Comparative Contract Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 901-932
Author(s):  
Hein Kötz
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Practical Relevance ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
General Contract Law ◽  
Classical Subject ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter discusses contract law in relation to comparative law. It first considers some of the reasons why contract law has become the classical subject matter of comparative law before explaining the practical relevance of the rules on general contract law to comparative studies. It then examines the similarities and differences between civil law and common law, along with the enforceability of agreements on the basis of the parties’ intention to create legal relations, the ‘doctrine of consideration’, and formal requirements of the contract. The chapter goes on to describe the two processes of ascertaining the content of a contract, namely: interpretation and supplementation. It also looks at illegal, immoral, and unfair contracts as well as the provisions on mistake, claims for performance of contractual obligations, termination of contracts, and claims for damages in case of non-performance or if a party does not perform its obligations properly.

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.

scholarly journals Contract Law Of Malaysia and Indonesia: Some Basic Comparison

1993 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 308
Author(s):  
Shaik Mohd Noor Alam S.M. Hussain
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Law System ◽  
Common Law System ◽  
Civil Law System

Malaysia dan Indonesia memiliki persamaan dan perbedaan dalam sistem hukum. Keduanegara mengenal Hukum Islam dan Hukum Adat. Namun berkenaan dengan hukum Baratmaka Malaysia menganut "Common Law System ", sedangkan Indonesia negeri yangdimasukkan dalam "Civil Law System ". Karangan berikut ini mencoba memperbandingkansahnya suatu perjanjian menurut hukum "Common Law" Malaysia dan "Civil Law" Indonesia. Terlihat adanya perbedaan dalam unsur-unsur yang harus dipenuhi untuk sahnya suatu perjanjian di kedua negara tersebut.

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.

scholarly journals A COMPARISON OF THE COMMON LAW BASED DUTY WITH ITS CIVIL LAW EQUIVALENT

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azamat Omarov ◽  
Asylbek Kultasov ◽  
Kanat Abdilov
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Legal Term ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common

The article discusses the features of civil law in different countries. The authors studied the origins of the modern tradition of civil law, comparing the legal systems of two European countries. One of the traditional classifications of duties in civil law is analyzed, the conclusion is made about the inappropriateness of the allocation of personal and universal duties. In comparative law, there are many situations where the same legal term has different meanings, or where different legal terms have same legal effect. This confusion most often occurs when civil lawyers have to deal with common law, or vice versa, when common law lawyers deal with civil law issues. While there are many issues which are dealt with in the same way by the civil law and common law systems, there remain also significant differences between these two legal systems related to legal structure, classification, fundamental concepts, terminology, etc. As lawyers know, legal systems in countries around the world generally fall into one of two main categories: common law systems and civil law systems. There are roughly 150 countries that have what can be described as primarily civil law systems, whereas there are about 80 common law countries. The main difference between the two systems is that in common law countries, case law – in the form of published judicial opinions – is of primary importance, whereas in civil law systems, codified statutes predominate.

Formation of Contract and Stipulations for Third Parties in Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary F Bell
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

Indonesia is one of the most legally diverse and complex countries in the world. It practises legal pluralism with three types of contract law in force: adat (customary) contract laws, Islamic contract laws (mostly concerning banking), and the European civil law of contract, transplanted from the Netherlands in 1847, found mainly in the Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata). This chapter focuses on European civil law as it is the law used for the majority of commercial transactions. The civil law of contract is not well developed and there is a paucity of indigenous doctrine and jurisprudence, since most significant commercial disputes are settled by arbitration. The contours of the law are consistent with the French/Dutch legal tradition. In the formation of contracts, the subjective intention of the parties plays a greater role than in the common law. As with most jurisdictions with a Napoleonic tradition, the offer must include all the essential element of the contract, there is no concept of ‘invitations to treat’ or of ‘consideration’, the common law posting rule is rejected, and the contract is formed only when the acceptance is received. There are generally few requirements of form but some contracts must be in writing and some in a notarial deed.

