Chapter 14. Specific Performance in the Common and Civil Law: Some Lessons for Harmonisation

2007 ◽  
pp. 279-310 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Law ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Common

scholarly journals Tradición romanística y perspectivas de reforma en sede de cláusula penal

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Valiño Arcos
Keyword(s):  
Civil Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
European Contract ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
The Common ◽  
Civil Codes ◽  
Preliminary Draft

El autor analiza el tratamiento legal de la cláusula penal en el Derecho civil español, con especial atención a la regulación que ofrece el Código civil en los artículos 1152 a 1154, las diferentes funciones que la cláusula penal cumple y el distinto régimen presente en la Lex 518 del Fuero Nuevo de Navarra, lo cual evidencia el dualismo habido en el sistema jurídico español entre el Derecho civil común (representado por el Código civil) y el derecho foral o especial (representado por distintas compilaciones de ámbito regional). La regulación del Código civil español configura la pena contractual en primer término como sustitutiva de la indemnización de daños y perjuicios prevista en el artículo 1101 del Código civil para el caso de incumplimiento contractual o para los supuestos de cumplimiento deficiente o tardío por parte del deudor. De este modo, se dispensa al acreedor de tener que recurrir a una valoración del daño efectivamente causado, de modo que la cláusula penal viene a ser una estimación anticipada del daño que sustrae al acreedor de la prueba de su existencia. Esta regulación, que se ha mantenido invariable desde la promulgación del Código civil, ha sido objeto de especial atención por parte del Anteproyecto de Modernización del Derecho de Obligaciones elaborado por la Comisión de Codificación del Ministerio de Justicia en 2009, siguiendo las orientaciones presentes en otros Códigos civiles europeos así como las aportaciones de prestigiosos académicos, que son expresión del esfuerzo en pro de la armonización del Derecho contractual europeo.The author analyses the legal treatment of the penalty clause into Spanish Civil Law, with special attention to the regulation offered by the Civil Code in their articles 1152 to 1155, the differents functions which the penalty clause achieves and the differentiated regulation into Fuero Nuevo of Navarra in the Lex 518. All of this can be seen as a reflection of the dualism in Spanish Legal System between the Common Civil Law (represented by the Spanish Civil Code) and the Foral or Special Law (represented by differents regionals compilations). The regulation of the Spanish civil code sets as general rule the contractual penalty as substitute of the regime of compensation into the article 1101 of spanish Civil Code in case of breach of contract or in case of defective or untimely performance by the debtor. This provision allows to the creditor to avoid a real damage assessment, so that the penalty clause lets a advanced estimate of damages without needing to prove them. But also admits the regulation of the penalty clause into the spanish Civil Code other functions, for instance the cumulative penalty (with the legal and previously valued compensation of damages or with the specific performance). This regulation, unchanged since the enactment of the spanish Civil Code, has been object of special attention by the preliminary draft to modernisation of the law of obligations drawn up by the Commission of Codification of the Ministry of Justice in 2009, picking up some of the guidelines present in other European Civil Codes as well as in the contributions of prestigiouses scholars, which are expression of the effort aimed at the harmonisation of European Contract Law.

scholarly journals The Case for Specific Performance as the Primary Remedy for Breach of Contract in New Zealand

2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 657
Author(s):  
Fionnghuala Cuncannon
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Practical Impact

This article examines the appropriateness of damages as the primary remedy for breach of contract in New Zealand. It argues that the civil law approach to contractual remedies, which gives primacy to performance of the obligation, is superior to New Zealand's common law position, which merely seeks to replace the right to performance with an award of damages. The importance of both the normative and practical impact of the remedial framework is examined in order to demonstrate that specific performance is better able to facilitate commercial endeavours. The three justifications for the primacy of damages in the common law (the historical development, the economic theory of efficient breach, and the concern that specific performance will overburden the administration of justice) are examined but rejected as adequate justification for the common law position. It contends that specific performance should be the primary remedy because it is more consistent with the principles that underlie the law of contract. It also contends that specific performance is more practical because it reduces conflict and promotes efficiency. The recommendation is that any change should be through appropriate legislation.

The Efficient Breach Theory under Jordanian Civil Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 336-356
Author(s):  
Yusuf Mohammed Gassim Obeidat
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Law System ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right

This study examined the ‘efficient breach’ theory and its possible application under Jordanian Civil Law. The theory says the promisor has the right to breach a contract and pay damages whenever his profit from breach exceeds his expected profits from performance. As a prerequisite for its application, the theory requires the general remedy for breach to be the payment of damages, rather than forced performance. Thus, the main area for its application is the common law system, since it favours damages as a primary remedy. This study reached the conclusion that the theory cannot work under Jordanian Civil Law, where the primary remedy for breach of contract is specific performance, that forces the promisor to complete the contract. In addition, it contradicts the good faith principle that Jordanian law is based upon, amongst other principles, and goes against the history of Jordanian legal rules.

Claims for Performance

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hein Kötz
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Difference

This chapter examines what the contract law says about claims for performance. It first considers the difference between the civil law in which claims for the performance of the contract are generally admitted, and the common law where ‘specific performance’ is awarded only exceptionally. A closer analysis shows, however, that the gap between the civil law and the common law is not as great as it might appear, and it is on that basis that the chapter discusses in some detail the harmonisation of the European rules on claims for the performance of contracts. The chapter also looks at the idea of an ‘efficient breach of contract’ as it relates to claims for performance.

