bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Authors: Vogenauer Stefan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary focuses on Article 5.2.5 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the right of the parties to modify or revoke the beneficiary's right. Art 5.2.5 enables the parties to deviate from the principle pacta sunt servanda. According to Art 5.2.5, the parties may modify or revoke the rights conferred by the contract on the beneficiary until the beneficiary has accepted them or reasonably acted in reliance on them. This commentary discusses the consequences of modification and revocation of the beneficiary's right, joint agreement of the parties to modify or revoke the beneficiary's right, how parties can effect modification and revocation, immutability and irrevocability of the right conferred upon the beneficiary, and burden of proof relating to modification and revocation.
Authors: Rowan Solène 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary focuses on Article 5.3.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the types of condition covered by Section 5.3 of the PICC. Art 5.3.1 identifies the two types of condition that are recognized in the PICC: suspensive condition and resolutive condition. Whether a condition is suspensive or resolutive is a question of interpretation of the contractual intention of the parties. A contract or a contractual obligation may be made conditional upon the occurrence of a future uncertain event, so that the contract or contractual obligation only takes effect if the event occurs (suspensive condition) or comes to an end if the event occurs (resolutive condition). This commentary discusses the scope of Section 5.3, the distinction between ‘suspensive’ and ‘resolutive’ conditions, conditions whose fulfilment is entirely dependent on the will of the obligor, time limit stated by the condition, and illegal conditions.
Authors: Rowan Solène 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary focuses on Article 5.3.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the effect of suspensive and resolutive conditions. Art 5.3.2 explains how suspensive and resolutive conditions operate. When a suspensive condition is fulfilled, the contract or obligation becomes effective. On the fulfilment of a resolutive condition, the contract or obligation ceases to have effect and the obligation to perform is discharged. Suspensive and resolutive conditions therefore have symmetrically opposite effects. In both cases, however, the binding force of the contract or obligation is at stake. This commentary also discusses non-retroactivity as a principle.
Authors: Rowan Solène 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary focuses on Article 5.3.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning a contracting party's interference with the fulfilment of a condition. If fulfilment of a condition is prevented by a party, contrary to the duty of good faith and fair dealing or the duty of co-operation, that party may not rely on the non-fulfilment of the condition. If fulfilment of a condition is brought about by a party, contrary to the duty of good faith and fair dealing or the duty of co-operation, that party may not rely on the fulfilment of the condition. This commentary also discusses duty to use all reasonable efforts to cause the condition to be fulfilled and remedies for interference with the fulfilment of a condition.
Authors: Rowan Solène 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary focuses on Article 5.3.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the duty to preserve the rights of a party. Art 5.3.4 imposes obligations on the parties during the period of suspension of the condition. It requires the parties not to act, contrary to the duty to act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing, act so as to prejudice the other party's rights in case of fulfilment of the condition. Art 5.3.4 applies to both suspensive and resolutive conditions, but it should arguably apply with less intensity to resolutive conditions. This commentary discusses the prejudicial act that breaches the duty of good faith and fair dealing, the relationship between Arts 5.3.3 and 5.3.4, remedies for breach of Art 5.3.4, and the intensity of the obligation.
Authors: Atamer Yesim 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary focuses on Article 6.1.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the time of performing a contractual obligation. Art 6.1.1 determines when a party has to perform its contractual obligations. This is the time, or within the period of time, explicitly or impliedly stipulated in the contract within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the contract. This commentary discusses the notion of timely performance and the consequences of untimely performance, time of performance fixed by the parties, time of performance according to the default rule, obligee's failure to co-operate in regard to timely performance, changes in time of performance, and the burden of proof relating to time of performance.
Authors: Atamer Yesim 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary focuses on Article 6.1.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning performance of a contractual obligation at one time or in instalments. Whenever the obligor is given the right to perform its contractual obligations during a certain period of time, the question arises whether the obligor has to perform at one single moment during this period or whether it may choose to perform in lots. According to Art 6.1.2, the principle is performance at one time. The legitimate interest of the obligee not to be disturbed repeatedly for the same obligation seems to prevail over the interest of the obligor to offer its obligation in portions. This commentary discusses performance at one time as a rule, performance in instalments as an exception to the rule, effect of performance in instalments on counter-performance, and burden of proof relating to performance of a contractual obligation at one time or in instalments.
