Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties in Japan

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masami Okino
Keyword(s):  
Case Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
German Model ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on third party beneficiaries in Japan; mostly characterized by adherence to the German model that still bears an imprint on Japanese contract law. Thus, there is neither a doctrine of consideration nor any other justification for a general doctrine of privity, and contracts for the benefit of third parties are generally enforceable as a matter of course. Whether an enforceable right on the part of a third party is created is simply a matter of interpretation of the contract which is always made on a case-by-case analysis but there are a number of typical scenarios where the courts normally find the existence (or non-existence) of a contract for the benefit of a third party. In the recent debate on reform of Japanese contract law, wide-ranging suggestions were made for revision of the provisions on contracts for the benefit of third parties in the Japanese Civil Code. However, it turned out that reform in this area was confined to a very limited codification of established case law.

scholarly journals EKSEKUSI JAMINAN PERORANGAN (BORGTOCHT) DALAM PENYELESAIAN KREDIT MACET MELALUI KEPAILITAN (ANALISIS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI NOMOR 2960 K/Pdt/2010)

Jurnal MINUTA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-19
Author(s):  
Evi Retno Wati
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The Right

Generally collateral is divided into two, namely personal guarantee (persoonlijke zekerheid) and corporeal guarantee (zakerlijke zekerheid). On Personal collateral, what given by debtor was not an object but a statement made by the third party who has no interest at all both toward debtor or creditor. In the case that was reviewed in this research to wit The supreme court of Republic of Indonesia decree No. 2960 K/Pdt/2010 PT. Pertamina Dana Ventura (first named PT. Pertamina Saving & Investment), as a creditor filed a confiscation guarantee claim toward Kairudin Nur who is the guarantor of the debt of PT. Goro Bata Sakti (in bankruptcy) as a debtor. Guarantor in Indonesian Civil Code (later stated as KUHPer) is given a privilege which is stated in article 1831 KUHPer which given right to the guarantor to reject payment to creditor before the creditor’s property confiscated first and sold in order to pay the debts. If after the debtor’s property confiscated and sold are not enough to pay the debts, then in this case the guarantor is responsible for fulfilling the debts toward creditor. In The supreme court of Republic of Indonesia decree No. 2960 K/Pdt/2010, the guarantor right as ruled in KUHPer is violated. Therefore the law protection that can be given to the guarantor is the guarantor is given the right to accelerate the management and settlement toward debtor’s assets which were under curator supervision.

scholarly journals Investigating Sanction of the Conditions in the Settlement Contract with Regard to Registration of Deeds and Real Estate

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsaneh Narimisa ◽  
Alireza Entezari
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Problem ◽  
The Third ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
The Law

Considering that Articles 47 and 48 of the Registration Law have stated that registration of the document of settlement contract is obligatory and its sanction is the non-acceptability of unofficial documents in courts and departments. However, it must be said that these articles do not declare the invalidity of normal documents absolutely, but the meaning of the non-acceptability of such documents is that they cannot be referred to in relation to third parties, while such documents are valid and authentic for the parties to the contract, and because of the fact that the document is a normal contract, the parties to the contract cannot refuse to fulfill their commitment and execute the contract by the excuse that such documents must have been registered in accordance with the law. Therefore, referring to ordinary settlement agreement, the grantee cannot claim the propriety of some property against persons other than grantor, but in the case of denial of the occurrence of a transaction between the parties to the settlement, the beneficiary can refer to the ordinary document of that transaction to prove the occurrence of the transaction between themself and the other person, and such a reference is reviewable by the court. In addition to that the grantor and grantee can refer to ordinary document and any provable evidence in their controversy and dispute about the settlement subject and prove the occurrence of settlement, the grantee can bring an action against the grantor and obligate them to arrange an official settlement document by proving the settlement and by invoking to Article 220 of the Civil Code, because according to the mentioned article, transactors are not only committed to what is stated in the contract, but are also committed to all the results of the contract in accordance with customs or law. However, if a dispute occurs between the grantee and a third party about the settlement subject and an action is brought, then if the grantee presents the ordinary settlement document to prove their ownership, the court according to the Registration Law will not consider that document effective, and the grantee may even be convicted against the third party. The settlement is not correct if its provisions arecontrary to the law, order and the general rules, and if the settlement document arranged in a notary office has a substantive, procedural or legal problem then the competent legal authorities such as the High Council of Registry investigate the issue and the provisions applicable will be issued.

scholarly journals L’interprétation des clauses base-réclamation dans les contrats d’assurance de responsabilité civile au Québec

