<<
>>

1.1. Protection Legal regulation at purchase and sale breach of contract in foreign countries

Default or inadequate execution of treaty obligations attracts for the party which have admitted such infringement, approach of the adverse legal effects which set in many legal systems is called as the liability for nonperformance of obligations.

At the same time, follows otmstit, that the term "responsibility" in the legislation of the various countries is understood differently. As a rule, the greatest disagreements in this question arise between system of the "general" right which basic representatives are the Great Britain and the USA and the romano-German legal system in the countries of continental Europe [3].

So, in English-amerikansko.i customs there was no at all a standard definition of contractual responsibility that speaks applied character of jurisprudence in these countries. Whether «the given concept is considered as having hardly nanosecond the most exhaustive value which joins practically any kind of the absolute, caused or probable risk, and also the obligation to be responsible for the actions and to correct the damage caused by them» [4].

In "general law" system the basic attention is given not to duties of the infringer to execute certain actions, and to the rights of the dissatisfied party to demand from it such execution. Set of such rights is designated by the term of "remedy at law" which under the maintenance is wider, than the term "responsibility" used in
Legal systems of the countries of continental Europe as includes besides actually measures of responsibility and such protection frames as contract cancellation, the right of the buyer to make replacing purchase, the right of the seller to resell the goods to the third parties, the requirement about specific performance of the obligation and others.

Discriminating line of system of the "general" right is that is traditional fixed assets of protection of the dissatisfied party in case of breach of contract is nanosecond the requirement about specific performance of obligations (as in legal systems of continental Europe), and the requirement about compensation of the suffered losses. The court can pass the decision on obligation execution in nature only in special cases when the indemnification does not give an adequate legal protection to the dissatisfied party [5].

«The system of remedies accepted in the countries of a general law, does not go on a way of compulsion of the persons who have given the promise, to prevent its infringement. Instead it is directed on rendering assistance to subjects to whom promises are addressed in overcoming of consequences of infringement» [6].

In it the basic function of remedies at law in English-American legal system - indemnification to the dissatisfied party of all losses suffered in case of breach of contract is shown. The purpose of application of protection frames in the continental law also is the indemnification, however from this principle there is variety of exceptions at which contractual responsibility can be used as property reprisal (for example, an establishment in the contract of conventional penalties for breach of contract). In the "general" right such situation is inadmissible. In ETK (item 1-106) it is specified, that exemplary damages cannot be collected, if other not
It is provided in the code or other rule of law.

The dissatisfied party, irrespective of character of breach of contract, should not be put in position the best, than in what it would be if the contract has been executed by its counterpart.

English lawyer Trajtel, briefing this position of the "general" right, specifies, that, being based on principles of contractual responsibility, exemplary damages cannot be awarded to the victim even if the contract has been broken deliberately and with intention to receive benefit; in this case the court can award to the respondent the indemnification, only having refused from their contractual basis which application excludes any retaliatory measures [7]. Differently, exemplary damages in the Anglo-American right, usually, can be collected only when infringement is qualified as delictual.

However it is necessary to notice, that both in judiciary practice, and in the legislation of the USA the tendency to wider use of exemplary damages for breach of contract, in particular, with a view of protection of consumers is marked. For example, such losses can be awarded, when one party of the contract misleads other party concerning essential treaty provisions [8].

It is possible to consider as an original exception of the general rule also institute of nominal losses. In a case if the party, being the right in essence, undertook diligent attempts to prove the size of the damage, but nevertheless, could not make it, to it the nominal sum of money (for example, 1 dollar) can be awarded. The given institute has great value for acknowledgement of the right of the claimant, and also for a substantiation of putting on of a legal cost for the respondent.

The general term of application of remedies at law it agree English-

To the American legislation the fact of breach of contract is. At

It character of such infringement - the delay, full or partial

Default - has no legal effect. According to positions of the given

Legal system, «infringement occurs, if discrepancy takes place

Meanwhile, that was promised under the contract, and that has been executed or not

It is executed, if there are no the lawful circumstances releasing the infringer from 9

Responsibility ».

