Excepția de neexecutare a contractului și dreptul de retenție

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2020) ◽  
pp. 129-185
Author(s):  
Flavius Antoniu BAIAS ◽  
◽  
Valentin CÎLȚEA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Application Domain ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Special Effects ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Right

"This study contains a detailed analysis of the Defense of refusal to perform and the Right of retention in the current Civil Code, with reference to the practice of the courts of law and to comparative law issues. Therefore, following the update of the two legal institutions, the present study mirrors the defense of refusal to perform with the right of retention (i.e. legal frame, notion, legal ground, characteristics, application domain, exercise’s conditions, operation’s mechanism, effects and transitional law). Following the examinations of the above-mentioned issues, both legal institutions are compared in order to outline the differences between them. By doing so, the article aims to settle the edge between these two means of judicial defense and to put an end to long debated controversies in the literature and judicial practice. Key-words: Civil Code; favor contractus; the rule of specific performance; the plea of breach of the contract/defense of refusal to perform/right to withhold performance of reciprocal obligation; right of retention; defense; statement of defense; counterclaim; synallagmatic contract; the special effects of synallagmatic contract; remedies for breach of contract; imperfect guarantee"

Compensation for Infringement of Copyright and Related Rights: Essence and Primary Functions

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
N. V. Buzova ◽  
◽  
R. L. Lukyanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Exclusive Right

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides an opportunity to the rightholder in case of infringement of his exclusive copyright and related rights to demand in court instead of compensation for damages incurred by him to pay compensation. In most cases, when the rightholder applies for judicial protection of his violated rights, he requires the recovery of compensation. This article discusses the legal nature of compensation as a legal remedy of an exclusive right and its primary functions. When writing an article, a comparative law research method is used. As a result of the analysis of russian and foreign legislation, as well as judicial practice, it was found that compensation, in addition to restorative, also has a preventive function and can be considered an analogue of statutory damages.

Termination for Breach of Contract

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stannard John E ◽  
Capper David
Keyword(s):  
Final Section ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
The Third ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Key Topics ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Consequences

The aims of this book are to set out in detail the rules governing termination as a remedy for breach of contract in English law, to distil the very complex body of law on the subject to a clear set of principles, and to apply the law in a practical context. This book is divided into four parts. The first section sets out to analyse what is involved in termination and looks at some of the difficulties surrounding the topic, before going on to explain the evolution of the present law and its main principles. The second section provides a thorough analysis of the two key topics of breach and termination. The third section addresses the question when the right to terminate for breach arises. And the fourth and final section considers the consequences of the promisee's election whether to terminate or not. The final chapter examines the legal consequences of affirmation, once again both with regard to the promisee and the promisor, with particular emphasis on the extent of the promisee's right to enforce the performance of the contract by way of an action for an agreed sum or an action for specific performance.

scholarly journals NOVELTIES OF PART III OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 20-23
Author(s):  
Tatyana L. Kalacheva ◽  
◽  
Natalya S. Makharadze ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
Inheritance Law ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Creation

The article examines new legal institutions of inheritance law, which are legal institutions associated with the creation and operation of the inheritance fund, the execution of a joint will and the conclusion of an inheritance contract. The authors determine the prospects for their relevance, problematic aspects, ways to solve them, analyzing examples of judicial practice.

scholarly journals A vagyoni értékű jogok apportálhatósága és az egységes szabályozás hiányának problematikája

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 114-120
Author(s):  
Zóra Zsófia Lehoczki
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Income Tax ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Personal Income ◽  
The Other ◽  
Personal Income Tax ◽  
The Real Estate ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Right

According to the new Hungarian Civil Code, the funders of the legal entities have to make contributions to the authorised capital and the two forms of these contributions are the contribution is cash and the contribution in kind. The regulation states that proprietary rights can also be transferred to the capital of businness accociations, by those funders, who are entitled to demise them. The judicial practice unanimously defined the rules in those cases, when the object of contribution in kind is a certain proprietary right, especially when the right is connected to the real estate. On the other hand, the Civil Code does not contain a list of those proprietary rights, which can be transferred to the authorised capital and unfortunately, different acts contain different lists of these rights. The three mentioned acts are the following: the personal income tax act, the act about the fees and the accounting act. All of them contain a list of proprietary rights and some of the items are regulated by all the three of them but most of the items are different, which means it is impossible to create an accurate list of these rights. For example, the list in the personal income tax act contains only five items, on the other hand, the accounting act contains two lists and both of them are unfinised. Because of the lack of unified rules, it is impossible to define which proprietary rights can become the objects of contribution in kind and this misfortunate situation causes a lot of unwanted indefinability and states a lot of questions. In my essay I introduce this problem and I use a chart to illustrate the differences between the mentioned lists. In my opinion, this problem could be solved with an unified list, which is normative for every regulation in connection with the proprietary rights or the Civil Code should contain a list of those proprietary rights, which can be the objects of contribution in kind.

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.

scholarly journals Will That Be Performance - Or Cash: Semelhago v. Paramadevan and the Notion of Equivalence

1969 ◽  
pp. 589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald H. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Specific Property ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Remedies ◽  
Estate Law

This article discusses the manner in which the Supreme Court of Canada assessed damages in Semelhago v. Paramadevan, a dispute arising from a breach of contract for sale of land. The author analyzes the decision as it affects established real estate law and principles governing judicial remedies available in contracts. Before Semelhago, specific performance was normally granted as all land was presumed to have no substitute and therefore, damages were considered to be inadequate. As a result of the decision in Semelhago, the plaintiff, whether vendor or purchaser, is now required to adduce evidence that the specific property in question is unique. The plaintiff retains the right to request specific examine performance or damages and can make her election any time up until the date of the trial. The author discusses when the value of the property should be assessed and the deductions that should be included in the final judgment. He also outlines the confusion and uncertainty this judgment has created and how the plaintiff is overcompensated by using thisformula. A solution to this dilemma is presented.

scholarly journals Specific performance of contracts in comparative law : some preliminary observations

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 785-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis J. Romero
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Mise En Œuvre ◽  
Specific Performance

On dit souvent que l'exécution en nature (specific performance) est la sanction normale (primary remedy) de l'inexécution des obligations contractuelles (breach of contract,) dans le système de droit civil, alors que dans le système de common law cette sanction prend la forme de dommages-intérêts. Cet article s'interroge sur l’exactitude de cette assertion. L'auteur constate, d'abord, que même là où l'on fait du droit civil en anglais, comme au Québec et en Louisiane, l'expression specific performance n'a pas le même sens et la même portée qu'en common law. Il souligne, de plus, que l'expression primary remedy peut se définir de plusieurs façons, susceptibles d'engendrer l'équivoque. Il démontre, enfin, que l'expressionbreach of contract couvre tellement de situations de fait différentes qu'il est impossible de dire quelle sanction l'un et l'autre systèmes juridiques préfèrent vraiment. Les expressions specific performance et primary remedy ne peuvent en fait se comprendre sans prendre en considération l'évolution historique de la notion d'exécution en nature dans chaque système de droit. La seconde moitié de l'article procède à cette étude historique ; elle conclut qu'au-delà de différences de forme les deux systèmes, face à la mise en œuvre de politiques semblables, pratiquent des moyens de sanction à toute fin pratique équivalents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document