bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the right of the aggrieved party to recover damages. According to Art 7.4.1, any non-performance gives the aggrieved party a right to damages either exclusively or in conjunction with any other remedies except where the non-performance is excused under these Principles. The right of the aggrieved party to recover damages depends upon proof of non-performance by the other party to the contract. There is no requirement that the aggrieved party prove that the non-performance was attributable to the fault of the other party to the contract. Proof of fault may be relevant when deciding whether or not there has been non-performance, but fault is not the touchstone of liability in damages. Rather, the non-performance is what triggers liability in damages. The burden of proof is upon the aggrieved party to prove the non-performance of the defendant, and upon the defendant to prove that its non-performance was excused.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning full compensation to which the aggrieved party is entitled for harm sustained as a result of non-performance. According to Art 7.4.2, such harm includes both any loss which the aggrieved party suffered and any gain of which it was deprived, taking into account any gain to the aggrieved party resulting from its avoidance of cost or harm. Such harm may be non-pecuniary and includes, for instance, physical suffering or emotional distress. The burden of proof is upon the aggrieved party to prove that it has suffered the harm in respect of which the claim has been brought, that (for example, in the case of non-pecuniary harm) it is entitled to recover damages in respect of that loss, and that the harm was suffered as a result of the defendant's non-performance.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the foreseeability of harm. According to Art 7.4.4, the non-performing party is liable only for harm which it foresaw or could reasonably have foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract as being likely to result from its non-performance. This rule places a limit on the liability of the non-performing party. This commentary discusses the concept of foresight enshrined in Art 7.4.4, the phrases ‘could reasonably have foreseen’, ‘at the time of the conclusion of the contract’, and ‘likely to result’ as they relate to the foreseeability of harm. It also considers intentional or grossly negligent non-performance and the burden of proof of the aggrieved party to establish the foreseeability of harm.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.6 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning proof of harm by current price. If the aggrieved party has terminated the contract and has not made a replacement transaction but there is a current price for the performance contracted for, Art 7.4.6 stipulates that it may recover the difference between the contract price and the price current at the time of termination as well as damages for any further harm. The aim of Art 7.4.6 is to provide a measure of certainty by stipulating the measure of damages recoverable in the case where the aggrieved party has not entered into a replacement transaction. The burden of proof is upon the aggrieved party to prove that it was entitled to terminate the contract between the parties and that there is a ‘current price’, and upon the non-performing party to prove that the aggrieved party did enter into a replacement transaction.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning harm due in part to the aggrieved party. Art 7.4.7 deals with the case in which the harm suffered by the aggrieved party stems in part from its own act or omission or to an event for which it bears the risk. In such a case, the amount of damages shall be reduced to the extent that these factors have contributed to the harm, having regard to the conduct of each of the parties. The principle enshrined in Art 7.4.7 is equivalent in English law to the principle of contributory negligence. The burden of proof is upon the non-performing party to establish that the harm was due in part to an act or omission of the aggrieved party or to another event as to which the aggrieved party bears the risk.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.8 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning mitigation of harm. Under Art 7.4.8, the non-performing party is not liable for harm suffered by the aggrieved party to the extent that the harm could have been reduced by the latter party's taking reasonable steps. The aggrieved party is entitled to recover any expenses reasonably incurred in attempting to reduce the harm. Art 7.4.8 avoids the misleading language of ‘duty’ and instead describes the effect of a failure to mitigate on the liability of the non-performing party. This commentary also discusses the burden of proof relating to mitigation of harm.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.9 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning interest for failure to pay money. If a party does not pay a sum of money when it falls due, Art 7.4.9 stipulates that the aggrieved party is entitled to interest upon that sum from the time when payment is due to the time of payment whether or not the non-payment is excused. The aggrieved party is entitled to additional damages if the non-payment caused it a greater harm. This commentary explains how the rate of interest is determined as well as the burden of proof relating to the rate at which interest is payable.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.10 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning interest on damages. Art 7.4.10 is concerned with the award of interest for the non-performance of non-monetary obligations. It does not purport to identify the rate at which interest is payable: it simply identifies the time at which the right to recover interest accrues. Both the text of Art 7.4.10 and the Official Comment are silent on the issue of the rate of interest that is payable. However, it is explicitly confirmed in the Official Comment that Art 7.4.10 takes ‘no stand on the question of compound interest’. Furthermore, the Official Comment states that, ‘when making the final assessment of the harm, regard is to be had to the fact that damages are awarded as from the date of the harm, so as to avoid double compensation’. As for burden of proof, the aggrieved party must prove the non-performance of a non-monetary obligation as well as the time of the non-performance.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.11 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the manner of monetary redress. According to Art 7.4.11, damages are to be paid in a lump sum. However, they may be payable in instalments where the nature of the harm makes this appropriate. Damages to be paid in instalments may be subjected to indexation. This provision was considered to be ‘the mode of payment best suited to international trade’. A lump sum payment enables the parties to settle their dispute, draw a line under their relationship (assuming the contract to have been terminated), and move on to new contractual relationships elsewhere. It also avoids the administrative burdens associated with periodical payments of damages.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.13 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the agreed payment for non-performance. Art 7.4.13 applies where a term of the contract provides that ‘a party who does not perform is to pay a specified sum to the aggrieved party for such non-performance’. According to Art 7.4.13, the aggrieved party is entitled to recover the specified sum from the non-performing party and it can do so irrespective of the harm which it has in fact suffered as a result of the non-performance. However, the specified sum may be reduced to a reasonable amount where it is grossly excessive in relation to the harm resulting from the non-performance and to the other circumstances. This commentary discusses the scope of Art 7.4.13 and the burden of proof relating to payment for non-performance.
