects the legal relations of the third party, and burden of proof relating to sub-agency.

scholarly journals Agreements to Eliminate Liability for Breach of a Contractual Obligation: Comparative Analysis of the Legal Regulation and Judicial Practice

Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 123-130
Author(s):  
Natalia Kagalnitskova ◽  
Olga Tolstova
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Force Majeure ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
General Scientific ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Weak Party

Introduction: modern legal science is faced with the task of developing the concept of an agreement on the elimination of contractual civil liability: determining its legal nature, scope and conditions for its implementation. For this purpose, the authors of the paper attempt to model the theoretical and legal basis of the agreement on the elimination of contractual liability of the debtor for non-performance, improper performance of its obligations. Using the general scientific methods – synthesis, analysis, comparative and dialectical methods, as well as the specific scientific methods of cognition, in particular, formal-legal, structural-functional and others, the authors determine the legal nature and scope of the agreement on the elimination of contractual liability for violation of a contractual obligation, and examine the practice of such application. Results: it is indicated that within the framework of the agreement on the elimination of contractual liability, it is possible to expand the list of circumstances related to “force majeure”, but taking into account the criterion of the latter: emergency and insurmountability. Conclusions: an agreement to eliminate contractual liability is not possible in contractual obligations involving a weak party, unless it is concluded in its favor. Therefore, the main scope of their application is the obligations related to the implementation of business activities. The possibility of concluding this agreement is a manifestation of the principles of autonomy of will and freedom of contract.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document