Garantie de satisfaction à 100% Disponible immédiatement après paiement En ligne et en PDF Tu n'es attaché à rien
logo-home
College aantekeningen European Contract Law (B-KUL-C03D5A) Comparative Contract Law €7,66
Ajouter au panier

Notes de cours

College aantekeningen European Contract Law (B-KUL-C03D5A) Comparative Contract Law

 23 vues  0 fois vendu

Dit document omvat mijn notities van elke les. Quasi elk woord is overgenomen dus niets ontbreekt. Er worden ook vaak verwijzingen gemaakt naar het boek, maar ook staan er dingen in die niet in het boek staan maar wel belangrijk zijn.

Aperçu 10 sur 69  pages

  • 18 juin 2024
  • 69
  • 2023/2024
  • Notes de cours
  • Thomas kadner
  • Toutes les classes
book image

Titre de l’ouvrage:

Auteur(s):

  • Édition:
  • ISBN:
  • Édition:
Tous les documents sur ce sujet (1)
avatar-seller
emmacogneau
EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW
Inhoudsopgave

CASE STUDY 1: OFFER OR INVITATION TO TREAT..............................................................................6


ENGLISH LAW......................................................................................................................................6
DECISION 1................................................................................................................................................6
DECISION 2................................................................................................................................................7
US LAW.............................................................................................................................................7
DECISION: SC MINNESOTA...........................................................................................................................7
NY CASE....................................................................................................................................................8
SWITZERLAND.....................................................................................................................................8
NUSSBERGER CASE.......................................................................................................................................8
GERMAN LAW.....................................................................................................................................8
FRANCE.............................................................................................................................................8
DECISION 1................................................................................................................................................9
BELGIUM...........................................................................................................................................9
ITALY................................................................................................................................................9
DENMARK........................................................................................................................................10
NEDERLAND......................................................................................................................................10
HOFLAND CASE.........................................................................................................................................10
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................10
YUGOSLAVIA.....................................................................................................................................10
HOW MANY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS........................................................................................................10
ARGUMENTS.....................................................................................................................................11


CASE STUDY 2: CONDITIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF CONTRACT.................................................12


SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................12
AUSTRIA..........................................................................................................................................12
NETHERLANDS...................................................................................................................................12
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................12
BEFORE THE REFORM OF 2016....................................................................................................................12
SINCE THE REFORM OF 2016......................................................................................................................13
BELGIUM.........................................................................................................................................13
SPAIN..............................................................................................................................................13
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................14
QUEBEC...........................................................................................................................................14
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................14


1

,SCOTLAND........................................................................................................................................15
USA...............................................................................................................................................15
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................15
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................16


CASE STUDY 3: REVOCATION OF OFFERS.........................................................................................17


SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................17
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................17
GREECE...........................................................................................................................................17
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................17
BEFORE REFORM.......................................................................................................................................18
SINCE REFORM 2016.................................................................................................................................18
BELGIUM: AFTER THE REFORM..............................................................................................................18
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................18
ENGELAND AND WALES.......................................................................................................................18
ROUTLEDGE V. GRANT...............................................................................................................................18
CRITICISM OF THIS SOLUTION.......................................................................................................................19
US.................................................................................................................................................19
LOUISIANA...............................................................................................................................................20
FEDERAL COURT DECISION...........................................................................................................................20
CISG + UNIDROIT...........................................................................................................................20
PECL..............................................................................................................................................21
NETHERLANDS...................................................................................................................................21
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................21


CASE STUDY 5: THE BATTLE OF FORMS............................................................................................22


ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................22
CRUTCHLEY..............................................................................................................................................22
BUTLER MACHINE......................................................................................................................................22
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................23
CIVIL CODE..............................................................................................................................................23
COMMERCIAL CODE...................................................................................................................................23
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................23
THE NETHERLANDS.............................................................................................................................24
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................24
CENTRAL EUROPE...............................................................................................................................25
RUSSIA............................................................................................................................................25
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................25
USA...............................................................................................................................................25
CISG..............................................................................................................................................25
BGH: MILKPOWDER CASE..........................................................................................................................26
US PENNSYLVANIA....................................................................................................................................26