Authors: Atamer Yesim 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary focuses on Article 6.1.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning partial performance of a contractual obligation. Art 6.1.3 addresses the question of whether the obligee has the right to reject partial performance or, conversely, whether the obligor has the right to discharge itself at least partly when the time of performance is due. This commentary discusses the content and scope of application of Article 6.1.3, definition of partial performance with regard to contractual obligations, right of the obligee to reject partial performance and obligation to accept partial performance, and legal consequences of acceptance or rejection of partial performance. It also considers the right of rejection in case of only partly possible performance, defective performance, and performance in excess. Finally, it looks at burden of proof as it relates to partial performance.
Authors: Atamer Yesim 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary focuses on Article 6.1.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning order of performance of a contractual obligation. Art 6.1.4 deals with the sequence of performance and counter-performance if the parties have undertaken reciprocal obligations in a bilateral contract. This commentary discusses the content and scope of application of Art 6.1.4, the role of Art 6.1.4 in determining the time of performance for the counter-performance and in determining the order of performance of due contractual obligations, performances to be taken into consideration when determining the time and order of performance, legal consequences of disregarding the order of performance, and burden of proof relating to order of performance.
Authors: Atamer Yesim 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 6.1.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning payment by cheque or other instrument. According to Art 6.1.7, payment may be made in any form used in the ordinary course of business at the place for payment. However, an obligee who accepts a cheque, any other order to pay or a promise to pay, is presumed to do so only on condition that it will be honoured. This commentary discusses cashless payment in general and the payment methods accepted by the PICC, the structure of cashless payment methods and their systematization, payment through ‘push-orders’ and ‘pull-orders’, effects of acceptance of a pull-order on the payment obligation, place and time of performance of pull-order, risk of loss or theft of pull-order, and risk of pull-orders being dishonoured.
Authors: Atamer Yesim 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 6.1.11 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the costs of performance of an obligation. Art 6.1.11 balances the interests of the parties and burdens each party with the costs of its own performance. According to this provision, each party shall bear the costs of performance of its obligations. This commentary considers costs of performance in cases where place of performance lies with the obligor or the obligee, or where place of performance is a third place. It also addresses costs due to changes in the place of performance and the right of a party to claim reimbursement of costs.
Authors: Atamer Yesim 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 6.1.13 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning imputation of non-monetary obligations. In most jurisdictions, there is no special provision regarding the imputation of non-monetary obligations. Either the statutory provisions are formulated to cover all fungible obligations, be they monetary or otherwise, or the courts accept an analogous application of the imputation rule for monetary obligations. In contrast, Art 6.1.13 clarifies that such imputation rules can be applied mutatis mutandis to all other fungible obligations. If, for example, the obligor has to deliver identical cargoes of cement under different contracts, appropriation is first made according to the specifications of the obligor. In the absence of such specifications, Art 6.1.12(2) stipulates that the right of imputation should pass to the obligee.
Authors: Atamer Yesim 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 6.1.14 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the problem of public permission requirements. According to Art 6.1.14, where the law of a State requires a public permission affecting the validity of the contract or its performance and neither that law nor the circumstances indicate otherwise: if only one party has its place of business in that State, that party shall take the measures necessary to obtain the permission; in any other case the party whose performance requires permission shall take the necessary measures. This commentary discusses the concept of public permission requirements, the nature of obligation to take necessary measures, duty to disclose public permission requirements and to co-operate, legal effects of missing public permission, and burden of proof relating to public permission.