Introduction to Chapter 8 of the PICC
Authors: Pichonnaz Pascal 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
Chapter 8 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with set-off. Set-off, also known as compensation, is generally defined as a mechanism by which two (or more) reciprocal obligations of an obligor (debtor) and an obligee (creditor) can be extinguished up to the level of the smaller amount if the requirements fixed by the applicable law are met. It is therefore an effective and simplified way of discharging a party's obligation, avoiding overlapping payments (‘circuity of payment’) or performances. Chapter 8 addresses the issue of set-off in five provisions: conditions of set-off, foreign currency set-off, set-off by notice, content of notice, and effect of set-off. It considers set-off in the case of assignment of rights, transfer of obligations, assignment of a contract, and when the obligation is affected by the limitation period.
Authors: Pichonnaz Pascal 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 8.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning content of notice. According to Art 8.4, the notice must specify the obligations to which it relates. If the notice does not specify the obligation against which set-off is exercised, the other party may, within a reasonable time, declare to the first party the obligation to which set-off relates. If no such declaration is made, the set-off will relate to all the obligations proportionally. This commentary discusses the consequences of absence of specification by the first party, with particular emphasis on multiple obligations of the other party, multiple obligations of the first party, and multiple obligations on both sides. It also considers the burden of proof relating to content of notice.
Authors: Pichonnaz Pascal 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 8.5 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the effect of set-off. According to Art 8.5, set-off discharges the obligations; if obligations differ in amount, set-off discharges the obligations up to the amount of the lesser obligation; set-off takes effect as from the time of notice. In order for the discharging effect of set-off to take place, the requirements of Art 8.1, as well as notice by the first party under Art 8.3, must be fulfilled. This commentary discusses the principle underlying the discharging effect of set-off, the scope of the discharging effect, and the prospective effect of set-off, specific consequences of set-off, and burden of proof relating to set-off.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.1.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC). According to Art 9.1.2, Section 9.1 of the PICC does not apply to transfers made under the special rules governing the transfers of instruments such as negotiable instruments, documents of title or financial instruments, or of rights in the course of transferring a business. This means that Section 9.1 of the PICC still applies with respect to such instruments or rights if they were assigned by way of a ‘normal’ assignment; that is, not under the special rules. However, the Official Comment makes clear that this is only valid if such transfer is allowed under the domestic law. The Official Comment mentions the bill of exchange as a negotiable instrument, the documents of title mentioned in the Official Comment are bills of lading or warehouse receipts — and the financial instruments are stocks and bonds.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.1.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the assignability of non-monetary rights. For a better understanding of Art 9.1.3, it is important to bear in mind the rule stated in Art 9.1.8, which provides for the right of the obligor to be compensated by the assignor or the assignee for any additional costs caused by the assignment. It was considered that the remedy set forth in Art 9.1.8 may not be sufficient when the assignment concerns a right to non-monetary performance, and therefore Art 9.1.3 was introduced. According to Art 9.1.3, a right to non-monetary performance may be assigned only if the assignment does not render the obligation significantly more burdensome. This commentary discusses obligations that are significantly more burdensome as well as the effects of transfer of a right to non-monetary performance, especially with respect to the obligee and obligor.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.1.5 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the assignment of future rights. According to Art 9.1.5, a future right is deemed to be transferred at the time of the agreement, provided the right, when it comes into existence, can be identified as the right to which the assignment relates. This commentary discusses future right as defined by the PICC, along with the relevant elements, relevant time, time and effort, and irrelevance of the obligor's perspective for the effectiveness of the assignment of future rights. It also considers the effects if right comes or does not come into existence.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.1.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning a right assigned by mere agreement between the assignor and the assignee. Art 9.1.7 stipulates that a right is assigned by mere agreement between the assignor and the assignee, without notice to the obligor. The consent of the obligor is not required unless the obligation in the circumstances is of an essentially personal character. The fact that an agreement in writing is not required is implied by the reference to a ‘mere’ agreement. However, some formal requirements may apply due to mandatory rules of the applicable domestic law which apply under Art 1.4. Some legal systems distinguish between the effectiveness of the assignment of a right as between the assignor and the assignee (inter partes) and as towards third parties, such as the obligor or creditors (erga omnes). This commentary also considers the burden of proof relating to the essentially personal character of the obligation.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.1.8 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC). According to Art 9.1.8, the obligor has a right to be compensated by the assignor or the assignee for any additional costs caused by the assignment. The additional costs for which the obligor claims compensation must be caused by the assignment of a right; that is, they must be a direct consequence of it. In particular, additional costs may be caused by the fact that performance has to be rendered at a different place or to more than one obligee in the case of a partial assignment. This commentary discusses additional costs relating to change of place of performance and partial assignments, as well as the obligor's right to choose to claim compensation from either the assignor or the assignee.