2

,THE HAGUE PRINCIPLES.......................................................................................................................26


CASE STUDY 4: MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS...............................................................................27


UK.................................................................................................................................................27
USA...............................................................................................................................................28
CASE: SC RHODE ISLAND............................................................................................................................28
MELVIN EISENBERG...................................................................................................................................29


CASE STUDY 6: RIGHT TO RECEIVE PERFORMANCE OR (ONLY) RIGHT TO DAMAGES?.....................31


CISG..............................................................................................................................................31
QUEBEC, NL, FIN, DK, IT....................................................................................................................31
GERMAN LAW...................................................................................................................................31
OWNER OF A PAINTING..............................................................................................................................31
PACKAGING MACHINES...............................................................................................................................31
OPERA SINGER..........................................................................................................................................32
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................32
PAINTING.................................................................................................................................................32
PACKAGING MACHINES...............................................................................................................................32
OPERA SINGER..........................................................................................................................................33
FR..........................................................................................................................................................33
DE.........................................................................................................................................................33
PORTUGAL.......................................................................................................................................34
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................34
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................34
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................34
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................34
PAINTING.................................................................................................................................................35
STANDARD PACKAGING MACHINES................................................................................................................35
OPERA SINGER..........................................................................................................................................36
USA...............................................................................................................................................36
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................36


CASE STUDY 7: DAMAGES AND THE ROLE OF FAULT........................................................................38


BELGIUM AND FRANCE........................................................................................................................38
BELGIUM.................................................................................................................................................38
FRANCE...................................................................................................................................................38
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................39
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................39
CASE SUPREME COURT...............................................................................................................................40
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................41
COFRUMI CASE.........................................................................................................................................41

3

,NL.................................................................................................................................................41
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................41
BAXENDALE CASE......................................................................................................................................41
THOMAS BINGHAM...................................................................................................................................42
USA...............................................................................................................................................42
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................42
CISG..............................................................................................................................................42
PECL..............................................................................................................................................43


CASE STUDY 9: TERMINATION OR ALTERATION OF A CONTRACT IN THE EVENT OF A FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES?........................................................................................................45


EU DIRECTIVE ON PACKAGE TRAVEL.......................................................................................................45
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................45
DECISION ON EARTHQUAKE IN MEXICO..........................................................................................................46
AMTSGERICHT DACHAU CASE (TSUNAMI CASE)...............................................................................................46
AUSTRIA..........................................................................................................................................47
CASE 11/09/2001...................................................................................................................................47
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................48
NETHERLANDS...................................................................................................................................48
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................48
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA.........................................................................................................................49
BOSNIA, SLOVENIA, SERBIA.........................................................................................................................49
CROATIA, MONTENEGRO...........................................................................................................................49
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................49
GREECE...........................................................................................................................................49
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................50
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................50
CANAL DE CRAPONNE CASE.........................................................................................................................50
CODE CIVIL: AFTER 2016 REFORM................................................................................................................50
RAPPORT AU PRÉSIDENT.............................................................................................................................50
CASE 1998..............................................................................................................................................50
BELGIUM.........................................................................................................................................51
ENGLAND + WALES............................................................................................................................51
TAYLOR V. CALDWELL................................................................................................................................51
KRELL V. HENRY........................................................................................................................................51
OUR CASE................................................................................................................................................51
WATERWORKS CASE..................................................................................................................................52
PECL..............................................................................................................................................52
DCFR.............................................................................................................................................52
UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES.......................................................................................................................52
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................52


CASE STUDY 10: CONTRACTS AN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IN MOVABLE PROPERTY.............53


4

,CISG..............................................................................................................................................53
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................53
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................53
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................54
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................54
BELGIUM.........................................................................................................................................55
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................55
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................56
GREECE...........................................................................................................................................56
SOUTH AFRICA..................................................................................................................................56
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................57
SWISS SC................................................................................................................................................57
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................58
NL.................................................................................................................................................58
SPAIN..............................................................................................................................................58
ROMAN LAW....................................................................................................................................58
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................59
HC QB DEVISION DECISION.........................................................................................................................59