Authors: Atamer Yesim 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 6.1.15 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the procedure in applying for public permission. According to Art 6.1.15, the party required to take the measures necessary to obtain the permission shall do so without undue delay and shall bear any expenses incurred. The party's obligation to apply for a public permission without undue delay should be seen as part of the general duty to handle the entire application procedure with due diligence. This commentary discusses the time of application for public permission, expenses related to permission, duty to give notice of results of application, and the consequences of the responsible party's failure to notify its counterpart of the grant or refusal of the permission without undue delay.
Authors: Atamer Yesim 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 6.1.17 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning cases where a request for public permission was filed with the relevant authority but was rejected. According to Art 6.1.17, the refusal of a permission affecting the validity of the contract renders the contract void. If the refusal affects the validity of some terms only, only such terms are void if, having regard to the circumstances, it is reasonable to uphold the remaining contract. Where the refusal of a permission renders the performance of the contract impossible in whole or in part, the rules on non-performance apply. This commentary discusses cases where application for public permission was refused, as well as the effect of refusal on the validity of contract and on performance.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 6.2.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the definition of hardship. The definition of hardship can be broken down into two elements. The first consists of the opening lines of Art 6.2.2, in particular the phrase ‘fundamentally alters the equilibrium of the contract’. The second consists of the four matters referred to in Art 6.2.2(a)–(d). According to Art 6.2.2, there is hardship where the occurrence of events fundamentally alters the equilibrium of the contract either because the cost of a party's performance has increased or because the value of the performance a party receives has diminished. Art 6.2.2(d) deals with the assumption of risk.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 6.2.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the effects of hardship. In case of hardship, Art 6.2.3 stipulates that the disadvantaged party is entitled to request renegotiations. The request does not entitle the disadvantaged party to withhold performance. Upon failure to reach agreement within a reasonable time, either party may resort to the court. If the court finds hardship it may either terminate the contract at a date and on terms to be fixed or adapt the contract with a view to restoring its equilibrium. This commentary also considers the burden of proof relating to hardship.
Introduction to Section 7.1 of the PICC
Authors: Schelhaas Harriet 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
Section 7.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with the concept of non-performance. It first presents a definition of non-performance before discussing the three main remedies: the right to performance, the right to terminate the contract, and the right to damages. It then outlines the conditions under which the parties can react to non-performance before any of the main remedies are invoked. First, the aggrieved party (the obligee) may withhold performance temporarily and it may fix an additional period of time for performance. Second, the non-performing party (the obligor) may have a right to cure non-performance and it may object to its liability for non-performance because of an exemption clause, interference of the obligee, or force majeure. This introduction to Section 7.1 discusses the relationship between the different remedies, with particular emphasis on the choice of remedy, accumulation of remedies, and non-performance and mistake. It also considers the general limitations to remedies for non-performance.
Authors: Schelhaas Harriet 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.1.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the right of a contracting party to withhold or suspend performance. Art 7.1.3 lays down the exceptio non adimpleti contractus and confers on a contracting party the right to withhold or suspend performance if the other party does not comply with its obligations. Where the parties are to perform simultaneously, either party may withhold performance until the other party tenders its performance. Where the parties are to perform consecutively, the party that is to perform later may withhold its performance until the first party has performed. This commentary discusses the requirements for allowing the suspension of performance, including non-performance of the other party. It also considers order of performance, partial performance, and legal consequences of withholding or suspending performance.
Authors: Pichonnaz Pascal 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.1.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning force majeure. According to Art 7.1.7, force majeure can be broadly defined as ‘the result of an impediment beyond a party's control and which that party could not reasonably have taken into account at the time of conclusion of the contract, or have avoided or overcome it or avoided or overcome its consequences on the ability to perform’. In other words, when non-performance is triggered by an event which could be qualified as force majeure, the obligor is no longer liable for damages. However, force majeure does not remove the ‘non-performance’ as such; as a consequence, the aggrieved party still has the right to terminate the stranded contract. This commentary discusses the relationship between the application of force majeure clauses and contractual practice, Art 7.1.7(1) as a default rule, consequences of force majeure, and burden of proof relating to force majeure.
