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.7 Non-performance, s.4: Damages, Art.7.4.13

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
McKendrick Ewan
Keyword(s):  
Performance Art ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other ◽  
Reasonable Amount ◽  
Do So

This commentary analyses Article 7.4.13 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the agreed payment for non-performance. Art 7.4.13 applies where a term of the contract provides that ‘a party who does not perform is to pay a specified sum to the aggrieved party for such non-performance’. According to Art 7.4.13, the aggrieved party is entitled to recover the specified sum from the non-performing party and it can do so irrespective of the harm which it has in fact suffered as a result of the non-performance. However, the specified sum may be reduced to a reasonable amount where it is grossly excessive in relation to the harm resulting from the non-performance and to the other circumstances. This commentary discusses the scope of Art 7.4.13 and the burden of proof relating to payment for non-performance.

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.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.

Ch.7 Non-performance, s.1: Non-performance in general, Art.7.1.3

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schelhaas Harriet
Keyword(s):  
Performance Art ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Consequences

This commentary analyses Article 7.1.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the right of a contracting party to withhold or suspend performance. Art 7.1.3 lays down the exceptio non adimpleti contractus and confers on a contracting party the right to withhold or suspend performance if the other party does not comply with its obligations. Where the parties are to perform simultaneously, either party may withhold performance until the other party tenders its performance. Where the parties are to perform consecutively, the party that is to perform later may withhold its performance until the first party has performed. This commentary discusses the requirements for allowing the suspension of performance, including non-performance of the other party. It also considers order of performance, partial performance, and legal consequences of withholding or suspending performance.

Ch.2 Formation and authority of agents, Formation V: Arts 2.1.19–2.1.22—Standard terms, Art.2.1.20

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naudé Tjakie
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
Standard Terms

This commentary focuses on Article 2.1.20 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning so-called surprising terms. Art 2.1.20 stipulates that no term contained in standard terms which is of such a character that the other party could not reasonably have expected it, is effective unless it has been expressly accepted by that party. In determining whether a term is of such a character regard shall be had to its content, language and presentation. Art 2.1.20 is an exception to the rule that a party which accepts the standard terms of the user is in principle bound by them, irrespective of whether it actually knows their contents. In this sense, it reflects the general principle of good faith and fair dealing. This commentary discusses express acceptance of surprising terms as required by Art 2.1.20, along with the burden of proof relating to such terms.

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.

Q8-2a) How are Art. 8(1) and (2) CISG to be distinguished from each other? b) Do the UP 2004 and the PECL make the same differentiation? Cf. Arts 4.1, 4.2 UP 2004, Art. 5:101 PECL. Q8-3a) What is the interaction between Art. 8(2) and (3) CISG? b) Do you find a similar mechanism in the UP 2004 and the PECL? c) Which respective provisions in the UP 2004 and the PECL correspond to Art. 8(3) CISG? Q8-4a) Match the interpretation rules of the UP 2004 to the corresponding provisions of the PECL. b) Does either of these two sets of rules have a greater scope than the other? c) Which general principle do Art. 4.5 UP 2004, Art. 5:106 PECL reflect? d) Which questions left open by Art. 8 CISG are explicitly addressed by the UP 2004 and the PECL? Q8-5 Which facts did the Bezirksgericht St. Gallen (C 8–1) rely on in holding that the buyer had shown that it considered itself bound? Q8-6 Whether it makes a difference that the standard terms are written in a language different to the one in which the rest of the contract is held is open to debate. Discuss this, taking into consideration Art. 4.7 UP 2004, Art. 5:107 PECL. Q8-7a) Why are the provisions governing the conclusion of the contract (arts 14 et seq. CISG) apparently inadequate to conclusively deal with the inclusion of standard terms? b) What differences do you see between the UP 2004 and the PECL, on the one hand, and the CISG, on the other hand, regarding the interpretation of standard terms? Applicability of other rules of interpretation and evidence?

2007 ◽  
pp. 123-123
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
Standard Terms

• buyer has not made payment until today. • buyer has made payment within the additional period granted and notified the seller thereof. • buyer pays on the 12th, 11 a.m. In the early morning of 12 July, seller has declared the contract avoided. • buyer makes payment on the 11th and notifies seller thereof; the money is transferred on the 12th, but prior to transfer the seller has declared avoidance. • same situation as before, but buyer does not notify the seller of its having made payment. b) Buyer has neither paid timely nor has taken over the goods within an additional period of time. Shortly after, • buyer pays, takes over the goods and notifies the seller thereof. • buyer pays but does not take over the goods. • buyer pays and takes over the goods, but is still in breach of another obligation which would allow it to avoid the contract (Art. 64(1)(a)). Q 64-8 Since, generally, where the requirements of Art. 64(1)(a) and (b) are met, the seller can freely choose whether it avoids the contract or claims specific performance of the contract (Art. 61), there might be a risk that it speculates to the detriment of the buyer by avoiding the contract at a date particularly favourable to it. For example, it could avoid the contract when the market price is remarkably high and claim damages under Art. 76(1) CISG. Is there a general principle under the CISG which obliges a party to keep the damage of the other party to a minimum?

2007 ◽  
pp. 504-505
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Market Price ◽  
Early Morning ◽  
The Other ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Q 64

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document