Ch.7 Non-performance, s.3: Termination, Art.7.3.2

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huber Peter
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
The Other ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
The Right

This commentary analyses Article 7.3.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning notice of termination. Under Art 7.3.2, termination of the contract has to be made by notice to the other party and sets a time limit for giving notice in certain cases of breach. The provision serves two objectives: first, it aims to prevent the aggrieved party from speculating on market fluctuations by postponing its decision on whether or not to terminate and, secondly, it allows the non-performing party to avoid any losses due to uncertainty as to whether the aggrieved party will terminate the contract. This commentary also discusses time limits for the exercise of the right to terminate and the burden of proof concerning notice of termination.

Ch.3 Validity, s.2: Grounds for avoidance, Art.3.2.12

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huber Peter
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
The Other ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Individual Term ◽  
Time Period ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right

This commentary focuses on Article 3.2.12 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning time limits for exercising the right to avoid the contract. Art 3.2.12 stipulates that notice of avoidance shall be given within a reasonable time, having regard to the circumstances, after the avoiding party knew or could not have been unaware of the relevant facts or became capable of acting freely. Where an individual term of the contract may be avoided by a party under Article 3.2.7, the period of time for giving notice of avoidance begins to run when that term is asserted by the other party. In relying on a ‘reasonable time’ period rather than setting out a clearly defined period of time (for example, two years after conclusion of the contract), Art 3.2.12 follows the common law model rather than the typical civil law solution. This commentary discusses the commencement and duration of ‘reasonable time’ period as well as the consequences of failure to avoid a contract within time limit.

Krąg rodziców i dzieci uprawnionych do posiadania karty dużej rodziny a konstytucyjna zasada równości wobec prawa

2015 ◽  
pp. 137-153
Author(s):  
Filip Dziedzic
Keyword(s):  
Large Family ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Large Families ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

The subject of the article is the justification of the thesis that the differentiation of the legal situation of parents on the basis of the Act on the Large Family Card, who have established a family with at least three children violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law. On the one hand some parents are entitled to use the card without any time limit, and on the other hand there is a group of parents who also have large families, but are totally deprived of the right. According to the author of the article, the diversity does not represent any constitutionally protected value and the discrimination occurs due to the unlimited duration of the right to own the Card by eligible parents. The result of the above, as well as the fourth (another) child’s right to the Card depending on holding the Card by the parent, is discriminatory for the children born as the fourth (next) child in the family. The article is also an attempt to answer the question which way would be the best to remove the above-mentioned discrimination thus making it most coherent with the objective and content of the analyzed regulation.

) Seller is bound to hand the goods over to the first carrier at a particular place, but hands them over prior to the place agreed. d) Goods are handed over to the first carrier but have not yet been identified. Q 67-9 In which of the above situations is the burden of the risk split during transport? Q 67-10 Under the CISG, when does the risk pass in the following situations: a) Seller hands goods over to freight forwarder who will undertake the transport itself. b) Same situation, but a third party will transport the goods. c) Same situation, but the freight forwarder has the right to transport in its own name. Q 67-11 Compare Art. 67 CISG with domestic sales laws. a) Compare Art. 67(1) CISG with § 2-509 UCC. Do you see any similarities? b) What is the corresponding rule in the BGB? c) Why is the BGB clearer than the CISG with regard to the passing of risk in the case of handing the goods over to a freight forwarder? Q 67-12 It has been stated that, under the CISG, although from a dogmatic view, the time of delivery and the time of passing of risk have been distinguished, in practice they will often coincide. Under French and Swiss law, the passing of risk has been settled differently. a) To what extent do Swiss and French law provide for a similar rule on the passing of risk? b) Which point in time is decisive as to whether the risk has passed to the buyer? c) Which rules are more suited for modern international trade, the French and Swiss ones or those found in Art. 67 CISG and the other sales laws? Discuss. d) Under Swiss law, title to the goods will not pass until handing over the goods to the buyer. How does the CC settle the passing of title to goods? Cf. Art. 1138(1) CC. e) In light of what has been said sub c), do you see a rationale in French law for how it handles the passing of risk? f) Which difficulty persists in Swiss law with regard to risk allocation between the buyer and the seller? Q 67-13 As a rule, the burden of proof as to where loss or damage to the goods occurred is borne by the party that wants to draw a benefit from that fact.

