|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remedies for Non-performance - Perspectives from CISG, UNIDROIT Principles and PECL,
Liu Chengwei *
INTRODUCTION
[INTRODUCTION]
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A. For Documents
B. For Journals
C. For Organizations
D. For Citations
PART I. GENERAL REVIEW
CHAPTER 1. SOURCES OF INSPIRATION
[CHAPTER 1. SOURCES OF INSPIRATION]
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDIED INSTRUMENTS
1.2.1 CISG
1.2.2 UNIDROIT Principles
1.2.3 PECL
1.2.4 Brief Comparison
1.3 MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION
CHAPTER 2. REMEDIES AVAILABLE UPON NON-PERFORMANCE
[CHAPTER 2. REMEDIES AVAILABLE UPON NON-PERFORMANCE]
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 THE CONCEPTS: BREACH OF CONTRACT vs. NON-PERFORMANCE
2.3 REMEDIAL SCHEMES OF THE STUDIED INSTRUMENTS
2.3.1 CISG Part III (Partial)
2.3.2 UNIDROIT Principles Chapter 7
2.3.3 PECL Chapters 8, 9
2.3.4 Concluding Remarks
2.4 STRUCTURE OF THIS PRESENTATION
PART II. PRESERVING PERFORMANCE
PART III. TERMINATION
PART IV. DAMAGES
PART V. EXCUSES
PART II. PRESERVING PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER 3. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
[CHAPTER 3. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE]
3.1 COMPRISED APPROACH UNDER THE CISG
3.1.1 Introduction
3.1.2 Primacy of Specific Performance under Arts. 46/62
3.1.3 Forum's Rule under Art. 28
3.2 BUYER'S RIGHT TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: CISG ART. 46
3.2.1 Introduction
3.2.2 General Rule: Art. 46(1)
3.2.2.1 Right to require performance
3.2.2.2 Non-resorting to inconsistent remedies
3.2.3 Right to Demand Cure: Arts. 46(2) and 46(3)
3.2.3.1 In general
3.2.3.2 Delivery of substitute goods: Art. 46(2)
3.2.3.3 Right to repair: Art. 46(3)
3.2.3.4 Time limit restriction
3.2.3.5 A summary
3.3 SELLER'S RIGHT TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: CISG ART. 62
3.3.1 Rationale of Art. 62
3.3.2 General Application
3.3.3 Potential Problems
3.4 UNIFORM REMEDY IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES / PECL
3.4.1 Introduction
3.4.2 Performance of Monetary Obligation
3.4.2.1 Money due generally recoverable
3.4.2.2 Money not yet due
3.4.3 Performance of Non-monetary Obligation: In General
3.4.4 Exceptions to Performance of Non-monetary Obligation
3.4.4.1 The principle and exceptions
3.4.4.2 Performance impossible
3.4.4.3 Unreasonable burden
3.4.4.4 Performance from another source available
3.4.4.5 Performance of an exclusively personal character
3.4.4.6 Unreasonable delay in requiring performance
3.4.5 Right to Require Remedying of Defective Performance
3.4.6 Other Issues
CHAPTER 4. NACHFRIST FOR LATE PERFORMANCE
[CHAPTER 4. NACHFRIST FOR LATE PERFORMANCE]
4.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.2 RATIONALE UNDERLYING THE OPTIONAL APPROACH
4.2.1 Optional Approach under the Studied Instruments
4.2.2 Underlying Rationale
4.2.3 Granting Additional Period in Two Situations
4.3 SETTING OF A NACHFRIST NOTICE
4.3.1 Transmission of the Intention
4.3.1.1 Form of the notice
4.3.1.2 Risk in transmission
4.3.2 Fixing of the Time-limit
4.3.2.1 Fixed period
4.3.2.2 Reasonable length
4.4 EFFECTS OF SERVING A NACHFRIST NOTICE
4.4.1 Remedies Available/Suspended during the Period
4.4.2 Early End of the Existing Uncertainty upon Rejecting Notice
4.4.3 Termination upon Expiry of the Extension
4.4.3.1 In general
4.4.3.2 CISG approach
4.4.3.3 UNIDROIT Principles / PECL approach
CHAPTER 5. CURE BY NON-PERFORMING PARTY
