SiSU -->
[ document manifest ]
<< previous TOC next >>
< ^ >

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,
Liu Chengwei

PART V. EXCUSES

CHAPTER 22. FORCE MAJEURE and HARDSHIP CLAUSES

22.2 FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE

22.2.1 Introduction
22.2.2 Drafting Considerations
1425

Force majeure clauses, often very detailed, are almost invariably included in international business contracts, irrespective of their proper or selected governing law.  1302  They only have relevance, however, if they differ from the doctrine of force majeure that would be applicable without the existence of such a clause.  1303  In this respect, force majeure clauses that parties include in their contracts either supplement the governing law or limit or supplant the default rule thereof. It seems clear that, when provision is made to anticipate the consequences of force majeure events, the parties tend to depend much more on the terms of their agreement than an the subjacent rules of the system of law applicable to the contract.  1304 

Under most circumstances, parties should include a force majeure clause in their contract to provide greater predictability and more appropriate protection than the doctrine of excuse governing the transaction -- usually CISG Art. 79. Force majeure clauses can provide increased protection for clients in several ways. For example, Art. 79 CISG does not explicitly state whether an impediment excuses performance if partial performance is possible. Thus, the parties could draft a force majeure clause that explicitly states that a party must perform to the extent possible. By negotiating the issue of partial performance in advance, parties can avoid expensive litigation down the road. Similarly, parties could include a force majeure clause to overcome the obstacle of foreseeability. To some extent, every impediment is foreseeable; and where certain situations or "impediments" are foreseeable, parties generally assume their risk unless explicitly allocated in the contract. Therefore, since a force majeure clause in a CISG contract may limit or supersede the applicability of Art. 79, parties could negotiate force majeure excuses without regard to foreseeability. Thus, even if a party could not claim excuse under Art. 79 -- because the impediment was foreseeable the party could be excused by an event delineated in the force majeure clause. The illustrations provided above do not exhaust the benefits that force majeure clauses provide for international contracts. Force majeure clauses can be tailored to meet the needs of parties, to account for exceptional circumstances, and to compensate for inadequate protection by the applicable doctrine of excuse.  1305 

However, in order to protect clients, practitioners should negotiate and draft the clauses very carefully. In particular, practitioners should consider the following tips when drafting force majeure clauses: force majeure clauses are generally drafted in such a way as to offer a definition of the concept, followed by a non-exhaustive list of the events agreed upon by the parties as constituting force majeure. Furthermore, a duty of notification, obligating the affected party to give notice of the force majeure event, is often provided. Finally, force majeure clauses set out the legal effect of a force majeure situation.

1429

Drafters must firstly decide whether to list specific force majeure events, include a "catchall" category, or both.  1306  It is the recommended and usual practice that force majeure clauses, after defining the concept in a catch-all provision, set out a non-exhaustive list of agreed force majeure events.  1307  Examples of traditional events contained in such lists are tornadoes, lightning, floods, fires, earthquakes, and unusually severe weather conditions.  1308  The list of specific force majeure events included in international contracts has evolved in such a way as to include impediments to the ability of the parties to fulfill their obligations. These are in addition to the classical events of natural calamities and wars, and may be the result of: (a) the increasing participation of States or their entities in business activities (authorisations, approvals, concessions and regulations), or (b) turmoil of a social nature (strikes, lock-outs).  1309  When the laundry list approach is utilized, the drafter should consider phrasing it as "including, but not limited to ..." Otherwise, a court could interpret the clause as excluding any event not specifically listed in the clause.  1310  On the other hand, the drafter could state that the catchall provision covers "any other event, whether or not similar to the causes specified above." The drafter could avoid leaving room for judicial discretion in the laundry list approach by listing very precise events. However, drafters should remember that under the ejusdem generis rule of construction "general words following specific ones will be given a limited meaning." Therefore, if the force majeure clause enumerates contingencies (i.e., a laundry list), the drafter must be very comprehensive. As an alternative, the force majeure clause could delineate excusing effects rather than excusing events 1311 

Secondly, the force majeure clause should explicitly state what the performing party must do in order to properly invoke the clause.  1312  For example, the clause may require that a party that wishes to be excused from performance under the clause give prompt notice of such an intention to the other party, unless the other party has actual notice. Failure to provide such notice often results in drastic consequences where one cannot rely on the clause to excuse non-performance. Such a situation, however, is not thought to result automatically from a failure to provide timely notice; there is usually an express provision in the contract.  1313  Moreover, where notice is required, the drafter should address other notice issues, including: (1) when the excusing event is deemed to have occurred, i.e., when the duty to give notice arises; (2) time limits; (3) whether notice must be written; and (4) whether notice becomes effective on dispatch or upon receipt, etc.

