Product Detail

Vol30 No2 June-August 2016

The doctrine of anticipatory repudiation: the international context
By Bruno Zeller
 
This paper builds on another — ‘Breach by Anticipatory Repudiation’ by Anton Trichardt — that was published in the December 2015-February 2016 Commercial Law Quarterly. He specifically drew the attention of Australian lawyers to the fact that the court in STX Mumbai ‘referred to case law in England, Australia and Canada, as well as the United States of America. His Honour also extensively referred academic writing.’
This paper closes a gap insofar as it discusses the issue under the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) which is also applicable in Australia. Two reasons are of importance. First, Australian contract drafters have two options when deciding on the governing law for international contracts; namely, the common law or the CISG. Unfortunately, it is still too common that the CISG is excluded mainly because the drafters are not familiar with the CISG. The second reason is — as Trichardt noted — that the position in Australia is uncertain as to whether the doctrine of anticipatory breach applies to executed contracts.
 
 
A time difference between Australia and England: Urban 1 (Blonk Street) Ltd v Ayres
By Dr Kevin Lindgren
 
As a result of a series of cases culminating in the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Urban 1 (Blonk Street) Ltd v Ayres [2013] EWCA Civ 816 (Urban 1), a fundamental difference has developed as between the treatment of time in the performance of contracts for the sale of land in that Court and in the High Court of Australia. (The following discussion will be limited by reference to that class of contract, both for reasons of space and because it has special features: the purchaser’s acquisition of an interest in the land, and the availability of the equitable remedy of specific performance.)
 
 
Unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms
By Jeffrey Goldberger
 
A variety of expressions have been invoked by the courts and in legislation as a trigger for intervention in the operation of otherwise valid and enforceable contracts. In this context Priestley LJ in Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works having referred to the large number of statutes which permitted courts to remould particular kinds of contracts in the interests of fairness observed at p26:
‘Although each of these statutes dealt with carefully defined types of contract, in their totality they covered contractual situations affecting a great many people, so that, to repeat something I have said elsewhere, “a very large area of everyday contract law is now directly affected by statutory unconscionability provisions carrying with them broad remedies”. As the words used in the sequence of statutes show, the ideas of unconscionability, unfairness and lack of good faith have a great deal in common. The result is that people generally, including judges and other lawyers, from all strands of the community, have grown used to the courts applying standards of fairness to contract which are wholly consistent with the existence in all contracts of a duty upon the parties of good faith and fair dealing in its performance. In my view this is in these days the expected standard, and anything less is contrary to prevailing community expectations.’
 
  • The doctrine of anticipatory repudiation: the international context
    By Bruno Zeller
    page 3
  • A time difference between Australia and England: Urban 1 (Blank Street) Ltd v Ayres
    By Dr Kevin Lindgren
    page 10
  • Unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms
    By Jeffrey Goldberger
    page 16
  • Member Price: $0.00
    Non Member Price: $30.00
    Total Price: $0.00        Total Quantity: 1  
     
    Main File Type pdf
    © Copyright 2017 Commercial Law Association of Australia (CLA) |  Site by ICAN Solutions