[CHAPTER 5. CURE BY NON-PERFORMING PARTY]
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 CONDITIONS FOR INVOKING CURE
5.2.1 In General
5.2.2 Reasonableness of Notice
5.2.3 Appropriateness of Cure
5.3 SELLER'S RIGHT TO CURE AND BUYER'S RIGHT TO TERMINATION
5.4 EFFECTS OF EFFECTIVE NOTICE
5.4.1 Right to Inquire vs. Duty to Accept Cure
5.4.2 Suspension of Inconsistent Remedies
5.4.3 Retained Rights of the Aggrieved Party
CHAPTER 6. PRICE REDUCTION FOR NON-CONFORMITY
[CHAPTER 6. PRICE REDUCTION FOR NON-CONFORMITY]
6.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
6.2 FEATURES OF CISG ART. 50
6.2.1 Unique Role and Justification
6.2.2 Self-help Remedy
6.2.3 Seeming Advantages
6.3 IN CONTRAST WITH DAMAGES
6.3.1 Introduction
6.3.2 Distinctions from Damages under the CISG
6.3.2.1 Diverse ratio legis
6.3.2.2 Different manner in calculation
6.3.2.3 Other differences
6.3.2.4 A summary
6.3.3 An Alternative to Damages
6.3.3.1 Introduction
6.3.3.2 In conjunction with force majeure
6.3.3.3 In case of falling market
6.3.3.4 Upon difficulty in proving damages
6.3.3.5 A summary
6.4 ESSENTIALS OF CISG ART. 50
6.4.1 Scope of Application
6.4.1.1 General application in case of non-conformity
6.4.1.2 Ambiguity over defects in title
6.4.2 Exercise of the Right to Price Reduction
6.4.3 Calculation of Proportional Reduction
6.4.3.1 Decisive point: time of delivery
6.4.3.2 Place for comparing
6.4.4 Limited by the Cure
6.5 STATUS OF THE PRICE REDUCTION UNDER UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES / PECL
6.5.1 Exclusion under the UNIDROIT Principles
6.5.2 Inclusion under the European Principles
PART III. TERMINATION
CHAPTER 7. RIGHT TO TERMINATION
[CHAPTER 7. RIGHT TO TERMINATION]
7.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
7.2 GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION
7.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS
CHAPTER 8. FUNDAMENTAL NON-PERFORMANCE
[CHAPTER 8. FUNDAMENTAL NON-PERFORMANCE]
8.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
8.2 FORESEEABLE SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT
8.2.1 Introduction
8.2.2 Substantial Detriment
8.2.2.1 Existing detriment
8.2.2.2 Substantial deprivation
8.2.2.3 Discernible expectations
8.2.3 Foreseeability
8.2.3.1 Introduction
8.2.3.2 Test for foreseeability
8.2.3.3 Time for foreseeability
8.2.3.4 Burden to prove unforeseeability
8.3 OTHER ELEMENTS IN DEFINING FUNDAMENTAL NON-PERFORMANCE
8.3.1 Strict Compliance of Essence
8.3.2 Intentional Non-performance
8.3.3 No Reliance on Future Performance
8.3.4 Disproportionate Loss
8.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
CHAPTER 9. ANTICIPATORY NON-PERFORMANCE
[CHAPTER 9. ANTICIPATORY NON-PERFORMANCE]
9.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
9.2 GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION
9.3 SELLER'S RIGHT TO STOP GOODS IN TRANSIT UPON SUSPENSION
9.4 DUTY TO GIVE NOTICE IN EXERCISING SUSPENSION
9.5 RESTORING PERFORMANCE BY GIVING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE
9.6 TERMINATION UPON ANTICIPATORY FUNDAMENTAL NON-PERFORMANCE
9.6.1 In General
9.6.2 Clear Indication of A Fundamental Non-performance
9.6.3 Notice Given in case of Termination
9.7 ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE
9.7.1 Purpose of Rule
9.7.2 Non-receipt of Adequate Assurance
9.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS
CHAPTER 10. TERMINATION OF BREACHED INSTALLMENT OR PART
[CHAPTER 10. TERMINATION OF BREACHED INSTALLMENT OR PART]
10.1 TERMINATION OF INSTALLMENT CONTRACTS: CISG ART. 73