CASE STUDY 11: THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CROSS-BORDER CONTRACTS .........................................61


CISG..............................................................................................................................................61
PERSPECTIVE OF A DE COURT......................................................................................................................61
PERSPECTIVE OF AN EN COURT....................................................................................................................62
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................62
USA...............................................................................................................................................63
THE PARTIES’ CHOICE OF THE APPLICABLE SALES LAW..................................................................................63
THE CHOICE OF NON-STATE RULES OR “PRINCIPLES” OF LAW........................................................................65
ROME I...................................................................................................................................................65


CASE STUDY 12: THE FUTURE OF ECL...............................................................................................66


THE EU’S ROLE IN THE HARMONISATION OF ECL.......................................................................................66
LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE EU TO ENACT A EUROPEAN CONTRACT CODE...............................................66
USA...............................................................................................................................................69




5

,CASE STUDY 1: OFFER OR INVITATION TO TREAT

College 19/03

Scenario: p. 55

ENGLISH LAW


DECISION 1

High Court = Court of first instance

We start with a case bc private law is not codified in England  contract law remains largely
uncodified case law

This case deals with exposition of goods (flip knife) in shop window

Starting point = criminal statute  did he offer the flip knife for sale by putting it in his window?

Very detailed exposure of the facts

Legal issue: exhibition of knife = offer for sale within the statute?

Literal interpretation of statute = starting point

Conclusion judge: in ordinary language it is for sale, but any statute must be looked at in the light of
the general law of the country

Method of interpretation of weapon act: literal interpretation + general contract law  legislator put
in “offer for sale” and not “exposure for sale”  but didn’t the legislator intend to prohibit putting
knives in the shop  next step on the condiment: go into the purpose of the statute = no putting
knives in the shop window

P. 67: strong language (“absurd”)

Casus omissus: forgot to put in exposure

 Can we fill the gap? No  reluctant bc criminal statute
 Judge turns to precedent (p 67 middle)
 Bound by previous judgements: case of Keaton and Howard
o Judge decided that there was exposure + offering for sale
o question: why is our court not bound by this?
o Bound by ratio decidendae, not by obiter dictum
o ratio decidendae (reason that carries the decision) here = enough to say there was
exposure (= pillar decision)
o the fact that the court said there was an offer = obiter dictum
o conclusion: putting things in the shop window =/= an offer, but just an invitation to
making an offer


6

,They work with precedents: that’s why details are so important in giving the facts, bc you need to
find really similar case

 CONCLUSION: the exposure of goods in the shop window would be considered as an invitation to
treat


DECISION 2

Pharmaceutical society

Self-service introduced in supermarkets

In this case: drugs exposed  admin statute: forbidden to offer drugs for sale without supervision of
pharmacist  pharmacist at cash desk

Is exposure of goods in shelves an offer or an invitation to treat?

 If offer: statute violated
 If ITT: not violated

When does the property in the goods pass: when the contract is formed  judges: when putting it in
the trolley = too early

3rd contract maw argument (p70): English contract law: all invitations

US LAW

50 states

Federal US contract law? The union doesn’t have competence in contract law  left to the states 
50 systems of contract law, but not totally fragmented

Question US law  restatement = they put the content in a black letter rule  provide official
commentary  references to court decisions coming from different states = first guidance

Same in Europe: compare ECL systems  draw conclusions  put them in a restatement

Very general rule: … =/= offer …  super abstract + general  official comment: it is possible to
make it an offer (communication: language of commitment)


DECISION: SC MINNESOTA

Advertisement: 1st come 1st serve

Products for ladies  not meant for men

Man tried to buy it: ‘didn’t say it was not for men, I buy’

Is advertisement an offer? Language of commitment  yes

Be careful: this is just Minnesota

7

,NY CASE

If we don’t make it an offer  what else could it be?