Definition of forms which breach of contract can carry, matters, first of all, at definition of legal effects for the dissatisfied party. One of the reasons of such classification is that separate infringements can give to the dissatisfied party the right not only to demand compensation of the losses (that is a legal protection universal remedy), but also to terminate the contract. Thus contract cancellation probably only in the event that is broken «the essential contractual obligation».

JAtja decisions of a question on, whether the contractual obligation "essential" in this sense is or not, English judiciary practice often resorts to use of concepts "guarantee" («warranty») and "condition" («condition»). Any position of the contract directly expressed or meant, is a legal guarantee (warranty), also directly expressed or meant. If this position is not observed by one of partners, the dissatisfied party is allocated with the right to demand compensation of harm from breach of contract, but obliged to continue, nevertheless, it to carry out in that, as to its obligations. She can refuse only in that case the contract if the broken position is simultaneously and

"Condition" («condition»), that is it is especially important for enforcement of the treaty [9].

Thus, as "conditions" («conditions») those positions of the contract which vital for its execution admit only. At the same time, division of treaty provisions into "guarantee" and "conditions" carries more likely formal, than practical character as does not allow really with a necessary share of reliability to define, what positions of the contract are essential and what are not present.

In the legislation of the USA have refused use of the given concepts of the specified sense. Courts began to express opinion on possibility of allocation among contractual conditions such, which could be characterised as «the basic conditions» (fundamental terms) the contracts which infringement concerning the right of the dissatisfied party to contract cancellation has the consequences similar to infringement of an essential condition.

Feature of Anglo-American legal system also is that it considers the contract as the guarantee certificate. «If the debtor has executed not that obligation which should execute under the contract, it makes amends for breach of contract, irrespective of presence of fault at it, its subordinates or the businessman hired by it» [10].

Whether from the point of view of the right breach of contract intentionally, on imprudence or in general without any fault from the person who have not executed the obligation is absolutely indifferent, made. For example, in articles 12-15 of the English Law about sale of the goods of 1979 containing conditions in law about a title and quality of the goods, it is established, that the seller bears responsibility irrespective of the вины12. When the fault all taki can be considered at obligation default, takes place more likely

Responsibility for wrongful act (tort), than for breach of contract. As a whole, it is provided, that the fault should not influence the size of indemnification to the affected party.

Thus, the main principle of contractual responsibility in English-American right consists that dogovory should be executed under any conditions and irrespective of fault of the debtor. If the person has assumed liability under the contract it cannot refuse execution of the last, referring on impossibility of it. The given principle has been formulated in XVII century in practice of common law courts. As according to a general law the debtor guaranteed not execution of the obligation in nature, and payment to the creditor of a certain sum of money the question on impossibility of execution did not arise at all as always it is possible to pay money.

This rigid rule has been formulated in the decision but to business v. Jane in 1647 and remained untouched in system of contractual responsibility up to 1863 when the judgement v. Candwcll has been taken out, begun variety of the precedents which have reflected the new approach in regulation of a liability of infringement of treaty obligations ’ 3.

As American professor Farnsvort marks, now there are three groups of the exceptions softening the given rule.

According to the first of them, the party is relieved from responsibility if the subsequent governmental certificate discharge of duty by it becomes impracticable in connection with its prohibition or an establishment of such requirements which do its impossible.

According to the second exception, the duty is considered ceased if for se executions existence of the concrete person is necessary and

Execution becomes impracticable owing to death or incapacity of the person.

According to the third exception, the party is relieved from responsibility if for execution presence of a concrete thing which was lost is required or spoilt [11].

On the basis of the specified positions in XIX century in a general law there was a doctrine of futility or otpadenii the contract purposes (frustration). This wide concept covers both impossibility, and extreme difficulty of execution, and also otpadenie the contract purposes even when such situation is not a consequence of physical impossibility of its execution [12]. In many respects this doctrine is similar to concept "force majeure" which is used in the countries of continental Europe.

"Futility" takes place, when there is a subsequent event (without infringement from both partners and without a corresponding mention of this event in the contract) which so considerably changes character (not simply costs or complication) competences following from the contract and obligations in comparison with the position assumed by the parties at the moment of making contract, that it would make unjustified to consider the parties as the connected initial treaty provisions in a new situation; in such cases the right releases both parties from their treaty obligations [13].