Thirdly, the drafter should resolve any uncertainty as to the consequences of a situation of force majeure, which is generally to imply a disclaimer of liability for the effects of such an event. Generally, the promisor is not liable for damages where force marjeure exists. However, e.g., it cannot be determined with sufficient security how the right to performance can be affected by the impediments under Art. 79 CISG. Unlike most municipal laws which adopt the notion of force majeure, in international trade practice force majeure does not necessarily result in the termination of the contract. More often, in international trade practice there is provision for two stages with respect to the effect of force majeure. In the first stage, either the duty to discharge the obligation is suspended for the duration of the force majeure condition or the time of performance of the contract is extended for a specific period. If the event which constitutes force majeure is permanent or continues after the expiration of that period, each party is entitled to terminate the contract. If the force majeure condition ceases before the expiration of the additional period of time, however, the contract revives without consequences.  1314  Drafters should use very clear language when dealing with these issues so as to make their intention clear.

In short, in defining force majeure clause, the drafter should resolve any uncertainty left by default rule, e.g. Art. 79 CISG. Drafters should use very clear language and define the scope of the force majeure clause to avoid leaving a gap in the clause.


 1302. See Ugo Draetta in "Force Majeure Clauses in International Trade Practice": 5 Int'l Bus. L. J. (1996); p. 550.

 1303. See P.J.M. DeClercq in "Modern Analysis of the Legal Effect of Force Majeure Clauses in Situations of Commercial Impracticability": 15 J.L. and Com.(1995); p. 213.

 1304. See Delaume, Georges, Law And Practice of Transnational Contracts, New York, London, Rome (1988); p. 53. Available online at ‹http://tldb.uni-koeln.de/TLDB.html› ; TLDB Document ID: 101500.

 1305. See Jennifer M. Bund in "Force majeure Clauses: Drafting Advice for the CISG Practitioner": 17 Journal of Law and Commerce (1998); pp. 405-406. Available online at ‹http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/bund.html

 1306. Supra. note 9, p. 232.

 1307. Supra. note 1, p. 230. In this respect, Bund believes that courts may be more willing to give effect to "laundry list" force majeure clauses that contain specific events, rather than to a catchall or combination-type clause for several reasons. First, a clause that merely lists general categories leaves judges discretion and, in certain situations, they could refuse to excuse performance since they are not bound by specified events. Second, under rules of construction, namely ejusdem generis, courts have refused to excuse performance for events that are dissimilar to events specifically listed in the clause (e.g., economic factors). Including a general catchall provision, therefore, may be a wasted effort. (Supra. note 11, p. 408.)

 1308. Supra. note 9, p. 233.

 1309. Supra. note 8, p. 552.

 1310. Supra. note 11, p. 408.

 1311. Supra. note 11, pp. 410-411.

 1312. See John S. Kirkham in "force majeure - Does it Really Work?": 30 Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst. (1984); § 6.05(2)(a).

 1313. Supra. note 8, p. 552.

 1314. Supra. note 1, pp. 231-232.


[ document manifest ]
<< previous TOC next >>
< ^ >



SiSU


Viral Spiral - How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of Their Own

David Bollier

2009


The Wealth of Networks - How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom

Yochai Benkler

2006


Free Culture - How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity

Lawrence Lessig

2004


CONTENT - Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright and the Future of the Future

Cory Doctorow

2008


Democratizing Innovation

Eric von Hippel

2005


Free As In Freedom - Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software

Sam Williams

2002


Two Bits - The Cultural Significance of Free Software

Christopher Kelty

2008


Free For All - How Linux and the Free Software Movement Undercut the High Tech Titans

Peter Wayner

2002


The Cathedral & the Bazaar - Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary

Erik S. Raymond

1999


Little Brother

Cory Doctorow

2008


Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom

Cory Doctorow

2003


For the Win

Cory Doctorow

2008


Free Software Foundation - FSF