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.1.10 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning notice of assignment received by the obligor from either the assignor or the assignee. Under Art 9.1.7 the assignment of a right is effective between the assignor and the assignee as the result of their agreement. As the consent of the obligor is not required, Art 9.1.10 was introduced to protect the obligor. According to Art 9.1.10(1), until the obligor receives valid notice of the assignment, it is discharged by paying the assignor. The effect of the notice on the obligor is that the assignment becomes effective towards it and that it is no longer discharged by paying the assignor. This commentary discusses the rationale and effects of the notice on the obligor, valid notice, notice instead of knowledge, rights to non-monetary performance, the issue of relevant time with respect to the notice to be given, and revocation of the notice made to the obligor.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.2.6 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning third party performance. Under Art 9.2.6, third party performance is allowed and the consent of the obligee is not required. Accordingly, the obligee cannot refuse to accept performance when it is offered by a third party. An exception is made for obligations which are of an essentially personal character. Under such circumstances, the consent of the obligee is required; otherwise the agreement between the obligor and the third party is ineffective towards the obligee. The obligee retains its claim against the obligor until the obligation has been duly performed.
Introduction to Chapter 10 of the PICC
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
Chapter 10 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with ‘limitation periods’. The chapter, which was added to the 2004 edition of the PICC but was not amended in the 2010 edition, generally follows an international trend, but some of its provisions are quite unusual in comparison with most domestic laws. Arguably, these provisions cannot be considered as general principles of law or lex mercatoria. In respect of limitation periods, arbitral tribunals should therefore consider carefully whether it is possible to follow the opinion that ‘a reference to lex mercatoria or general principles of law can nowadays be regarded as a choice of the UNIDROIT Principles’.
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 10.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC). Art 10.1 provides an overview of the scope of Chapter 10 of the PICC concerning ‘limitation periods’. According to this provision, the exercise of rights governed by the PICC is barred by the expiration of the limitation period. Chapter 10 does not govern the time within which one party is required under the PICC, as a condition for the acquisition or exercise of its right, to give notice to the other party or to perform any act other than the institution of legal proceedings. This commentary discusses the rights governed by the PICC, exclusion of notice requirements with regard to limitation periods, and prevailing mandatory rules of domestic law on limitation periods. It also considers the implications of inconsistent behaviour, good faith and fair dealing for limitation periods.
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 10.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning modification of limitation periods by the parties. Under Art 10.3, the parties are allowed to modify the limitation periods. However, the parties may not shorten the general limitation period to less than one year, shorten the maximum limitation period to less than four years, or extend the maximum limitation period to more than fifteen years. This commentary discusses the possibility of modification under Art 10.3(1), with particular emphasis on modification by the parties as distinguished from other techniques, different kinds of modification, and means of modification. It also considers limits to modifications under Art 10.3(2), including limits in respect of the general period and limits in respect of the maximum period, along with the effect of agreements on limitation periods in violation of Art 10.3(2).
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 10.6 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the suspension of the running of the limitation period by arbitral proceedings. If arbitral proceedings are recognised by a legal system, the institution of such proceedings must logically have a similar effect on the running of limitation periods as the institution of judicial proceedings. Under Art 10.6, the running of the limitation period is suspended when the obligee performs any act, by commencing arbitral proceedings or in arbitral proceedings already instituted, that is recognised by the law of the arbitral tribunal as asserting the obligee's right against the obligor. This commentary considers the beginning of suspension of the running of the limitation period under Art 10.6(1) and the end of suspension under Art 10.6(2).
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 10.10 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the right of set-off with regard to limitation periods. Under Art 10.10, the obligee is entitled to exercise the right of set-off until the obligor has asserted the expiration of the limitation period. At first glance, the provision seems to be a logical consequence of the principle that the time-barred right is not extinguished and that it can still be relied on as a defence. In most major legal systems, however, payment by means of set-off with a time-barred claim is only possible under certain circumstances. In order to prevent the use of time-barred claims for the purpose of set-off, the burden of proof with regard to payment of these claims is on the obligee once the limitation period has expired.
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 10.11 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the right of restitution with regard to limitation periods. Under Art 10.9(1), the expiration of the limitation period does not extinguish the right but only bars its enforcement, thus making the time-barred obligation a legal ground for voluntary performance. If there has been performance in order to discharge an obligation, Art 10.11 stipulates that there is no right of restitution merely because the limitation period has expired. The use of the word ‘merely’ implies that a restitutionary claim can be based on grounds other than the expiry of the limitation period.