Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/peclcomp62.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-20 19:05:23
Document Index: 172678820

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 1794', 'art. 1184', 'art. 1142', 'art. 1143', 'art. 1', 'art. 1142', 'art. 1184', 'art. 1184', 'art. 336', 'art. 828', 'art. 3', 'art. 79', 'art. 829', 'art. 1142', 'art. 2007', 'art. 946', 'art. 46']

Guide to Article 62
Match-up of Article 62 with the European Principles
Match-up of CISG Article 62 with PECL Articles 9:101 through 9:103
CISG Article 62
PECL Article 9:102 [Right to Performance: Non-Monetary Obligations]
[See also commentary by the author on this subject in: John Felemegas ed., An International Approach to the Interpretation of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980) as Uniform Sales Law, Cambridge University Press (2006) 339-341]
Comment and notes on PECL 9:101, 9:102, 9:103
Continental European legal systems do not know the general restriction upon a claim for payment provided for in Article 9:101(2)(b). However in BELGIAN law there are a number of situations in which the creditor is obliged to terminate the contract and claim damages, e.g. in a construction contract, CC art. 1794, or more generally in all obligations to be rendered in exchange for work or services. The creditor must also terminate when to insist on performance would be contrary to good faith or an abuse of right, see Cass. 16 Jan. 1986, Arr. Cass. no. 317, R.W. 1987-88, 1470 obs. van Oevelen, R.G.D.C./ T.B.B.R. 1987, 130. The FINNISH and SWEDISH Sale of Goods Acts, � 52 provide that, in the case of goods which the seller must procure or produce specifically for the buyer, if the buyer cancels the contract the seller may not procure or produce the goods and claim the price. The seller may only claim damages, including any loss of profit. However, this does not apply if the cancellation would result in substantial inconvenience for the seller or if he would be at risk of not being reimbursed for his losses resulting from the cancellation. See Ramberg, Köplagen 512 ff.[page 394]
In the common law specific performance is a discretionary remedy that will only be granted if damages are inadequate (cf. ENGLAND: Chitty � 27-003; IRELAND, Keane, �� 16.01 ff.; USA: Restatement of Contracts 2d �� 345(b), 357-369). There is also some doubt as to whether specific performance will be given of a continuing obligation, see e.g. Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. v. Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1997] 3 All E.R. 297 (H.L.). In SCOTLAND specific implement is usually said to be a remedy available as of right but in fact it is granted only in the court's discretion and it is not granted in the cases set forth in Article 9:102(2) (McBryde Chap. 21), though in Scotland continuing obligations may be enforced more readily than in England, see, Retail Parks Investments Ltd v.Royal Bank of Scotland plc 1996 S.L.T. 669. However, in England injunctions for enforcement of express negative stipulations are sometimes said to be granted as a matter of course (Chitty � 27-040).
The principle of enforced performance in natura is particularly emphasised in FRENCH law. It follows from CC art. 1184 (2) and from the contemporary interpretation of CC art. 1142 (see Jeandidier Rev. trim. dr. civ. 1976, 700-724). CC art. 1143 empowers the aggrieved party to demand destruction of anything that has been produced contrary to an agreement. And recently, art. 1 of the Law of 9 July 1991 on the reform of civil enforcement proceedings has established the principle that every aggrieved party may force the non-performing party, in accordance with legal provisions, to perform his obligations. Performance in natura is facilitated by the liberal use of judicial penalties (astreinte) (Malaurie and Aynès, Obligations no. 1017-1023). Whether enforced performance in natura is available as a matter of right for the aggrieved party (and therefore the judge must grant it if it is asked for) is, however, unsure. According to traditional case law, the judge holds a sovereign power to choose the mode of reparation that appears to him the most appropriate, and in particular he can reject enforced performance in natura asked for by the aggrieved party, based on art. 1142 (see Cass. Civ. 1, 30 June 1965, B. I no. 437, p. 327, Gaz. Pal. 1965.2.329). But there is a new "courant" to grant specific performance, based on the literal wording of CC art. 1184(2) (Cass.com. 3 December 1985, B. IV No. 286 p. 244; 28 Feb. 1969, motifs, B. III No. 182 p. 139).
Article 9:102(2)(a) expresses the rule "impossibilium nulla est obligatio". If restricted to the right to performance as such (as distinct from subsidiary remedies), the rule seems to be common to the laws of Europe (cf. ENGLAND: Forrer v. Cash (1865) 35 Beav. 167, 171; 55 E.R. 858, 860; IRELAND, Keane � 16.10; FRANCE and BELGIUM: CC art. 1184(2) sent. 2, 1234, 1302; GERMANY: BGB � 275; AUSTRIA, ABGB � 1447; GREECE: CC art. 336; ITALY: CC arts. 1256, 1463; PORTUGAL: CC art. 828; SPAIN: CC arts. 1182, 1184; NETHERLANDS: BW art. 3:236; DENMARK: Gomard, Obligationsret II 45): FINLAND: Taxell, Avtal och rättsskydd 196 and SGA � 23; SWEDEN: Rodhe, Obligationsträtt 348 ff.. CISG art. 79 (5) appears to be to the contrary, but this is controversial (cf. Schlechtriem 51, 96-97 with references; Audit nos. 185 - 186).