2021 ◽  
Vol 88 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 53-90
Author(s):  
Thomas Stéphane Nguema Evie
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Insurance Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
Main Effects ◽  
Order Set

This article addresses the question of the interpretation of base-claim clauses in Quebec insurance law. Defined mainly by the doctrine as clauses whose effects consist in assimilating the claim to the claim of the victim, the use of base-claim clauses raise several questions as to their legality on reading articles 2396 of the civil code and 2414 of the same. coded. While the first defines the claim as a damaging event, the second article states the relative public order nature of the provisions of Chapter XV of Title 2 of Book V of the Civil Code, among which is Article 2396 of the Civil Code. Article 2414 states that the provisions of Chapter XV may be subject to a derogation if this benefits the policyholder, the insured, the beneficiary or does not infringe the rights of third parties. However, one of the main effects of base-claim clauses is to considerably restrict the direct action of the third party towards the insurer but, also, to place on the back of the insured the lack of diligence of the injured third party. In the silence of the law, it is then up to the courts to assess the compliance of the basis-claim clauses with public order set out in article 2414 through virtual public order. This article attempts to suggest means of interpretation aimed at establishing the illegality of base-claim clauses.

Relaxations of Contractual Privity and the Need for Third Party Rights in Chinese Contract Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Lei
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the position of third party beneficiaries in Chinese law. Article 64 of the Chinese Contract Law states that where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached, the debtor is liable to the creditor. The author regards this as leaving unanswered the question of whether the thirdparty has a right of direct action against the debtor. One view regards the third party as having the right to sue for the benefit although this right was ultimately excluded from the law. Another view, supported by the Supreme People’s Court, is that Article 64 does not provide a right of action for a third party and merely prescribes performance in ‘incidental’ third party contracts. The third view is that there is a third party right of action in cases of ‘genuine’ third party contracts but courts are unlikely to recognize a third party action where the contract merely purports to confer a benefit on the third party.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties Under the Taiwan Civil Code

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng-Lin JAN
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Privity Of Contract

This chapter discusses the position of third party beneficiaries in Taiwan law where the principle of privity of contract is well established. Article 269 of the Taiwan Civil Code confers a right on the third party to sue for performance as long as the parties have at least impliedly agreed. This should be distinguished from a ‘spurious contract’ for the benefit of third parties where there is no agreement to permit the third party to claim. Both the aggrieved party and the third party beneficiary can sue on the contract, but only for its own loss. The debtor can only set off on a counterclaim arising from its legal relationship with the third party. Where the third party coerces the debtor into the contract, the contract can be avoided, but where the third party induces the debtor to contract with the creditor by misrepresentation, the debtor can only avoid the contract if the creditor knows or ought to have known of the misrepresentation.

KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA APABILA TERJADI SENGKETA WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dija Hedistira ◽  
' Pujiyono
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to analyze the ownership and mastery of a fiduciary collateral object, in cases that often occur today, many disputes between creditors and debtors in fiduciary collateral agreements are caused because creditors assume that with executive rights as fiduciary recipients, the fiduciary collateral object legally owned by creditors and creditors the right to take and sell fiduciary collateral objects when the debtor defaults unilaterally, as well as the debtor who considers that the fiduciary collateral object is owned by him because the object is registered on his name, so that the debtor can use the object free as  giving to a third party or selling the object of fiduciary guarantee unilaterally. the author uses a normative <br />juridical approach, and deductive analysis method based on the Civil Code and fiduciary law applicable in Indonesia, Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The conclusion of the discussion is the ownership of the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee is owned by the debtor in accordance with the Law, mastery of the object of collateral controlled by the debtor for economic benefits, the procedure of execution The object of Fiduciary Guarantee is carried out in accordance with the Fiduciary Guarantee Act, an alternative mediation in resolving the dispute. There needs to be clarity in the use of language in making a law, so as not to conflict with each other between Article one and the other Articles.<br />Keywords: Ownership; Mastery; Object of Fiduciary Guarantee; Debtor; Creditors.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang kepemilikan dan penguasaan suatu objek jaminan fidusia, dalam kasus yang saat ini sering terjadi, banyak sengketa antara kreditur dan debitur dalam perjanjian jaminan fidusia disebabkan karena kreditur beranggapan bahwa dengan adanya hak eksekutorial sebagai penerima fidusia, maka objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sah dimiliki oleh kreditur dan kreditur berhak mengambil dan menjual objek jaminan fidusia saat debitur cidera janji<br />(wanprestasi) secara sepihak, begitupun dengan debitur yang menganggap bahwa objek jaminan fidusia tersebut dimiliki olehnya karena objek tersebut terdaftar atas namannya, sehingga debitur dapat mempergunakan objek tersebut secara bebas seperti menyerahkan kepada pihak ketiga atau menjual objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sepihak. penulis menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan metode analisis deduktif yang didasarkan pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata<br />dan hukum jaminan fidusia yang berlaku di Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kesimpulan pembahasan adalah Kepemilikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia dimiliki oleh debitur sesuai Undang-undang, penguasaan objek jaminan dikuasai debitur untuk manfaat ekonomis, prosedur eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia, alternatif secara mediasi dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi. Perlu ada kejelasan dalam<br />penggunaan bahasa pada pembuatan suatu Undang-Undang, agar tidak saling bertentangan antar Pasal satu dengan Pasal yang lainnya. <br />Kata Kunci: Kepemilikan; Penguasaan; Objek Jaminan Fidusia; Debitur; Kreditur.</p>