Comparative Contract Law

2006 ◽  
pp. 898-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Allan Farnsworth
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Contract ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
General Contract Law ◽  
European Contract Law

This article presents an overview of comparative contract law. It reveals a number of differences between civilian legal systems and the common law, and also between French and German law as two main exponents of the civil-law tradition and, to some extent, even between English and US-American law. The same is true of other major issues in the field of general contract law that have not been touched upon. But there is a gradual convergence. This convergence is due to developments in all of the four legal systems covered in this article: English, US-American, French, and German law. And it has enabled scholars from around the world to elaborate an international restatement of contract law (the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts) and scholars from all the member states of the European Union to formulate a restatement of European contract law (the Principles of European Contract Law).

THE THOUGHTS ON THE DIFFERENCES IN THE CONTRACT LAW TRADITIONS IN THE COMMON LAW AND THE CIVIL LAW LEGAL SYSTEMS

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 108-116
Author(s):  
K.A. USACHEVA
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The Common

The extent to which the contract law traditions in the common law systems really differs from those in the civil law ones is discussed in the article. Today, the existence of such differences is difficult to reject, but their modern description looks more like rough cartoon sketches, which do not take into account lots of additional factors. The article proposes considering this matter more carefully.

Common Law, Civil Law, and the Single European Market for Insurances

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 879-910 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giesela Rühl
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Insurance Contract ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Insurance Supervision ◽  
Insurance Contracts ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Single European Market ◽  
Consumer Insurance

AbstractFifty years after the foundation of the European Communities, the single market for insurances has not yet become a reality. Despite the harmonization of insurance supervision law, insurance companies still essentially refrain from cross-border activity when it comes to small commercial and consumer risks. Since this finding is usually attributed to the lack of common rules on insurance contracts, this article sets out to lay the foundation for the harmonization of the corresponding national laws. By providing a comparative analysis of two of the most pervasive issues in consumer insurance contract law, the article proves that common law and civil law are not as far apart as commonly assumed. It thus refutes the widely held belief that the insurance contract laws of common law and civil law countries are too different to be harmonized.

scholarly journals Documentary Letter of Credit: A Pivotal Case for the Inefficiency of the Law of Contract

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-532
Author(s):  
Malgorzata Karolina Chmielewska
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Guinea Pig ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Letter Of Credit ◽  
Distinct Mechanism ◽  
The Law ◽  
Commercial Device

This study compares the methods used both in common law and civil law jurisdictions to deal with the basic problems relating to the documentary letter of credit. A unique commercial device was thus developed in international trade as a means of ensuring safe and swift payment for goods. Even though this distinct mechanism works efficiently in practice, the numerous attempts made to classify it legally have been unsuccessful. A comparative analysis of the legal conceptualizations traditionally used to explain the nature of credit reveals apparent shortcomings in contractual theories. Because the basis of the documentary credit appears to be an abstract promise to pay, this phenomenon seems to break through the conceptual framework of traditional contract law theory. This is due to the fact that the process of forming the credit does not fit into the ordinary offer-acceptance formula. Yet, the easiest solution—the credit as a "mercantile specialty" or a "sui generis contract"—avoids facing the true challenge of our era, which is re-thinking the concept of "contracts" under modern laws. Legal debates should be directed in a more functional direction in order to provide satisfactory theoretical grounds for providing solutions to obvious, but still unanswered questions such as why people ought to keep their promises and why only some of those promises are likely to be legally enforced. It seems that, in this regard, documentary credit would be a convenient "guinea pig" for most contemporary concepts relating to the law of contracts.

scholarly journals Application of the Principles of Business Judgment in the Authoritative Function of Directors of Limited Liability Company in Singaporean and Indonesian Legal Perspectives

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Daniel Hendrawan ◽  
Emilia Fitriana Dewi ◽  
Subiakto Sukarno ◽  
Isti Raafaldini Mirzanti
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Difference

The purpose of this study is to analyze the functions and authority of the director of limited liability company in applying business judgment principles, by taking comparative law studies in Singapore's common law and in Indonesia's civil law. By taking emphasis on the authority of directors in representing limited companies both in and out, there are several authorities that are regulated in it. This study was conducted with a comparative law approach, with descriptive qualitative analysis. The results showed that sometimes directors act outside their authority and can harm a limited liability company. On the other hand, that there are actions of the board of directors that are in accordance with their authority but still harm the limited liability company. In this case, the shareholders often hold accountable. In corporate law there is a principle of business judgment where a director cannot be held accountable if the directors are proven to have good faith. The difference between Singapore law and Indonesian law in regulating the authority of directors is the good faith assessment held by directors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document