Article 786 of the Jordanian civil code: a potential gold mine for employers and a potential minefield for contractors

Purpose This paper aims to highlight how the prevention principle may affect the rights and responsibilities of contractors under Jordanian law. In many instances, the application of legal theories and terminology of the Jordanian civil code (JCC), such as penalty clauses and produces a similar result to that under common law, such as prevention principle, and even if in some cases the route by which the result is reached differs. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based upon library research on primary and secondary sources. The author adopted the interpretive paradigm with its underlying subjectivist assumption. This paradigm creates different meanings and therefore different realities. This is particularly evident when studying legal notions, such as parties’ autonomy and decennial liability, from a comparative law perspective. Findings In many instances, the application of legal theories and terminology of the JCC, such as penalty clauses and produces a similar result to that under common law, such as the prevention principle, and even if in some cases the route by which the result is reached differs. However, it is difficult for judges and lawyers in Jordan to understand the legal principles of certain terms in the common law. This requires, to a certain extent, an understanding of the legal terms and concepts, particularly those originated from English law. For example, a thorough grasp of the prevention principle in Jordanian law remains unclear. Apparently, this can be met by training and capacity building sessions. Originality/value As far as the author is aware, this issue has not been researched comprehensively before from technical and legal standpoints. This paper represents the first attempt to examine the issues arising in this difficult and important subject.

The Regulation of Unfair Terms and Consumer Protection in Japan

This chapter examines how Japanese contract law deals with extremely one-sided, onerous, or otherwise unfair terms, such as exclusions or limitations of liability, penalty clauses, or restraint of trade clauses. It discusses the overt judicial control of such terms under specific legislation, sometimes targeted exclusively at standard terms or consumer contracts. It also analyses how the Japanese courts have exercised a more indirect control by employing traditional general contract law doctrines, such as public policy, good faith, interpretation, or the rules on procedural fairness, in order to protect parties against the imposition of unfair terms. A number of hypothetical clauses are analysed to illustrate how Japanese courts regulate unfair contract terms in practice.

The Regulation of Unfair Terms in Indian Contract Law: Past, Present, and Future

This chapter examines how Indian contract law deals with extremely one-sided, onerous, or otherwise unfair terms, such as exclusions or limitations of liability, penalty clauses, or restraint of trade clauses. It discusses the overt judicial control of such terms under specific legislation, sometimes targeted exclusively at standard terms or consumer contracts. It also analyses how the Indian courts have exercised a more indirect control by employing traditional general contract law doctrines, such as contract formation and interpretation or the rules on procedural fairness, in order to protect parties against the imposition of unfair terms. A number of hypothetical clauses are analysed to illustrate how Indian courts regulate unfair contract terms in practice.

The Regulation of Unfair Terms and Consumer Protection in Thailand

The chapter gives an account of consumer protection in Thailand and, more specifically, how Thai contract law deals with extremely one-sided, onerous, or otherwise unfair terms, such as exclusions or limitations of liability, penalty clauses, or restraint of trade clauses. It discusses the overt judicial control of such terms under the 1997 Unfair Contract Terms Act and other protective mechanisms under specific consumer legislation. It also analyses how the Thai courts have exercised a more indirect control by employing traditional general contract law doctrines, including the rules on procedural fairness, in order to protect parties against the imposition of unfair terms. Empirical evidence is provided to show that effective overall consumer protection has been established since the 1990s.

Regulation of Unfair Terms under Korean Law

This chapter examines how Korean contract law deals with extremely one-sided, onerous, or otherwise unfair terms, such as exclusions or limitations of liability, penalty clauses, or restraint of trade clauses. It discusses the overt judicial control of such terms under specific legislation, sometimes targeted exclusively at standard terms or consumer contracts. It also analyses how the Korean courts have exercised a more indirect control by employing traditional general contract law doctrines, such as public policy, good faith, interpretation, or the rules on procedural fairness, in order to protect parties against the imposition of unfair terms. A number of hypothetical clauses are analysed to illustrate how Korean courts regulate unfair contract terms in practice.

Regulating Unfair Terms and Consumer Protection

This chapter examines how Singapore contract law deals with extremely one-sided, onerous, or otherwise unfair terms, such as exclusions or limitations of liability, penalty clauses, or restraint of trade clauses. It discusses the overt judicial control of such terms under specific legislation, sometimes targeted exclusively at standard terms or consumer contracts. It also analyses how the Singapore courts have exercised a more indirect control by employing traditional general contract law doctrines, such as contract formation, interpretation, or the rules on procedural fairness, in order to protect parties against the imposition of unfair terms. A number of hypothetical clauses are analysed to illustrate how Singapore courts regulate unfair contract terms in practice.

Contents of Contracts and Unfair Terms in the Myanmar Law of Contract

This chapter examines three closely connected issues in defining the contents of contracts in Myanmar: first, the approaches adopted in interpreting the meaning of agreed contractual terms and, second, to what extent additional terms are implied to supplement the express terms, or terms are rectified. It discusses the underlying philosophy of interpretation with regard to the dichotomy of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ approaches; it details the various interpretative aids, such as customs, usages, the commercial background, and the negotiations of the parties; and it shows how Myanmar law resolves the tension between literalist and contextualist approaches to interpretation. A number of hypothetical scenarios illustrate how Myanmar courts deal with issues of contractual interpretation and gap-filling in practice. Third, this chapter examines how Myanmar law deals with extremely one-sided, onerous, or otherwise unfair terms, such as exclusions or limitations of liability, penalty clauses, or restraint of trade clauses. The controls are extremely limited. It also analyses how the courts have the power to exercise a more indirect control by employing traditional general contract law doctrines, such as contract formation, interpretation, the rules on procedural fairness, or section 13(3) of the Burma Laws Act 1898, which makes specific reference to the principles of ‘justice, equity and good conscience’ in order to protect parties against unfair terms. Hypothetical cases are discussed to illustrate how unfair contract terms are regulated in practice.

Contractual Interpretation and Protection against Unfair Terms in Indonesia

This chapter examines the Indonesian law on contractual interpretation and the regulation of unfair terms. With regard to the former, it discusses two closely connected issues in defining the contents of contracts: the approaches adopted in interpreting the meaning of agreed contractual terms, as well as to what extent additional terms are implied to supplement the express terms. It discusses the underlying philosophy of interpretation with regard to the dichotomy of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ approaches; it details the various interpretative aids, such as customs, usages, the commercial background, good faith, and the negotiations of the parties; and it shows how Indonesian law resolves the tension between literalist and contextualist approaches to interpretation. With regard to the latter, the chapter shows that Indonesian contract law has only limited responses available to tackle extremely one-sided, onerous, or otherwise unfair terms, such as exclusions or limitations of liability, penalty clauses, or restraint of trade clauses. It discusses the overt judicial control of such terms under specific legislation, targeted exclusively at standard terms in consumer contracts. Attention is also paid to the enforcement mechanisms for measures of consumer protection. The chapter further analyses how the Indonesian courts have exercised a control by employing traditional general contract law doctrines such as good faith and equity, including the rules on interpretation, in order to protect parties against the imposition of unfair terms. A number of hypothetical scenarios illustrate how the courts in Indonesia deal with issues of contractual interpretation and gap-filling and how they regulate unfair terms in practice.