Contractual Penalty and the Right to Payment for Delays Caused by Force Majeure in Czech Civil Law under the New Civil Code

• Authors: Martin Janku
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In the context of the conclusion of contracts between entrepreneurs under the Czech Civil Code, it is a relatively common arrangement that the parties disclaim any and all liability for damage arising from non-compliance with contractual obligations, if they can prove that this failure was due to an obstacle independent of their will. This circumstance excluding liability for the damage is called force majeure by the theory. In many countries this circumstance is ruled upon directly by the legislation (höhere Gewalt, vis major). The Czech regulations represented by the new Civil Code of 2012 (CivC), however, contains only a framework provision that mentions discharging reasons. The paper deals with the – rather disputable – issue that the force majeure does not affect the obligation to pay a contractual penalty under the new rules of the CivC. It should be therefore reflected in the arrangements for contractual penalties inter partes. To this effect the paper analyses the concepts of contractual penalties and force majeure in civil law legislation. Afterwards it compares their mutual relationship and impact on the obligations of the Contracting Parties. Finally, it draws recommendations for practice from the perspective of the contracting process.

Keywords

EN

Circumstances Excluding Liability; force majeure; Contractual Penalty; Delay in Contract Performance

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: DANUBE: Law and Economics Review
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 259-269

Dates

published

2015-12-01

online

2016-01-06

Contributors

author

Martin Janku

• Department of Law and Social Sciences, Faculty of Business and Economics, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic

References

• Bejček, J. (1993). Odpovědnost za škodu v obchodních vztazích. Právní praxe, 41(9), 23–34.
• Holub, M. et al. (2002). Občanský zákoník, komentář. Praha: Linde.
• Chalupa, R. (1993). Náhrada škody, Obchod a právo, 1993(3), 3–11.
• Chengwei, L. (2003). Remedies for Non-performance: Perspectives from CISG, UNI-DROIT Principles & PECL. 2003. PART V. EXCUSES. Retrieved from: .
• Rozehnalová, N., Střelec, K., Sehnálek, D., Valdhans, J. (2004). Mezinárodní obchodní transakce. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
• Střelec, K. (2003). Nepředvídatelné události v mezinárodním obchodním styku a nástroje jejich smluvní regulace. Obchodní právo, 2003(7–8), 57–68.
• Jehlička, O. et al. (2006). Občanský zákoník, komentář. 10th ed. Praha: C.H. Beck.
• Švestka, O., Dvořák, J., Fiala, J., Pelikánová, I. et al. (2014). Občanský zákoník. Komentář. 5th ed. Praha: Walters Kluwer.
• Štenglová, I. et al. (2009). Obchodní zákoník. Komentář. 12th ed. Praha: C.H. Beck.
• Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russia Federation Chamber of Commerce, Judgement No. 269/1997 of 06.10.1998, CLOUT Case No. 464 (UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods UNCITRAL: Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods – 2012 UNITED NATIONS 2012 Edition).

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/danb-2015-0016