10.2 TERMINATION OF FUTURE INSTALLMENTS: CISG ART. 73(2)
10.3 TERMINATION OF A CONTRACT AS A WHOLE: CISG ART. 73(3)
10.4 PARTIAL TERMINATIO: CISG ART. 51
10.5 COMBINED APPROACH: PECL ART. 9:302
10.6 CONCLLUDING REMARKS
CHAPTER 11. DECLARATION OF TERMINATION
[CHAPTER 11. DECLARATION OF TERMINATION]
11.1 NO AUTOMATIC TERMINATION
11.2 INFORMALITY OF THE NOTICE
11.3 TRANSMISSION OF THE INTENTION
11.4 RISK IN COMMUNICATION
11.4.1 CISG Approach
11.4.2 Receipt Principle under the UNIDROIT Principles
11.4.3 Combined Approach under the PECL
11.5 TIME LIMIT FOR THE DECLARATION: IN GENERAL
11.6 DECLARATION WITHIN REASONABLE TIME
11.6.1 Definition of reasonable time
11.6.2 CISG Approach
11.6.3 UNIDROIT Principles / PECL Approach
11.6.4 Concluding Remarks
CHAPTER 12. EFFECTS OF TERMINATION
[CHAPTER 12. EFFECTS OF TERMINATION]
12.1 INTRODUCTION
12.2 RELIEF OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE
12.3 RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE APPROACH
12.4 UNAFFECTED RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AFTER TERMINATION
12.4.1 Continuing Right to Claim Damages
12.4.2 Unaffected Clauses Intended to Apply despite Termination
12.5 RESTITUTION
12.5.1 In General
12.5.2 Entitlement of Parties to Restitution on Termination
12.5.3 Restitution under the PECL
12.5.3.1 Property reduced in value: Art. 9:306
12.5.3.2 Recovery of money paid and property: Arts. 9:306, 9:307
12.5.3.3 Concluding remarks
12.5.4 Restitution of Benefits Received
12.5.5 Exceptions: Restitution Not Possible or Appropriate
12.5.5.1 CISG approach: making restitution a prerequisite for avoidance
12.5.5.2 UPICC/PECL approach: focusing on the allowance upon impossible restitution
12.5.5.3 Comparative perspectives
12.5.5.4 Concluding remarks
PART IV. DAMAGES
CHAPTER 13. GENERAL MEASURE OF DAMAGES
[CHAPTER 13. GENERAL MEASURE OF DAMAGES]
13.1 RIGHT TO DAMAGES
13.2 FULL COMPENSATION
13.3 RECOVERABLE LOSSES
13.4 COMPENSATION OF NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
13.5 COMPUTATION OF LOSSES AND GAINS
CHAPTER 14. LIMITS TO CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
[CHAPTER 14. LIMITS TO CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES]
14.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
14.2 FORESEEABILITY OF LOSS
14.2.1 In General
14.2.2 Test for Foreseeability
14.2.3 Party Concerned and Reference Point
14.2.4 Evaluation of Foreseeability
14.2.5 Content of Foreseeability
14.2.6 Concluding Remarks
14.3 CERTAINTY OF HARM
14.4 CONTRIBUTION TO HARM
14.4.1 In General
14.4.2 Ways of Contributing to the Harm
14.4.3 Remedies Affected by the Contribution
14.4.3.1 Remedies available upon non-performance caused solely by the contribution
14.4.3.2 Damages proportionately reduced due to partial contribution
14.5 DUTY TO MITIGATE
14.5.1 In General
14.5.2 Reasonable Measures Taken
14.5.3 Effects of Failure to Mitigate
CHAPTER 15. DAMAGES UPON TERMINATION
[CHAPTER 15. DAMAGES UPON TERMINATION]
15.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
15.2 DAMAGES UPON SUBSTITUTE TRANSACTIONS
15.2.1 Introduction
15.2.2 Presupposed Situations Calling for Concrete Calculation
15.2.3 Substitute Transaction must be Reasonable Substitute
15.3 DAMAGES UPON CURRENT PRICE
15.3.1 Introduction
15.3.2 Presupposed Situations Calling for Abstract Calculation
15.3.3 Determination of "Current Price"
15.3.3.1 In general
15.3.3.2 Reference point
15.3.3.3 Relevant place
15.4 FURTHER DAMAGES
CHAPTER 16. AGREED PAYMENT FOR NON-PERFORMANCE
[CHAPTER 16. AGREED PAYMENT FOR NON-PERFORMANCE]
