Contents of Contracts and Unfair Terms

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Legal Transplant ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Problems ◽  
Convergence And Divergence ◽  
Unfair Terms ◽  
The Many

Studies in the Contract Laws of Asia provides an authoritative account of the contract law regimes of selected Asian jurisdictions, including the major centres of commerce where limited critical commentaries have been published in the English language. Each volume in the series aims to offer an insider’s perspective into specific areas of contract law—remedies, formation, parties, contents, vitiating factors, change of circumstances, illegality, and public policy—and explores how these diverse jurisdictions address common problems encountered in contractual disputes. A concluding chapter draws out the convergences and divergences, and other themes. All the Asian jurisdictions examined have inherited or adopted the common law or civil law models of European legal systems. Scholars of legal transplant will find a mine of information on how received law has developed after the initial adaptation and transplant process, including the influences affecting and mechanisms of these developments. The many points of convergence and divergence (in both form and in substance) emerge. These provide good starting points for regional harmonization projects. Volume III of this series deals with the contents of contracts and unfair terms in the laws of China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Typically, each jurisdiction is covered in two chapters; the first deals with the contents of contracts, while the second deals with unfair terms.

Formation and Third Party Beneficiaries

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Transplant ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Problems ◽  
The Many

Studies in the Contract Laws of Asia provides an authoritative account of the contract law regimes of selected Asian jurisdictions, including the major centres of commerce where limited critical commentaries have been published in the English language. Each volume in the series aims to offer an insider’s perspective into specific areas of contract law—remedies, formation, parties, contents, vitiating factors, change of circumstances, illegality, and public policy—and explores how these diverse jurisdictions address common problems encountered in contractual disputes. A concluding chapter draws out the convergences and divergences, and other themes. All the Asian jurisdictions examined have inherited or adopted the common law or civil law models of European legal systems. Scholars of legal transplant will find a mine of information on how received law has developed after the initial adaptation and transplant process, including the influences affecting and mechanisms of these developments. The many points of convergence and divergence (in both form and in substance) emerge. These provide good starting points for regional harmonization projects. Volume II of this series deals with contract formation and contracts for the benefit of third parties in the laws of China, India, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, and Indonesia. Typically, each jurisdiction is covered in two chapters; the first deals with contract formation, while the second deals with contracts for the benefit of third parties.

Brownsword, R and Howells, G, ‘The implementation of the EC Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts – some unresolved questions’ [1995] JBL 243. Brownsword, R, Howells, G and Wilhelmsson, T (eds), Welfarism in Contract, 1994, Aldershot: Dartmouth. Burrows, A, (ed), Essays on the Law of Restitution, 1991, Oxford: Clarendon. Burrows, A, The Law of Restitution, 1993, London: Butterworths. Burrows, A, Understanding the Law of Obligations, 1998, Oxford: Hart. Burrows, A, ‘Free acceptance and the law of restitution’ (1988) 104 LQR 576. Carr, C, ‘Lloyd’s Bank Ltd v Bundy’ (1975) 38 MLR 463. Cheshire, G, Fifoot, C and Furmston, M, Law of Contract, 13th edn, 1996, London: Butterworths/Tolley. Chitty (Guest, AG (ed)), Contracts: General Principles, 27th edn, 1994, London: Sweet & Maxwell. Coase, R, ‘The problem of social cost’ (1960) 3 Journal of Law and Economics 1. Collins, H, Law of Contract, 3rd edn, 1997, London: Butterworths. Collins, H, ‘Good faith in European contract law’ (1994) OJLS 229. Cooke, PJ and Oughton, DW, The Common Law of Obligations, 3rd edn, 2000, London: Butterworths. Coote, B, Exception Clauses, 1964, London: Sweet & Maxwell. Coote, B, ‘The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977’ (1978) 41 MLR 312. De Lacey, J, ‘Selling in the course of a business under the Sale of Goods Act 1979’ (1999) 62 MLR 776. Dean, M, ‘Unfair contract terms – the European approach’ (1993) 56 MLR 581. Duffy, P, ‘Unfair terms and the draft EC Directive’ (1993) JBL 67. Evans, A, ‘The Anglo-American mailing rule’ (1966) 15 ICLQ 553. Fehlberg, B, ‘The husband, the bank, the wife and her signature – the sequel’ (1996) 59 MLR 675.

1995 ◽  
pp. 808-808
Keyword(s):  
Law And Economics ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
European Contract ◽  
Consumer Contracts ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Unfair Terms

scholarly journals Contracts and Automation: Exploring the Normativity of Automation in the Context of U.S. Contract Law and E.U. Consumer Protection Directives

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
pp. 15-42
Author(s):  
Daniel Barnhizer
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Consumer Contracts ◽  
The Common ◽  
Unfair Terms ◽  
Automated Processes

Given a choice between two systems of contract rules, a court or legislature may have a normative obligation to adopt the rule that is more susceptible to coding and automation. This paper explores the ramifications of that normative proposition through the lens of multiple contract doctrines that traditionally involve “messy” judgments or multiple interacting judgments regarding which human beings are – arguably – capable of making finely nuanced analyses. Using the common law doctrine of unconscionability and Polish Civil Code Article 385 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, this paper explores the differences between contract rules that require human analysis versus those that can be applied with strong reliability by automated processes. Finally, the paper analyzes some of the potential pitfalls of this normative proposition in light of technological, economic, and moral/ethical concerns.