scholarly journals The partial waiver of the rights and partial invalidation of rights to the invention

2021 ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
Petro Borovyk
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
The Third ◽  
Utility Models ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Registration ◽  
The Right

Borovyk P. The partial waiver of the rights and partial invalidation of rights to the invention. In view of changes in the Law of Ukraine «About protection of rights for inventions and utility models» introduced according to the Law No. 816-IX as of 21.07.2020, it is implied that a patent owner can waive rights provided by a state registration of an invention (utility model) fully or partially, and a court can render the rights for the invention (utility model) invalid fully or partially. The partial waiver of the rights or rendering the rights invalid causes a number of issues on a rather frequent basis, in particular, regarding a certain procedure of defining the entire scope of rights according to the patent and a portion of these rights. Since the scope of rights is defined by claims, the partial waiver of the rights or the partial rendering the rights invalid substantially represents a change of the scope of rights, which are defined by the claims as published. The patent may be granted for a group of inventions. In such case, the scope of rights shall be defined by the claims that comprise several independent claims. Here, the partial waiver of the rights for the invention may be carried out by waiving one or several independent claims at the discretion of the patent owner or by rendering one or several independent claims invalid by the court. Therewith, the scope of rights that is defined during conduction of an examination for another invention of the group of inventions, which are mentioned in a single protection document (patent), is not changed. The partial waiver or the partial rendering the rights for the invention invalid for the claims having one independent claim is a more problematic case. A key aspect of this problem is an influence of the proposed amendments of the claims onto the scope of rights for the invention and its correspondence with the requirements for granting a legal protection. More specifically, it is an establishment of a fact of reduction of the scope of rights when introducing the proposed amendments into the independent claim and examination of a new version of the independent claim for compliance with the requirements of patentability. An important aspect also lies in establishment of a balance of interests of the patent owner and third parties. The patent owner will receive a mechanism of implementation of the right for protection of allowable embodiments of the invention, while the third parties will receive a right for a legal certainty by means of an analysis of the scope of rights of the new version of the claims. The article discloses grounds for waiving the rights for the invention and the mechanism for implementation of the waiver under the legislation in force both for the case of the group of inventions and for the partial waiver or the partial rendering the rights for the invention invalid with the claims having one independent claim. Keywords: scope of rights, independent and dependent claims, amendment to claims, proceedings

7. Privity of contract and third party rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 307-358
Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Privity Of Contract

Poole’s Casebook on Contract Law provides a comprehensive selection of case law that addresses all aspects of the subject encountered on undergraduate courses. This chapter examines privity of contract, its relationship with consideration, and the ability of third parties to enforce contractual provisions for their benefit. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that the benefits of a contract can be enjoyed only by the parties to that contract and only parties can suffer the burdens of the contract. At common law, third party beneficiaries could not enforce a contractual provision in their favour so various devices were employed seeking to avoid privity. Statute now allows for direct third party enforcement but in limited circumstances. This chapter examines the background to privity and the attempted statutory reform in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as it has been interpreted in the case law. The chapter also discusses the common law means of avoiding privity as illustrated by the case law, e.g. agency, collateral contracts, and trusts of contractual obligations. Finally, it assesses the remedies available to the contracting party to recover on behalf of the third party beneficiary of the promise, including the narrow and broad grounds in Linden Gardens Trust. It concludes by briefly considering privity and burdens—and the exceptional situations where a burden can be imposed on a person who is not a party to the contract.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document