2007 ◽  
pp. 519-519
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Risk Allocation ◽  
French Law ◽  
Swiss Law ◽  
Freight Forwarder ◽  
The Right ◽  
Own Name

scholarly journals The Right of Pledge on Movable Items (Pignus) in Republic of Kosovo

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Ekrem Salihu
Keyword(s):  
Social Development ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Personal Insurance ◽  
Qualitative Changes

The pledge is an item right based on which its official holder – the pledgee may seek the payment of his/her claims from the item if those aren’t paid within certain time limit. The right of pledge in the Republic of Kosovo constitutes a complex occurrence which has various relations on which at one side is the pledgee creditor, and in the other side are debtor pledgor and other third persons. The role of pledge and its affirmation is related to most qualitative changes of claims. The right of pledge as item right in foreign item (iura in re aliena) makes a history only to a certain degree of economic and social development. In this degree of development there was a need and necessity to secure the other’s claims even de facto, by the hand item, by ”pledging” of an item. The creditor requires that his claims to the debtor be secured by obtaining of a pledge of debtor item. The debtor’s conjunction of creditor by obtaining debtor’s item is safer for the creditor to realize its claims, rather than when the debtor secured these claims by his/her personality, bail, personal insurance. In the Kosovo legal system there is possessory pledge, non-possessory pledge and the pledge over the rights.

Ch.8 Set-off, Art.8.3

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pichonnaz Pascal
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings

This commentary analyses Article 8.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning set-off by notice. Under Art 8.3, the right of set-off is exercised by notice to the other party. This means that set-off can operate outside a courtroom and has a discharging effect on the obligation of the first party without the intervention of a judge or arbitrator. This commentary discusses the principle of set-off by notice, the form of notice of set-off, and time to give notice (‘anticipatory notice’). It also considers two other modes of set-off, set-off within insolvency proceedings and set-off by agreement, and concludes by explaining the burden of proof relating to set-off by notice.

Ch.8 Set-off, Art.8.1

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pichonnaz Pascal
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Right

This commentary analyses Article 8.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the conditions of set-off. Set-off has five basic requirements: mutuality of obligations, which means that the parties should owe each other performances; obligations of the same kind; the need for the ‘first party’ to be entitled to perform its obligation; the right of the ‘other party’ to enforce obligations; and the ascertainment of the obligation of the ‘other party’. This commentary discusses set-off and jurisdiction (arbitration), mutuality of obligations, obligations of the same kind, right to perform and enforceability, the notions of ascertainment and of ‘the same contract’, and burden of proof relating to set-off.

scholarly journals TERMS OF CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE DECISION TO INITIATE A CRIMINAL CASE AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-157
Author(s):  
A.V. Mordvinov
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Fixed Time ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Maximum Term ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Maximum Period ◽  
The Right

The article points out the need to determine the permissible time limits for appealing the decision to initiate a criminal case and the time limits for its consideration. The problems arising in connection with the absence of a fixed time limit for appealing the decision to initiate a criminal case are highlighted. Conclusions by establishing a maximum term of appeal said decision and a maximum period of adjudication of the said complaint. The practical significance of the study lies in the development of problems related to the terms of appeal in court against the decision to initiate a criminal case, and in the formulation of proposals for their solution. The terms of filing a complaint against the decision to initiate a criminal case, as well as the terms of their consideration, are proposed. The opinion on the need to grant the right to the court to make specific decisions on the results of the consideration of this complaint in order to exclude repeated consideration of similar complaints by the court is substantiated. It is indicated that it is inadmissible to appeal against the decision to initiate a criminal case on the fact of committing a crime.

Ch.7 Non-performance, s.4: Damages, Art.7.4.1

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
McKendrick Ewan
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Right

This commentary analyses Article 7.4.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the right of the aggrieved party to recover damages. According to Art 7.4.1, any non-performance gives the aggrieved party a right to damages either exclusively or in conjunction with any other remedies except where the non-performance is excused under these Principles. The right of the aggrieved party to recover damages depends upon proof of non-performance by the other party to the contract. There is no requirement that the aggrieved party prove that the non-performance was attributable to the fault of the other party to the contract. Proof of fault may be relevant when deciding whether or not there has been non-performance, but fault is not the touchstone of liability in damages. Rather, the non-performance is what triggers liability in damages. The burden of proof is upon the aggrieved party to prove the non-performance of the defendant, and upon the defendant to prove that its non-performance was excused.

Ch.2 Formation and authority of agents, Formation III: Arts 2.1.15–2.1.16—Negotiations, Art.2.1.15

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zuloaga Rios Isabel
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
General Terms ◽  
The Right

This commentary focuses on Article 2.1.15 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning negotiations in bad faith. Art 2.1.15 establishes liability for pre-contractual conduct in general terms. It stipulates that a party is free to negotiate and is not liable for failure to reach an agreement. However, a party who negotiates or breaks off negotiations in bad faith is liable for the losses caused to the other party. In particular, it is bad faith for a party to enter into or continue negotiations when intending not to reach an agreement with the other party. This commentary also discusses the consequences of failure to observe the principle of good faith and fair dealing, with particular emphasis on damages and the right to request performance of the obligation to negotiate in good faith, along with exclusion or limitation of liability and burden of proof.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document