Feature of a general law in comparison with the right of the countries of continental Europe is that value which is given to criterion of "previsibility" of approach of force majeure circumstances. «In continental systems, as a rule, possibility to expect approach of the adverse event which have prevented execution of a contract, excludes condonation at default of the contract caused
Such event. In the English right that fact, that the parties already at making contract actually assumed possibility of approach of event or the new facts which have become subsequently by the reason of "futility" of the contract, and anything thus have not provided in the contract, absolutely unessentially excludes doctrine application. Qualification of the given events will depend on contract interpretation.

Unlike the English right the American variant of the doctrine of "futility" along with concept "impossibility" (impossibility) uses also concept "impracticability" (impartibility). Thus, less strict estimation of the events which have was an obstacle for execution of a contract here takes place.

According to item 2-613 ETK, the contract can be terminated in connection with  destruction of a subject of the contract if «for execution of a contract presence of the goods individualised at the moment of making contract is required, and the damage without fault any of the parties is caused to the goods before risk of accidental loss or damage of the goods has passed to the buyer...» [14]. Thus it is necessary to consider, that positions of this article do not extend on the goods, generic.

In that case when there are some ways of execution of the obligation, item 2-614 ETK establishes, that «if the caused way of delivery of the goods becomes commercially impracticable, but thus it appears possible to give reasonable from the commercial point of view replacing means such accord should be offered and accepted» [15].

Follows names »in a kind, that according to article 2-614 replacement of ways of enforcement of the treaty can take place only when the adjusted
The way of performance becomes "commercially unrealizable" (commercially impracticable), and presence of the weighty reasons for this purpose is necessary.

According to item 2-615 ETK (unless the seller has taken up the big duties) delay in delivery or non-delivery of all or parts of the goods by the seller it is not considered as infringement of nanometer of the duties under the sale contract if the caused execution became impracticable owing to the unforseen causes, ieiastuplenie which was the basic precondition of making contract, or owing to diligent performance of instructions of the applicable foreign or domestic governmental certificate, irrespective of its possible subsequent recognition void [16].

According to the given position, the party declaring, that obligation execution was prevented by the followed event or "unforseen cause", should consider four requirements.

First, event should make «the execution caused by the agreement... Practically impracticable». Secondly, ieiastuplenie events should be «the main precondition of making contract». In - the third, the practical impracticability should not be a consequence of fault of the party which asks to release it from discharge of duty. At last, in the fourth, the party should not take up bolshee the obligation, than what is provided by the right [17].

The legal system of the countries of continental Europe considers remedies at law at breach of contract in a context of duties of the infringer, instead of competences of the affected party as it becomes in English-American legal system. Thus the continental law uses the term «a contract liability of infringement», under which usually

The duty of the faulty party is understood to pay to the counterpart the damages suffered in connection with breach of contract.

Unlike general law system, the romano-German system as protection fixed assets considers obligation specific performance. So, §241 German іражданского ulozhenija (GGU) says, that the creditor owing to obligations relations is allocated with the right to demand from the debtor of enforcement of the treaty [18], the same rule establishes also item 1610 of the French Civil code (FGK). Certainly, the given rule operates only in the event that possibility to execute the obligation in nature remains.

It is necessary otmstit, that legal regulation of protection frames at breach of contract has undergone in Germany recently to deep reforming. According to new edition GGU of 2002, as main principle position according to which enforcement is excluded operates as for the debtor or any other person it is impossible or will demand disproportionate expenses, or is simple for it unacceptably. Unlike the former right the objective impossibility of the execution existing at the moment of making contract, in itself does not lead to its invalidity, but grants the right to demand damage compensation if the debtor knew about the circumstances interfering execution, or should know about them [19].

One more feature of continental legal system is that remedies at law here can be applied not only for the purpose of indemnification of property losses of the affected party (it is main principle), but also as the sanction for a perfect offence. As an example of such sanctions the penal sums established by the contract or the law can serve.