Alt option: consumer protection rules: if advertisement is misleading  may claim damages



= common law in a nutshell



SWITZERLAND

SW has codifications

Code of obligations = base  look at this first

Conclusion of contract requires…

Our scenario: explicitly codified  display of goods = offer; if customer says ‘I buy’, contract is
concluded


NUSSBERGER CASE

Ring exposed in shop window  sales person forgot to put 1 of the 0s in the price  customer
walked in and said ‘I buy’  it is bought

Avoiding contract by error?

Expose = offer

What about advertisements? Art. 7 code of obligations

 Offer under Swiss law?
 Not an offer under art. 7.2
 Commentary: 7.1  harder to argue
 Arguments: put it in red!! ‘as in other countries’  arguments for opposite solution

GERMAN LAW

(Why are job offers regarded as invitations to treat only? Employer wants to see the person he will
hire and talk to the person first)

BGB

Coded provision = starting point  need to go into case law

Reasoning judgement: prevailing view

FRANCE

8

,French civil code

Provision are general  need case law


DECISION 1

1 sentence: facts, history proceedings, arguments, decision  why all in 1 sentence? La juge est la
bouche de la loi  no margin of interpretation (French revolution: minimize the importance of
legislative reform)  they kept the appearance of having no margin of interpretation: that’s why
they still use this style

Facts case

Question: was a contract formed?

Reasoning previous court quoted (Nancy): ‘an offering…treat’  rejected claim buyer to get the deal
done

‘Whereas…’: the court decides to annul decision of Cour d’appel de Nancy

Cour de Cassation: why is it not an offer?

CoA had a problem with fact that there was only 1 piece of land  ‘cannot be treated as an offer’

How do they deal with problem of multiple acceptances: first come first serve  first sentence (‘vis à
vis 1st person that accepts it’)  Cass: it hasn’t been sold yet

Advertisement may as well be an offer

BELGIUM

Historic moment: introduction

French: start reforming their code  BE has decided to put into force the first genuine civil law code
(new)

The new books come into force one book after the other and replace the old ones

(Still) similar to France

Advertisements, goods in shop windows = all offers, except when we find a reservation

ITALY

Similar to BE: first codice civile  close to FR model

1942: merge FR and DE law in a modern code

Code = starting point, but also look at case law




9

, Bonus of having a code: even if it’s very general: it tells you a little bit about the intention of the
legislator + starting point + the code structures the legal material  commentary: directs you to
relevant case law

DE civil code assumed to be the most sophisticated structure  CC (IT) similar

Answer to our scenario: advertisements = general invitations to treat; offers, display of goods =
general offers

DENMARK

They don’t have a codifications  special laws

Contract law act

Answer to 1 of the problems we have dealt with (argument of UK judge: buyer can change their mind
so contract isn’t formed): exposure of goods = an offer, while the UK judge said it wasn’t  DK: yes;
IT: yes  answer: contract is formed and offer is accepted when he puts the good(s) at cash desk

NEDERLAND

Something is different


HOFLAND CASE

‘I want to sell, but not to you’  was the advertisement an offer?

NL law: it depends on the object = different solution

 Specific good offered for sale = invitation to treat
 Offer a good that you have in stock (goods still available) = offer

Why the difference? You don’t have a problem running out of stock

 When you offer a specific good, you might want to negotiate (e.g. a house)

POLAND

?

YUGOSLAVIA

Swiss approach

Particularity: 256 section 2

HOW MANY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS

Make a table per country with the options to solve our problem


10

Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:

Qualité garantie par les avis des clients

Qualité garantie par les avis des clients

Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.

L’achat facile et rapide

L’achat facile et rapide

Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.

Focus sur l’essentiel

Focus sur l’essentiel

Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.

Foire aux questions

Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?

Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.

Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?

Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.

Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?

Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur emmacogneau. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.

Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?

Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €7,66. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.

Peut-on faire confiance à Stuvia ?

4.6 étoiles sur Google & Trustpilot (+1000 avis)

56326 résumés ont été vendus ces 30 derniers jours

Fondée en 2010, la référence pour acheter des résumés depuis déjà 14 ans

Commencez à vendre!
€7,66
  • (0)
Ajouter au panier
Ajouté