Enforced Performance in Common Law Versus Civil Law Systems: An Empirical Study of a Legal Transformation

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-54
Author(s):  
Leon Yehuda Anidjar ◽  
Ori Katz ◽  
Eyal Zamir
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Lab Experiments ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Lively Debate ◽  
The Common ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Equitable Relief

Abstract Legal systems differ about the availability of specific performance as a remedy for breach of contract. While common law systems deny specific performance in all but exceptional cases, civil law systems generally award enforcement remedies subject to some exceptions. However, there is an ongoing debate about the extent to which the practice of litigants and courts actually reflects the doctrinal divergence. An equally lively debate revolves around the normative question: Should the injured party be entitled to enforced performance or rather content itself with monetary damages? Very few studies have used qualitative methods, vignette surveys, or incentivized lab experiments to empirically study these issues, and none has quantitatively analyzed actual court judgments. Against the backdrop of the comparative law and theoretical debates, this Article describes the findings of a quantitative analysis of judgments concerning remedies for breach of contract in Israel during a sixty-nine-year period (1948–2016). The judicial and scholarly consensus is that the Remedies Law of 1970 revolutionized Israeli law by turning enforced performance from a secondary, equitable relief to the primary remedy for breach of contract. We nevertheless hypothesized that no such revolution has actually occurred. In fact, neither the common wisdom that the resort to enforced performance has significantly increased following the 1970 Law, nor our skeptic hypothesis that no such increase has occurred, were borne out. According to our findings, the resort to enforced performance actually decreased considerably after 1970. We examine several explanations for this result, and show that this unexpected phenomenon is associated with the increasing length of adjudication proceedings. The theoretical and policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Is Style of Reasoning a Fundamental Difference Between the Common Law and the Civil Law?

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-290
Author(s):  
Colm Peter McGrath ◽  
◽  
Helmut Koziol ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Fundamental Difference ◽  
The Common

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 SKUTKI PRAWNE ORZECZEŃ TRYBUNAŁU KONSTYTUCYJNEGO W UJĘCIU CZASOWYM

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 313
Author(s):  
Roman Trzaskowski
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Time Effects ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Retroactive Effect ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Common

Effects of Constitutional Tribunal’s Judgments in the Time PerspectiveSummaryThe problem of the time effects of the Constitutional Tribunal’s rulings remain within the area of interest of both constitutional and civil law scholars. It is widely discussed because of its enormous practical importance: more and more often the common courts and the Supreme Court have to deal with the laws which have been declared unconstitutional.The main question is whether the courts should apply the unconstitutional law while deciding on a case in which legally significant events had taken place before the law was declared null and void.The Polish Constitution does not give a clear answer to this question. The most important provisions seem to be contradictory, which makes it possible to use them as arguments for opposing positions.The scholars’ opinions differ significantly: some of them, followed by the Supreme Court, accept the so-called „retrospective” effect (the unconstitutional law cannot by applied), the others, together with the Constitutional Tribunal, take the opposite view. A few try to find a compromise.The proposition presented in this paper is to be classified as belonging to the third group.Indeed it seems that there is a need for a flexible approach. The time effects of a ruling shall be expressly stated by the Constitutional Tribunal. When the Tribunal fails to do so, the common courts have to asses themselves the rulings’ effects, being guided, among other things, by the principles of the civil law. There are strong arguments that the Constitution seems to favor the retroactive effect, yet it is not decisive. There are certainly situations, where a prospecitve effect shall be accepted: ultimately it is a question of balancing different constitutional and civil law values. 

scholarly journals The publication of judicial decisions as a reason for convincing precedent

1970 ◽  
pp. 195-199
Author(s):  
Roman Sabodash
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
General Idea ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
State Register ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right

The paper shows how the publication of court decisions influenced the formation of a precedent. The author reviewed scientific works devoted to research the precedent in common and continental law. The research explains that the formation of precedent in England was accompanied by development of the judgment’s reviews and their prevalence among lawyers. Of course, publication of court decisions was not a major factor in setting a precedent, but it played a significant role in this. The paper also describes facts of the publication of court decisions in Italy, Germany, France and the Netherlands, as well as the admissibility of their citations at the court of cassation. The general idea of the paper is that convincing precedent exists and is used although the countries of continental law do not have a «classic» precedent. The paper gives a review of the importance of the state register of court decisions for setting a convincing precedent in Ukraine. The author analyzes the pros and cons of citing court decisions. It’s stated that, unfortunately, the quotations of court decisions is not always correct and sometimes amounts to rewriting the «right» legal position without comparing the circumstances of the case. The article concludes that the practice of applying a convincing precedent in Ukraine is only emerging and needs further improvement.          It has been found out that the publication of judgments of supreme courts is one of the factors that helped to establish precedent in common law countries. The publication of court rulings also created the conditions for a convincing precedent in civil law countries (especially in private law). At the same time, the formation of a “convincing precedent» in countries where court decisions are published in publicly available electronic court registers is much faster than in common law countries. Of course, the structure and the significance of the precedent in the common law and civil law countries are different, but one cannot dismiss that publication of court decisions as one of the factors for establishing the precedent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document