At the same time, it is necessary to consider, that at obvious disproportion of the penalty to consequences of infringement of the obligation it can be lowered court under own initiative. In the German legislation such rule is established §343 GGU, in French - item 1152 FGK. And it agree to the French code court have the right not only to reduce, but also to increase the penalty under own initiative [20].

Unlike the "general" right, the romano-German system, as a rule, allocates separate versions of breach of contract - delay, inadequate execution and default. Now the tendency to legislation simplification in the given area by an establishment of the uniform basis for application of remedies at law - obligation defaults is traced. Thus character of such default, as a rule, has no value. Most distinctly this tendency was showed in a new wording GGU according to which regulation of consequences of infringement of the obligation starts with uniform concept of infringement of the obligation including impossibility of execution, delay in performance, positive infringement of the obligation, otpadenie considerations, and also infringement of the obligation arising from precontractual relations [21].

«The main idea of compensation of a damage for all infringements of execution consists that the debtor who has broken a duty, should pay to the creditor the resulted damages, except for cases when he for this infringement does not answer» [22].

At the same time, it is necessary to notice, that division of breach of contract into separate versions, still, has key value for responsibility scoping in the romano-German right. The French right spends accurate distinction between delay in obligation execution

And the infringement, expressed in full default of the obligation (item 1146,

1147 FGK). In the first case the dissatisfied party has the right to compensation

The losses caused by delay named moratornymi, and in the second case

- On compensation of so-called compensatory damages. The given losses

Are collected on the same beginnings, however in the latter case the party

Loses the right to declare the requirement about obligation specific performance.

The law does not allocate inadequate execution of the obligation in quality

The special class of breach of contract, in judiciary practice and the doctrine 26

It is considered as private default cases.

Besides a duty to pay damages the debtor who has admitted delay, is responsible for impossibility which has casually come during delay of execution of the obligation which subject is the specific thing (the paragraph the first item 1302 FGK). According to the given principle the obligation, despite  destruction of its subject, nanosecond stops. The debtor answers before the creditor as though the subject continued to exist. Responsibility does not come only in the event that the debtor can prove, that the creditor of nanosecond would avoid losses and at timely execution of the obligation (the paragraph of second item 1302 FGK) [23].

In German customs delay approach gives to the creditor the right to claim damages. Refuse the contract in this case it can only if to an in delay debtor it had been established additional term for execution (Nachfrist) during which that all taki ie smog execute the obligation (§ 326 GGU).

Additional term is not required, when the creditor loses interest to execution of a contract by the debtor as a result of its delay. The same takes place and in case of infringement of so-called transactions «for term», i.e. such in which the certain time of performance of the obligation is specified, and from the maintenance
Or sense of the contract follows, that the parties have concluded the given contract under a condition, that it will be precisely executed in the specified term.

Classification of infringements on default, inadequate execution and delay also matters for penalty. According to §340 and §341 GGU in case of default of the obligation the creditor has the right to demand payment of the penalty instead of execution. Thus the requirement about obligation execution is excluded. In case of inadequate execution (here enters, including, and delay) the creditor can demand penalty payment along with execution of the basic obligation [24].

In the French legislation the question on a parity of requirements on penalty and on execution of the basic obligation is solved more categorically - according to item 1228 the creditor has the right to demand either penalty payments, or execution of the basic obligation. The unique exception of this rule is established in item 1229 according to which the creditor nevertheless acquires the right to demand both penalty payments, and obligation execution if such penalty has been established for «simple delay» [25].

The great value has also allocation of such category as «contract material breach». As a rule, essential it is considered infringement which attracts such negative consequences for the party, that it substantially loses that, on what had the right to count at making contract.

Necessity for definition of material breach of the contract speaks that, as a rule, similar infringement grants to the dissatisfied party the right to contract cancellation. So, according to §314 GGU, «each party of the contract can terminate in the presence of the serious basis lasting obligations relations without observance of the term demanded for
Contract cancellation. The basis is considered serious, if, taking into account circumstances of business, at an estimation of mutual interests continuation of obligations relations... Unacceptably for the party terminating obligations relations »[26]. Thus, however, GGU establishes an obligatory rule according to which the party acquires the right to contract cancellation only after the expiration of the additional term established for correction of lacks of execution (item 2 § 314 GGU).