The Law of Contract

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Steiner
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
World Market ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter examines the law of contract in France and discusses the milestone reform of French contract law. While this new legislation introduces a fresh equilibrium between the contracting parties and enhances accessibility and legal certainty in contract, it does not radically change the state of the law in this area. In addition, it does not strongly impact the traditional philosophical foundations of the law of contract. The reform, in short, looks more like a tidying up operation rather than a far-reaching transformation of the law. Therefore, the chapter argues that it is questionable whether the new law, which was also intended to increase France's attractiveness against the background of a world market dominated by the Common Law, will keep its promise.

Classifying precontractual liability: a comparative analysis

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim Dietrich
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Initial Focus

The common law has solved questions of liability arising in the context of precontractual negotiations by resort to a range of different doctrines and approaches, adopting in effect ‘piecemeal’ solutions to questions of precontractual liability. Consequently, debate has arisen as to how best to classify or categorise claims for precontractual work and as to which doctrines are best suited to solving problems arising from anticipated contracts. The purpose of this article is to consider this question of how best to classify (cases of) precontractual liability. The initial focus will be on the ongoing debate as to whether principles of contract law or principles of unjust enrichment can better solve problems of precontractual liability. I will be suggesting that unjust enrichment theory offers little by way of explanation of cases of precontractual liability and, indeed, draws on principles of contract law in determining questions of liability for precontractual services rendered, though it does so by formulating those principles under different guises. Irrespective, however, of the doctrines utilised by the common law to impose liability, it is possible to identify a number of common elements unifying all cases of precontractual liability. In identifying such common elements of liability, it is necessary to draw on principles of both contract and tort law. How, then, should cases of precontractual liability best be classified? A consideration of the issue of classification of precontractual liability from a perspective of German civil law will demonstrate that a better understanding of cases of precontractual liability will be gained by classifying such cases as lying between the existing categories of contract and tort.

Bona fides and ubuntu – A response to Dale Hutchison

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 85-106
Author(s):  
J Barnard-Naudé
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Standard Form ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Law School ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Long Time ◽  
School Faculty ◽  
The Common ◽  
Faculty Meeting

This paper is a response to Dale Hutchison’s recent arguments about the role of fairness in contract law after the Constitution. From the point of view of transformative constitutionalism, the paper argues that the fairness ‘debate’ in the South African law of contract should be approached as what it so patently is, namely, as evidence of a deep ideological conflict that has existed in our law of contract for a very long time, and that this debate now exists within the context of a larger debate about the appropriate transformative reach of the Constitution. The argument takes the form of two ‘dangerous supplements’ to Hutchison’s discourse. The first of these supplements contends that indeterminacy is a symptom of the common law itself, rather than a result of contract law’s contact with the Constitution. The second dangerous supplement suggests a responsible judicial engagement with bona fides and ubuntu, one that can exploit the strengths of both the common law and the Constitution and that understands good faith and ubuntu to be ‘inter-linking’ constitutional values that should be enlisted in unison or at least in resonance when it comes to the question of fairness in our contemporary law of contract. In conclusion, I offer a reading of Hutchison’s own politics of contract law and contend that his is an altruistic politics committed to the standard form. I contend that this politics of contract law is consistent with a transformative understanding of the post-apartheid legal order. ‘Law, like every other cultural institution, is a place where we tell one another stories about our relationships with ourselves, one another, and authority. In this, law is no different from the Boston Globe, the CBS evening news, Mother Jones, or a law school faculty meeting. When we tell one another stories, we use languages and themes that different pieces of the culture make available to us, and that limit the stories we can tell. Since our stories influence how we imagine, as well as how we describe, our relationships, our stories also limit who we can be’.

Personalized Legal Areas

2021 ◽  
pp. 61-84
Author(s):  
Omri Ben-Shahar ◽  
Ariel Porat
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter illustrates personalized law “in action” by examining it in three areas of the law: standards of care under the common law tort doctrine of negligence, mandated consumer protections in contract law, and criminal sanctions. In each area, the chapter examines personalization of commands along several dimensions. In tort law, standards of care could vary according to each injurer’s riskiness and skill, to reduce the costs of accidents. In contract law, mandatory protections could vary according to the value they provide each consumer and differential cost they impose on firms, to allocate protections where, and only where, they are justified. And in criminal law, sanctions would be set based on what it takes to deter criminals, accounting for how perpetrators differ in their motives and likelihood of being apprehended, with the potential to reduce unnecessary harsh penalties.

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.

The Civil Law, the Common Law, and the English Language – Challenges and Opportunities in Asia

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (S1) ◽  
pp. S29-S49
Author(s):  
Gary F BELL
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Language ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
European Language ◽  
Graduate Studies ◽  
Lingua Franca ◽  
Returning Home ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
The Common

AbstractThis article addresses three questions. First, what is the effect on the civil law in Asia of young (and old) academics adopting English, the language of the common law, as a second language – rather than a civil law language, either a Continental European language (French, German etc), or another Asian civil law language (Japanese, Chinese etc)? Second, what is the effect on the civil law of civil law jurists pursuing their graduate studies not only in English but also in common law jurisdictions, rather than in civil law jurisdictions and returning home to become academics or practicing lawyers in civil law jurisdictions? Finally, since English is the lingua franca of civil law jurists in Asia, how can we adapt English to the civil law so as to make English one of our civil law languages?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document