Article 9:102(2)(b) corresponds to a view which is widely accepted in NORDIC case law and literature (cf. Ussing, Alm. Del 68, Gomard, op. cit. 57 Taxell, op. cit. 197; Ramberg, Köplagen 313 ff.; FINNISH and SWEDISH SGA � 23 and is being discussed in GERMANY (cf. Medicus no. 158) and ITALY (Mengoni, Contractual responsibility 1089-1090). It is a clear rule under AUSTRIAN law, that specific performance is not available if it would be unreasonable: see e.g. OGH 20 March 1963 SZ 36/44. In PORTUGAL, such a rule is expressly provided for in the case of an obligation to demolish a building erected in violation of a duty not to do so (CC art. 829 no. 2). IRISH law achieves this position, Keane � 16.12. GREEK courts have refused a claim for performance in natura where that would burden the non-performing party with excessive and disproportionate sacrifices (AP 93/1967, NoB 15 (1967) 791; cf. ATHENS 5917/1976, NoB 25 (1977) 401). In FRANCE, the cases which recognize the judge's sovereign power to refuse performance in natura (see above, note 1) are sometimes based on the excessive cost of the operation (see e.g. Cass. req. 23 March 1909, S. 1909.1.552; Cass. civ.1, 8 June 1964, B. I, No. 297, p. 232). However, the recent "courant" which orders works of reparation (or payment for reparation) is not limited by its cost (e.g. Cass. civ.3, 9 December 1975, B. III, No. 363, p. 275). In BELGIAN law the restrictions mentioned in note 3 to Article 9:101 apply also to the choice between specific performance and damages: Cass. 10 Sept. 1971, Pas. 1972, I, 28 note Ganshof, R.C.J.B. 1976, note van Ommeslaghe. Specific performance will not be ordered if the performance would be quite different to the original obligation, e.g. a lessee which has carelessly burned down the leased premises will not be ordered to re-build them.
Thus, in ENGLAND, IRELAND, SCOTLAND and the UNITED STATES specific performance is not available for contracts involving personal services (cf. Treitel, Contract 927; Keane � 16.05; Restatement of Contracts 2d � 367 with � 318; cf. ibid. � 367 comment b). Similarly in FRENCH law under CC art. 1142 there is no right to enforcement of certain personal obligations to do or not to do (Cass. civ. 20 Jan. 1953, JCP 1953, 7677 note Esmein). In BELGIUM the rule is also applied though only where specific performance would involve physical coercion, (Cass. 23 Dec. 1977, Arr. Cass. & Pas 505) and agency cases (CC art. 2007). In SPAIN it is admitted that there is no right to specific performance of obligations consisting in the provision of services or work of a personal nature (Civ. Proc. Code arts. 924 and 925; CC arts, 1098 and 1911; Diez-Picazo, II 124 and 680). In NORDIC law a claim for performance in kind is excluded for employment contracts and in some other cases (DENMARK Lyngsø 125; and generally when performance consists of work of a personal character, Gomard, op. cit. 6; FINLAND: Taxell, op. cit. 192; SWEDEN: Ramberg, Avtalsrätt 52). While GERMAN law allows a claim for personal services, CCProc. � 888 (2) excludes the enforcement of judgments for non-delegable personal services. GREEK CC Proc. art. 946 (2) takes a similar position.
Article 9:102(3) takes up the COMMON LAW view that an aggrieved party who delays unreasonably in requiring performance in natura may lose his claim (cf. Hanbury & Maudsley 677; Keane � 3.10). A similar rule is found in the FINNISH and SWEDISH Sale of Goods Acts, � 23. In DENMARK Sale of Goods Act � 26 provides that the aggrieved party must give a notice to the non-performing party within a reasonable time that he will continue the contract; otherwise the aggrieved party will lose his right to claim specific performance (see Ussing, Alm. Del. 70). This idea can be found in CISG, too, but it is limited to cases where the buyer claims delivery of substitute goods and repair of non-conforming goods (art. 46 (2) and (3)). No equivalent rule exists in FRANCE, PORTUGAL or SPAIN but in BELGIAN law a similar rule has been accepted: Cass. 5 Dec. 1946, Arr.Cass., 428, Cass. 29 Nov. 1962, Pas. 405; see M.E. Storme, Invloed nos. 394 and 389-391.
In FRANCE and BELGIUM it is uncertain whether the non-performing party can be constrained to cure himself or to provide cure of a defective performance (generally, no distinction is made between cases where it is for the obligor or the obligee to have the cure made). Formerly, in such cases the Cour de cassation appeared to deny a duty of performance in natura (Cass.civ. 4 June 1924, S. 1925.1.97 with note Hugueney, D.P. 1927.1.136 with note Josserand; Cass.civ. 15 March 1968, D. 1968.346, S. 1968.1.100) but presently the courts are more flexible (cf. Viney, La responsabilité II nos. 14-36 with references).