In legal systems of the countries of continental Europe for application of protection frames, as a rule, one fact of breach of contract happens insufficiently; presence of some other circumstances at which absence there comes the impossibility of execution excluding responsibility and leading to the termination of the obligation is necessary. The indispensable precondition of contractual responsibility in the given legal systems is the fault of the infringer.

The given principle is directly fixed in Civil codes. Thus the fault of the debtor is meant, that is the creditor is obliged to prove only the fact of default of the obligation, and the debtor should prove the innocence (item 1147 FGK; § 282 GGU). Any of nanosecond laws contains concepts of fault, but only specifies in its two versions - intention and imprudence (§ 278 GGU) 3 '.

More often the concept of fault is under construction on an estimation of a deviation of behaviour of the offender from the standard standards. Such estimation is spent by comparison of concrete behaviour of the party which have broken the contract, with the behaviour considered as the sample, for example «the reasonable owner», «the careful owner» or «the decent businessman» (item 1137 FGK; § 282 GGU; paragraph 1 § 346 GTU).

«Such abstract enough at first sight criteria get the real maintenance depending on circumstances with which contractual relations are connected. For example, in a commercial turn the big role is played by the developed commercial customs and usage, both the general character, and especially enterprise or professional» [27].

The fault as a condition of contractual responsibility defines not only presence of this responsibility, but also ss volume. Distinctions in volume of responsibility assigned to the defaulter are connected with fault classification on different kinds - intention or imprudence.

The heaviest form of fault is the intention - that is deliberate default of the obligation. Imprudence is neprojavlenie due degree of care at obligation execution. These two forms of fault from the point of view of infringement consequences are practically equal the friend to dru§u, however in some cases the fault form has essential value for responsibility scoping, and also for a recognition valid contractual conditions about its restriction and an exception.

So item 1150 FGK removes restriction of the size of losses, callable, only what could be predvideny at the moment of making contract, for cases when the obligation has not been executed owing to intention of the debtor. Besides, the French judiciary practice is inclined to recognise as void contractual exception clauses or about restriction of last in the presence of intention or gross negligence [28].

Similar positions to contain and in the German right. So, §276 GGU establishes, that the debtor is responsible for intention and negligence, defining simultaneously, that the one who neglects usual care in a turn carelessly operates. The nanosecond law supposes contractual clearing from
Responsibility for intention. Essential restriction of a principle of guilty responsibility is established in §279 GGU: if in the contract it is a question of the things defined by generic characteristics the debtor is considered responsible for inability to execute the contract even in the absence of fault at it and-or its assistants. The legislator in § 279 GGU has actually legitimised practice deloyovogo a turn according to which the seller, undertaking to put the goods of a certain kind independently or by purchase at the third parties, thereby gives a security of the ability to put these goods in the reserved terms [29].

The circumstances which are relieving from the debtor of responsibility, both for inadequate execution, and for full default of the obligation, by the right of the countries of continental Europe are a case (cas fortuit, Zufall) and force majeure (force majeure, hohere Gewalt).

Any of acts, as a rule, does not give case and force majeure definitions, even the list of their signs. Signs of these concepts have been developed in judiciary practice and doctrines of France, Germany, Switzerland. However at in the whole uniform approach, both the doctrine, and practice of each of the named countries on the given question have the features.

The case and force majeure are understood as the events occurring besides will of the debtor. Value of the given legal categories in that also consists, that in the presence of any of these events the debtor is relieved from responsibility. Thus, however, the right of all countries provides situations more a strict liability of the debtor: he answers not only for fault, but also for cases, for example the debtor who is in delay (§ 287 GGU) [30]. Therefore sometimes there is a necessity of nanosecond only to give criteria for
Definitions of the event which is relieving from the debtor of responsibility but also to differentiate a case and force majeure.

The French right and, before vseju, FGK do not spend any differentiation of these concepts, they are considered as the one-serial phenomena [31]. The doctrine and practice have only developed criteria with which help presence of the circumstances which are relieving from responsibility is defined, is indifferent — a case or force majeure.