Introduction to Section 7.2 of the PICC
Authors: Schelhaas Harriet 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
Section 7.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with the right to performance, one of the remedies available for the non-performance of a contract. It covers the right to require performance of monetary obligations, the right to require the performance of non-monetary obligations, cure for defective performance, penalties for non-compliance, and the right of the aggrieved party to change the remedies sought. Section 7.2 is not modelled on any particular domestic jurisdiction, or on an international treaty or set of rules. However, the discretionary power to attach penalties to a court order is modelled on French law.
Authors: Schelhaas Harriet 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.2.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the right of an aggrieved party to require performance of monetary obligations. Art 7.2.1 stipulates that a creditor of a monetary obligation is always entitled to require payment of an agreed sum of money. This rule is an expression of the principle pacta sunt servanda. The PICC distinguish between the right to request performance of a monetary obligation and the right to demand performance of non-monetary obligations. A right to require payment is usually known as the ‘action for an agreed sum’ or ‘action for the price’, whereas performance of non-monetary obligations is referred to as ‘specific performance’. This commentary discusses the conditions for the right to demand payment, the effect of the currency in which payment is due on the application of Art 7.2.1, and cases where the right to require payment may be excluded.
Authors: Schelhaas Harriet 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.2.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning repair and replacement as cure for defective performance. Under Art 7.2.3, the right to performance includes the right to require the defect to be cured by means of a repair or replacement. Art 7.2.3 is the counterpart of Art 7.1.4, which gives the non-performing party a right to cure non-performance by, for instance, repair or replacement. Art 7.2.3 provides a right for the aggrieved party to request such a cure. This commentary also discusses repair and replacement with respect to payment of money, along with other forms of curing defects.
Introduction to Section 7.3 of the PICC
Authors: Huber Peter 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
Section 7.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with the aggrieved party's right to terminate the contract if the other party does not perform. However, the PICC also severely restrict the scope of termination as a remedy. The crucial question is not whether there is a right to terminate, but rather when it will be available to the aggrieved party. Art 7.3.1(1) accepts the doctrine of fundamental breach as the basic rule for the availability of termination. For cases of delay, Art 7.3.1(3) introduces the Nachfrist mechanism. The basic structure of the system of remedies in Section 7.3 bears a strong resemblance to both the Commission on European Contract Law, Principles of European Contract Law (1998), and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) regimes.
Authors: Huber Peter 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.3.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning adequate assurance of due performance. Like Art 7.3.3, Art 7.3.4 relates to cases of ‘anticipatory breach’. In that context, Art 7.3.4 provides remedies for those cases which do not reach the high standard of probability required for the right to terminate under Art 7.3.3. Under Art 7.3.4, a party who reasonably believes that there will be a fundamental non-performance by the other party may demand adequate assurance of due performance and may meanwhile withhold its own performance. Where this assurance is not provided within a reasonable time, the party demanding it may resort to termination. This commentary discusses the requirements and consequences of adequate assurance of performance and the right to withhold own performance.
Authors: Huber Peter 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.3.5 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the general effects of a lawful termination. Lawful termination refers to a termination which has been declared (in time) and which is based on a valid ground for termination. According to Art 7.3.5, termination of the contract releases both parties from their obligation to effect and to receive future performance. Termination does not preclude a claim for damages for non-performance and has no effect on any provision in the contract for the settlement of disputes or any other term of the contract which is to operate even after termination. This commentary discusses release from future performance obligations, autonomy of ‘termination-resistant’ provisions, effects of unlawful termination, and proprietary aspects of rules in Arts 7.3.5–7.3.7.
Authors: Huber Peter 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.3.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning restitution with respect to contracts to be performed over a period of time. When a contract to be performed over a period of time is terminated, Art 7.3.7 stipulates that restitution can only be claimed for the period after termination has taken effect, provided the contract is divisible. The purpose of this provision is to exclude retroactive restitution after termination of a divisible contract which was to be performed over a period of time, based on the idea that ‘it may be inconvenient to unravel performances that may have been made, in the past, over a long period of time’.