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.6.1.4

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.6.1.2

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.

Ch.10 Limitation periods, Art.10.4

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wintgen Robert
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Limitation Periods ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

This commentary analyses Article 10.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning new limitation periods by acknowledgement. All major jurisdictions accept that a new limitation period starts to run if the obligor acknowledges the obligee's right. This rule is consistent with the policy considerations underlying limitation periods, since an acknowledgement makes it clear that the obligor is aware of its debt. According to Art 10.4, if the obligor before the expiration of the general limitation period acknowledges the right of the obligee, a new general limitation period begins on the day after the day of the acknowledgement. The maximum limitation period does not begin to run again, but may be exceeded by the beginning of a new general limitation period under Art 10.2(1). This commentary considers the definition of acknowledgement, the time of acknowledgement, burden of proof relating to the new limitation period, and effects of the obligor's acknowledgement of the obligee's right.

scholarly journals Skutki prawne kontroli przedsiębiorcy prowadzonej z naruszeniem zasad kontroli

2018 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 623-636
Author(s):  
Michał Strzelbicki
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Economic ◽  
Economic Law ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Consequences

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF ENTREPRENEUR INSPECTION CONDUCTED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES FOR INSPECTIONWith the enforcement of the Business Activities Freedom Act, the provisions of Chapter 5 entitled “Entrepreneur Inspection” have become to apply in the Polish Public Economic Law. The essence of the regulation lies in the principles for inspection, namely standards to be met by each and every entrepreneur’s business inspection performed by administrative bodies. Legal regulation of entrepreneur inspection, providing for legal framework of the procedure and setting limits to the actions of the inspection authority, was aimed by the legislator to limit the natural advantage of the authority over the entrepreneur during the inspection proceeding.The legislator was aware that the very introduction of principles for inspection would not be sufficient to effectively protect entrepreneurs’ interests. For this reason, the administrative authorities have been obliged to apply the principles for trader inspection through far-reaching negative legal consequences to the authority in the event of breach. The article analyses such legal solutions which provide entrepreneurs with the right to pursue compensation from the state, and permit demanding that the evidence gathered during the inspection could not be used against such trader by the administration authorities the “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle. The author presents the scope of application of both such instruments, and takes a stand as regards related detailed issues which have so far been the bone of contention both in the doctrine and in the judgements.

scholarly journals DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT OF «DEFAMATION» IN THE COUNTRIES OF CONTITENTAL EUROPE

2021 ◽  
pp. 104-111
Author(s):  
N. I. Skoropysova
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Protection Mechanism ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protected Object ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The article discusses the key issues of the interpretation of the concept of “defamation” in the countries of Western Europe. In a modern social and legal state, considerable attention is paid to the protection of individual rights and freedoms as the foundations of democracy. One of the basic personal rights is the right to personal dignity, protection of honor and reputation. Analysis of the structures of the current legislation, the positions of the Supreme Court, acts of the European Court, as well as classical and newest scientific approaches, defamation is an offense expressed in the dissemination of inaccurate information that violates the right of a legal entity to a business reputation. Honor, dignity, business reputation are constituent elements of such categories as personal moral rights and intangible benefits, in order to ensure the realization and functioning of the rights of which, a well-thought-out, well-coordinated and effective protection mechanism must be produced. Attention is focused on the fact that for the proper operation of such a mechanism, it is necessary to determine, first of all, the protected object, what are its features and boundaries that need to be regulated by law. Indeed, in the case of securing an incomplete list of protected in the legislation, fixing in the norms not all signs of the protected or the presence of gaps in the regulation of this legal relationship, the potential for abuse of the right or misinterpretation of its norms arises. National laws define in different ways whether the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff or the defendant. It is concluded that defamation is one of the unlawful acts that infringe upon honor, dignity and reputation and requires further study in the practice of the European Court. In dealing with defamation cases, courts always need to find a compromise and strike a balance between freedom of expression, freedom of thought and speech, and protection of dignity, honor and reputation.