For presence of such circumstances the following is characteristic:

- Event or circumstance should be for the corresponding party the stranger (the so-called extraneous reason - cause etrangere), arisen without its fault. In it it is directly specified in article 1147 FGK in which it is established, that «... The debtor is awarded, in the presence of the bases, to payment of the losses which have arisen both owing to default of the obligation, and owing to delay in execution, in all cases when it will not certificate, nju default occurs owing to the extraneous reason which cannot be blamed to it and if, besides, from its party there was no unconscientiousness» [32];

- For the circumstance of force majeure its unexpectedness (imprevisibilite) is characteristic, and it also nanosecond should be subjective (item 1150 FGK);

- nenredotvratimost (inevitabilite). Difficulties at obligation execution do not fall under this concept even if they essentially influence financial condition of the debtor and carry extreme xapaKTcpjS.

From the point of view of the approach to force majeure circumstances the German right is in many respects similar to French. However in Germany legal practice and the doctrine contrary to France, try to delimit a case from force majeure, designating force majeure
As "force majeure" (qualifiziertcr Zufall). The case is defined as event which cannot be blamed to the debtor. HarakterYOnymi as case signs are considered its unexpectedness (Unvorhersehbarkeit) and inevitability (Unvertneidbarkeit). No other circumstances (in particular, such as extreme character, the sizes of event, and also, whether it is external in relation to the debtor or not) for case definition in attention are accepted [33].

The German courts at the decision of a question on force-majeur presence consider following factors:

- The circumstance of force-majeur of nanosecond should be blamed to the debtor;

Signs of circumstances of force majeure is their unexpectedness (Unvorhersehbarkeit) and kenredotvratimost or inevitability (Unvermeidbarkeit);

- External character of event in relation to the debtor, its occurrence from the outside (Betriebsfrcmdkeit);

- chrezvychajnost (Aussergcwohnlichkeit), i.e. seldom happening phenomenon [34] ".

It is necessary to consider, that only absolute impossibility of execution of the obligation relieves from the debtor of responsibility. If it is a question of the circumstances only complicating execution, even when difficulties are very great, the obligation should be all the same executed. In it one of basic principles grazhdanskoju the rights — a principle of sanctity of the contract (pacta sunt servanda), found the most accurate and unconditional fastening in item 1134 FGK [35] is expressed.

Now the given principle is essentially softened with the doctrine of "an invariance of circumstances» which essence consists in the following. The parties,

Entering the contract, recognise that the precondition of its realisation the certain circumstances existing at present are, and in case of their change of the party can recede from the contract or demand change of its conditions according to the changed character of mutual obligations.

In the French Civil code the given doctrine directly is not fixed. Courts, applying the given principle, refer to item 1244 FGK which grants it the right, «considering economic conditions», conformity of the doctrine about an invariance of circumstances to its instructions, as ch to give to the debtor a time and the execution instalments. As to item 1134 fixing a principle of unconditional observance of treaty obligations is supposed. 3 given articles demand diligent execution обязательств42.

The given approach has found the place in the German right in a new wording GGU 2002 In §313 GGU is established, that if circumstances which were considered laying in the contract basis, have essentially changed after making contract and the party if they expected such circumstances, would not conclude the given contract in general or would conclude it on other conditions it is possible to demand change of treaty provisions in that measure in which it is possible to expect, that the party hardly would began to execute contract in not changed kind.

Here all circumstances of a concrete case, in particular the distribution of risk following from the contract or the law are taken into consideration. Change of circumstances in the specified context is the case when essential representations which have laid down in a contract basis, have appeared mismatching the validity. In that case when change of treaty provisions according to the changed conditions (adaptation) appears
Impossible or it can not be expected from the contract party, the dissatisfied party can refuse it договора4 ".

Thus, it is possible to notice, that on closer examination differences of concepts of a legal protection in Anglo-American and romano - German legal systems do not carry so essential character as it is considered to be. So, in all legal systems protection fixed assets as however, and a main objective of the dissatisfied party, indemnification of the losses suffered owing to infringement is, the basis for application of remedies at law is, as a rule, breach of contract, the basis of clearing of the infringer from responsibility are the force majeure circumstances which signs are practically identical. Besides, all legal systems give to the parties, actually, the same set of remedies at law.