CHAPTER 17. RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
[CHAPTER 17. RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS' FEES]
17.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
17.1.1 Introduction
17.1.2 Recoverability under "Loser-pays" Principle
17.1.3 Excluded by "American Rule"
17.2 CISG DECISIONS CONCERNING ATTORNEYS' FEES
17.3 PROBLEMATIC RECOVERY UNDER ART. 74 CISG
CHAPTER 18. PAYMENT OF INTEREST
[CHAPTER 18. PAYMENT OF INTEREST]
18.1 INTRODUCTION
18.2 GENERAL ENTITLEMENT TO INTEREST
18.3 ADDITIONAL DAMAGES
18.4 INTEREST ON DAMAGES
18.5 ACCRUAL OF INTEREST
18.6 RATE OF INTEREST
PART V. EXCUSES
CHAPTER 19. CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES
[CHAPTER 19. CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES]
19.1 INTRODUCTION
19.2 UNSDERLYING DOCTRINCE; REBUS SIC STANTIBUS
19.3 DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
19.3.1 Historical Review
19.3.2 National Doctrines
19.3.3 International Perspective
19.3.3.1 Public international law
19.3.3.2 International commercial practice
19.3.4 Conclusion
19.4 DEFINITIONS OF force majeure AND HARDSHIP
19.4.1 Force Majeure
19.4.2 Hardship
19.4.3 Comparison
19.5 GENERAL APPROACHES IN THE STUDIED INSTRUMENTS
19.5.1 Approach under the CISG
19.5.2 Approach under the UNIDROIT Principles
19.5.3 Approach under the PECL
19.5.4 Concluding Remarks
CHAPTER 20. force majeure
[CHAPTER 20. force majeure]
20.1 INTRODUCTION
20.2 RELEVANT TEXTS
20.2.1 Exemptions: CISG Art. 79
20.2.2 Force Majeure: UNIDROIT Principles Art. 6.1.7
20.2.3 Excuse Due to an Impediment: PECL Art. 8:108
20.2.4 Comparison
20.3 GENERAL RULE
20.3.1 Scope of Excusable Non-performance
20.3.2 Existence of Qualifying Impediment
20.3.2.1 Introduction of a new word
20.3.2.2 Interpretation of the word
20.3.2.3 Problematic situations
20.3.3 Conditions for Exempting Impediment
20.3.3.1 Beyond control
20.3.3.2 Unforeseeable
20.3.3.3 Unavoidable or insurmountable
20.3.3.4 Causation
20.4 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIRD PARTIES
20.5 TEMPORARY IMPEDIMENT
20.6 DUTY TO NOTIFY
20.7 EFFECTS
20.7.1 In General
20.7.2 Effect on Right to Damages
20.7.3 Effect on Right to Performance
20.7.4 Effect on Right to Termination
CHAPTER 21. HARDSHIP
[CHAPTER 21. HARDSHIP]
21.1 GAP IN THE CISG?
21.2 INTERPLAY BETWEEN CISG EXCUSE AND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES / PECL HARDSHIP
21.2.1 Hardship: UNIDROIT Principles Arts. 6.2.1 through 6.2.3
21.2.2 Change of Circumstances: PECL Art. 6:111
21.2.3 Gap-filling Application of Hardship Provisions?
21.3 CONDITIONS FOR INVOKING HARDSHIP
21.3.1 In General
21.3.2 Crucial Point: Fundamental Alteration of Equilibrium
21.3.3 Additional Requirements for Hardship to Arise
21.3.3.1 Time factor: occurrence after conclusion
21.3.3.2 Unforeseeability
21.3.3.3 Risk not assumed
21.4 EFFECTS OF HARDSHIP
21.4.1 In General
21.4.2 Triggering of Renegotiation
21.4.2.1 Request for renegotiation
21.4.2.2 Renegotiation in good faith
21.4.3 Court Measures in case of Hardship
21.4.4 Concluding Remarks
CHAPTER 22. FORCE MAJEURE and HARDSHIP CLAUSES
[CHAPTER 22. FORCE MAJEURE and HARDSHIP CLAUSES]
22.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
22.2 FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE
22.2.1 Introduction
22.2.2 Drafting Considerations
22.3 HARDSHIP CLAUSE
22.3.1 Introduction
22.3.2 Drafting Considerations
22.4 OVERLAPPING OF THE CLAUSES
22.5 USE OF STANDARD FORMS: ICC No. 421 (partial)
Endnotes
Endnotes
Metadata
SiSU Metadata, document information
Manifest
SiSU Manifest, alternative outputs etc.