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.7 Non-performance, s.1: Non-performance in general, Art.7.1.1

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schelhaas Harriet
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Late Performance

This commentary analyses Article 7.1.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the definition of non-performance. Article 7.1.1 defines non-performance as ‘failure by a party to perform any of its obligations under the contract, including defective performance or late performance’. Non-performance under Art 7.1.1 also includes violations of accessory obligations, such as a duty of confidentiality or the duty to co-operate, including the accessory obligations of the aggrieved party. This commentary discusses reasons for non-performance, the concept of ‘default’, the relationship between non-performance and non-conformity, vicarious liability for contractual obligations, and the burden of proof relating to non-performance.

scholarly journals The rights of the debtor in the preventive settlement procedure in the Saudi bankruptcy law: حقوق المدين في إجراء التسوية الوقائية في نظام الإفلاس السعودي

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (25) ◽  
pp. 48-24
Author(s):  
Saleh Muhammed Alhamami Saleh Muhammed Alhamami
Keyword(s):  
Analytical Approach ◽  
Bankruptcy Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
The Right ◽  
Shed Light

The Saudi bankruptcy law approved a set of rights for the debtor in each of its procedures, including the rights related to the preventive settlement procedure, and the aim of highlighting these rights is to contribute to preserving them, achieving justice, and avoiding harm to the side of the bankrupt debtor, especially since the organizers' interest in the bankruptcy law It is primarily concerned with the creditor's side, and how to obtain his rights from the debtor. In this research, the debtor’s rights contained in the provisions of the law relating to the preventive settlement procedure will be shed light and collected within this framework The research relied on the inductive and analytical approach, whereby the provisions of the Saudi bankruptcy law were extrapolated, then the rights of the debtor were extracted from its folds, and these rights were analyzed. The rights in this procedure are summarized as following: the right to request the debtor to initiate the procedure, to inform him of the date of consideration of the request, to request the suspension of claims during the procedure, to not claim debts other than the status during the procedure period, to maintain his contractual obligations, and to obtain financing. The research came out with a set of important results that reveal the comprehensiveness of the provisions of the Saudi bankruptcy law, its concern for the rights of all parties, including the debtor, as well as the expansion of the scope of application of the provisions of specific and spatial bankruptcy procedures, and the like The research also included a set of recommendations in which I saw addressing some observations during the analysis of these rights, such as not allowing the debtor to manage his activity during the period from the opening of the procedure, until the creditors have completed voting on the plan, as well as granting the creditor the right to demand the opening of the preventive settlement procedure, And not limiting this right to the debtor only, and so on.

To the question of the actual admission of the employee to work

2021 ◽  
pp. 756-763
Author(s):  
Ju.A. Novikova
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Labor Legislation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Legal Fact ◽  
Legal Consequences

The article is devoted to the analysis of the actual admission to work as a legal fact, its characteristics and the legal consequences of this action for the employee and the employer, both explicitly indicated in special norms, and follows from the interpretation of other norms of labor legislation, including the obligations of the employer and liability for their violation; There is a gap in the rules of labor legislation regarding the definition of an authorized representative of the employer, the legal consequences of admission to work by an unauthorized person are examined, procedural issues about the distribution of the burden of proof and court costs are considered.

‘Posting’ and ‘Posted Workers’: The Need for Clear Definitions of Two Key Concepts of the Posting of Workers Directive

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 419-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aukje van Hoek ◽  
Mijke Houwerzijl
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Labour Mobility ◽  
Member States ◽  
Proper Understanding ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rome I

AbstractIn this chapter the authors discuss the personal scope of the Directive on the Posting of Workers (Dir 96/71/EC) and the implementation thereof in the Member States. The comparative findings are based on two studies conducted by the authors on behalf of the European Commission in 2010/2011. The authors argue that the concepts of ‘posting’ and ‘posted worker’ are crucial for a proper understanding of the scope of application of the Directive and its interaction with the Rome I Regulation on the applicable law to contractual obligations (Reg 593/2008). A clear and enforceable demarcation of the personal scope will help the Member States to combat abuse of the freedom to provide services and to distinguish more clearly between posting and other types of labour mobility. The proposal submitted by the European Commission to that effect (COM (2012) 131) is judged to be an important step in the right direction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document