In our opinion, the specified 1 protection frames can be classified depending on the purpose of their application. Such classification will have universal character as it is applicable within the limits of practically any legal system, and also international legal certificates. Thus, all protection frames can be subdivided into three groups.

The means providing specific performance of obligations concern the first group. It, in particular, the requirement about specific performance of the obligation which includes also requirements about gratuitous elimination of lacks of the goods and about goods replacement. Into this group enter also the right of the debtor to correct lacks of obligation execution, granting to the infringer of additional term for correction of lacks, and also utsenka the goods. The main objective of the specified means - to provide appropriate execution of the obligation according to treaty provisions.

The means of preventive character including cancellation of the contract and stay of execution of obligations concern the second іруппс. The main objective of such means consists in the termination or stay of obligations for the purpose of prevention of the further losses of the dissatisfied party.

And, at last, as the third group it is possible to allocate means of compensatory character - the indemnification payment of the penalty or percent. A main objective will be here indemnification of the losses suffered by the party owing to infringement of the obligation.

<< | >>
A source: Bessolitsyn Dmitry Aleksandrovich. the LEGAL PROTECTION In case of BREACH OF CONTRACT of the INTERNATIONAL PURCHASE AND SALE of the GOODS. The DISSERTATION ON COMPETITION of the SCIENTIFIC DEGREE of the MASTER OF LAWS. St.-Petersburg -. 2007

More on topic 1.1. Protection Legal regulation at purchase and sale breach of contract in foreign countries:

  1. 1.3. Protection Legal regulation at purchase and sale breach of contract in the Russian Federation
  2. 1.2. The Legal protection at purchase and sale breach of contract in the international trade right
  3. the Chapter I. General provisions on a legal protection in case of breach of contract of the international purchase and sale of the goods
  4. Bessolitsyn Dmitry Aleksandrovich. the LEGAL PROTECTION In case of BREACH OF CONTRACT of the INTERNATIONAL PURCHASE AND SALE of the GOODS. The DISSERTATION ON COMPETITION of the SCIENTIFIC DEGREE of the MASTER OF LAWS. St.-Petersburg -,
  5. the Chapter II. Separate remedies at law in case of breach of contract of the international purchase and sale of the goods
  6. § 2. Concept and contract elements (the foreign trade contract) international purchase and sale of the goods
  7. Regulations of an establishment (change) of rates of purchase and sale of a cash foreign currency, purchase (payment) and sale of documents of payment in a foreign currency at the expense of means of citizens General provisions
  8. §3. The form of the contract of retail purchase and sale. Features of making contract of retail purchase and sale.
  9. the Chapter II. Elements of the contract of retail purchase and sale. Especial] »makings contract of retail purchase and sale.
  10. the Chapter I. The Civil-law doctrine and the legislation on retail purchase and sale. Kinds of the contract of retail purchase and sale,
  11. §1. Researches of the contract of retail purchase and sale in the Russian To jurisprudence.
  12. §1. The parties of the contract of retail purchase and sale.
  13. §2. The maintenance of the contract of retail purchase and sale.
  14. §2. Execution of the international contract. Structure of contractual communications and kinds of the documents which are making out execution of the international contract of purchase and sale
  15. § 2. The Criminally-legal regulation of protection of an environment in foreign countries. Komparativnyj aspect
  16. Chapter 3. Legal regulation in Scotland of the relations connected with purchase and sale of the goods
  17. the First chapter. The CONTRACT of the INTERNATIONAL PURCHASE AND SALE of the GOODS In SYSTEM of CIVIL LAW of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION
  18. Horoshavina Hope JUrevna. Legal regulation of contractual relations of retail purchase and sale. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Kazan - 2007, 2007
  19. 1.1. Legal protection frames of foreign investments in the countries-participants ATES, based on the legislation on foreign investments
  20. §1. Legal protection frames of foreign investments in the countries - participants ATES