Remedies for Non-performance - Perspectives from CISG, UNIDROIT Principles and PECL,
PART III. TERMINATION
CHAPTER 11. DECLARATION OF TERMINATION
As noted above, the notice of termination can be oral or in writing, and may be given by any means appropriate to the circumstances. But, it should state clearly an intent of avoidance, although the degree of clarity required in the notice is not clearly ascertained. Honnold states with this regard: "A buyer's declaration of avoidance, to be effective under Article 26, must inform the seller that the buyer will not accept or keep the goods. Conversely, a seller's declaration of avoidance must inform the buyer that the seller will not deliver the goods or, if the goods have been delivered, that the seller demands their return. . . ." 573
Under the Convention, in other words, the avoiding party must affirmatively declare that he avoids the contract and must transmit advice of his decision to the other party by an appropriate means of communication (Arts. 26, 27). There must be a positive act on the part of the entitled party to declare his intention to terminate. This principle is of a general nature applicable to all cases of avoidance under the Convention, whether it affects the whole contract or only part of it, and irrespective of whether it is based on an actual or anticipatory breach. 574 Thus, in some circumstances termination of a contract by conduct implying an intent, e.g. the mere sending back of delivered and fundamentally non-conform goods, is not sufficient. 575 Nonetheless, no particular content is required in the notice: it is sufficient to inform the other party that the contract is being avoided. The notice of termination needs not use exact language, such as, "I hereby declare our contract avoided." Rather, a more pragmatic form for declaration of avoidance is to be acknowledged, that is, the communication must contain language which clearly operates to put the party in breach on notice that the party not in breach will no longer fulfil. 576 On all accounts, the entitled party must represent his clear intention to terminate the contract in his notice of termination.
Further, the Convention does not require, as do some legal systems, that an advance notice be given of the intention to declare the contract avoided. This Convention requires only one notice, the notice of the declaration of avoidance. 577 So do the UNIDROIT Principles and the PECL. However, a party who declares the contract avoided pursuant to CISG Art. 49(1)(b) or Art. 64(1)(b) must have previously fixed an additional period of time of reasonable length for performance by the other party under CISG Art. 47(1) or Art. 63(1). In such a case the party who declares the contract avoided must necessarily send two communications to the other party, unless the Nachfrist notice provides that at the end of the period the contract shall terminate automatically if performance has still not been made. 578 Such situations are also supported under the UNIDROIT Principles and the PECL.
573. Supra. note 12. For cases see: Amtsgericht Zweibrücken, 14 October 1992 [1 C 216/92] (Germany) (UNILEX) ‹http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/921014g1.html› (PACE), where the Court confirmed that, according to CISG art.
574. the buyer's notice of declaration of avoidance must represent his clear intention to avoid the contract, which in this case neither the buyer's request for a price reduction nor that the goods be taken back could represent; Amtsgericht Oldenburg, 24 April 1990 [5 C 73/89] (Germany) (UNILEX) ‹http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/900424g1.html› (PACE), where the Court held that the buyer had not effectively avoided the contract by refusing acceptance and returning the invoice; Amtsgericht Nordhorn, 14 June 1994 [3 C 75/94] (Germany) (UNILEX) ‹http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940614g1.html› (PACE), where the Court held that the fact that the defective goods were sent back to the seller amounted to a valid declaration of lack of conformity, however the Court found that the buyer's declaration of avoidance was not made according to a provision contained in the seller's general conditions of contract which the Court found to have been incorporated in the contract. The Court invoked art. 4(a) and evaluated the validity of the seller's general conditions on the basis of Italian law as the law governing the contract according to German rules of private international law. As the seller's clause was valid under Italian law, the buyer's declaration of avoidance was without effect because he had failed to declare the contract avoided according to the contractually established procedure.
575. Supra. note 11. However, it is to be noted that the Official Comment on PECL Art. 9:303 clearly states that: "Notice may be given either by expressly declaring the contract terminated or by rejecting the tender of performance." (Supra. note 1.)
576. See Germany 17 September 1991 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt ‹http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/910917g1.html› , where the Court stated: "The telegram of the [buyer] of March 3, 1989 constitutes the declaration of the avoidance of the contract because the [buyer] unmistakably communicated to the [seller] that she, from now on, would produce the collection of shoes with another Italian manufacturer, and she was ending immediately the already-begun collaboration with the [seller]. As to that the [seller] could have no doubts -- even, in the absence of a separate, explicit statement thereof -- that the [buyer] rejected the performance [by the seller] of sending the [buyer] 130 pairs of model shoes, which was only a preliminary step of the planned exchange of goods and, with its avoidance, the purpose of the delivery of the model shoes was not achieved. An explicit reference to the avoidance of the contract, pursuant to the CISG, was not required for the validity of the legal effects of the avoidance of the contract . . . It was sufficient that the [buyer] made clear that she wouldn't pay the [seller's] bill because of her breach of contract, because meanwhile the delivered model shoes became useless to her . . . ."
577. Supra. note 4, Comment 3.
578. Supra. note 4, n. 2.
