scholarly journals Towards normatively limited judicial sanction [structured discretion] as a proportional response to the defectiveness of legal action (contract) in modern legal transactions

2019 ◽  
pp. 7-36
Author(s):  
Andrzej Bierć
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Moral Norms ◽  
European Contract ◽  
Flexible Response ◽  
Model Rule ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

The primary purpose of the legal considerations herein is to indicate the direction of the modernization of the legality of control mechanisms in modern legal transactions. At the base of these transactions there is still the traditional, dogmatic sanction of nullity (invalidity) regulated by law (ex lege), and the legal effects of a defective legal action (contract), i.e. an action contrary to law or moral norms. In consideration of disproportionality and ineffectiveness of the nullity sanction under new conditions, jurisprudence and legislation have directed their attention to the limited judicial sanction (structured discretion) originating from the common law tradition as a proportional and flexible response to the defectiveness of legal action (contract). The statutory judicial sanction, which became the basis of the reform on the concept of illegality in common law countries, have found expression in the model rule of European private law. The Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), the latter of which revises and updates the PECL, are the primary references for the model rules of contract law in the EU. The PECL and the DCFR have affected the concept of the defective sanction of legal action (contract) in the new Civil Code, drafted by the Polish Civil Law Codification Commission.

scholarly journals The Legality of Doctrine of Frustration in the Realm of Covid-19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-90
Author(s):  
Sheela Jayabalan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
The Novel ◽  
European Contract ◽  
Force Majeure ◽  
The Common ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
European Contract Law

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19-Outbreak”) has a potential impact in the performance of a contract.  If a contract does not contain a force majeure clause, a contracting party may look to the common law doctrine of frustration to relieve it from its obligations.  Unlike force majeure clauses which focuses on the parties' express intention on how to deal with supervening events, frustration is implied by law and thus would only be considered in the absence of an express force majeure clause. In Malaysia, the doctrine of frustration is codified in section 57(2) of the Contracts Act 1957. A doctrinal analogy of the doctrine of frustration and section 57 of the Contracts Act 1950 indicates a pandemic such as the covid-19 would not frustrate a contract. Force majeure clause should be used as a protective tool to prevent losses to the contracting parties or alternatively the Principles of European Contract Law and the Unidroit Principles that make provisions for hardship as well as force majeure should be implemented.   

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).

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

La nueva perspectiva de la tutela del error en el moderno derecho de los contratos

2014 ◽  
pp. 863
Author(s):  
Rocío Herrera Blanco
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
European Contract ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Impact ◽  
European Contract Law

Premio de artículos jurídicos «GARCÍA GOYENA» (Curso 2013-2014). Primer accésit Todos los ordenamientos jurídicos europeos prevén normas relativas a la ineficacia de los contratos por vicios del consentimiento, sin embargo, existen entre ellos diferencias bastante significativas, especialmente cuando se comparan el Common Law y los derechos continentales. El presente estudio comparado parte del tratamiento de esta cuestión en la regulación española y se centra en las propuestas que el moderno Derecho de la contratación proporciona en materia de vicios del consentimiento, con particular atención a la figura del error, así como en el Derecho anglosajón, por su eventual influencia en la regulación de estos instrumentos. De manera muy amplia, podríamos decir que el Common Law enfatiza la seguridad de las transacciones, mientras que los sistemas del Civil Law, quizás todavía marcados por las huellas de las llamadas teorías voluntaristas, son más transigentes en permitir la ineficacia de los contratos por defectos del consentimiento. Partiendo de esta premisa, intentaremos evidenciar que las soluciones brindadas por el Derecho anglosajón y los diferentes instrumentos de unificación para la determinación de los efectos jurídicos del error son muy similares. Asimismo, en este trabajo se defiende la tesis de la obsolescencia del Código Civil español en esta materia, y la consecuente necesidad de adaptación del mismo a la actual realidad social, a través de un propósito de homogeneización del Derecho contractual europeo. Para ello, igualmente estudiaremos la Propuesta de modernización del Código civil en materia de obligaciones y contratos, cuya regulación del error, en particular, merece ser objeto de estudio y confrontación de ideas.The legal systems of all european countries provide rules regarding the inefficacy of contracts due to defects of consent, however, there are very significant differences between them, with the deepest differences when Common law and continental systems are contrasted. The present comparative study focuses on the proposals that the modern contract law (PECL, Unidroit Principles, DCFR, CESL) provides with regard to defects of consent and, particularly, to the doctrine of mistake, as well as the Common law for its eventual influence on the regulation of these projects. Very generally, we could say that Common Law emphasizes the security of transactions, while Civil law systems, perhaps still under the impact of the eroded voluntarist theories, are more generous in allowing the inefficacy of contracts due to defects consent. Given these premises, we will try to evidence that the solutions provided by the Common law and the different unifying instruments in order to determinate the legal effect of the defects of consent are very similar. Furthermore, this survey defends the thesis of obsolescence of the spanish Civil Code respecting defects of consent, and the ensuing need for adapting it to the current social reality through a purpose of homogenization of european contract law. Due to this fact, we will also study the Proposal for the modernization of the Civil Code on obligations and contracts, whose regulation of defects of consent, particularly, diserves to be analyzed.

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.

5. Psychiatric injury

2019 ◽  
pp. 48-59
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
The South ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on psychiatric injury. Psychiatric injury which is not derived from physical injury is a type of damage which is not always recoverable in negligence. It is an aspect of duty of care. The range of allowable actions has evolved through developments of control mechanisms in the common law, often policy based. The legal distinction between the primary and secondary victim is explored, as are more atypical situations. The four key cases are McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983), Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991), Page v Smith (1995), and White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police (1999).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document