Dear Dr. Kornet,
I believe you are referring to point 3 of the Code of Conduct, which refers to Academic and scientific integrity and states the following:
"The student refrains from any form of fraud in all study related activities. Students only connect their name to work that they have effectively contributed to. The student recognises the contribution of other students in group work.
Students represent themselves as students in external contacts and will not accept responsibilities that supersede their developing knowledge and competences.
This article applies without prejudice to the Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity as adopted by the European Science Foundation and the Nederlandse Gedragscode Wetenschapsbeoefening as adopted by the VSNU."
I hope you understand that in a period like the one we are going through now, where most of the students are back home and are not allowed to see each other, social media like StudyDrive are used more than usual. If we would be in a 'normal' situation, we still would have this kind of conversations: the only difference would be that we would talk and discuss face to face. Of course each student should know that he/she should not put his name in any work that does not belong to him/her, but the plagiarism checking already does this work. I nevertheless believe, that all we are doing here is having discussions; we are helping and taking care of each other, as you professors are suggesting us students to do.
Hope you see my point and have a nice day.
Hi everyone can I ask you if you know an english case where a mentally ill person has concluded an unfair contract and where the other party knew about the disability of that person ? Can’t find one and Hart v O’ conor doesn’t fit ( I think) as the other party could reasonably rely on the agreement
The ratio of the court in Hart v O’Connor was that a contract, which is negotiated in good faith, with no knowledge (or reasonable knowledge) of incapacity on the part of the other party, is not voidable for unconscionability. If you apply this holding ‘al contrario’ it applies to our case, since Tom knew about Sylvia’s mental impairment and therefore Sylvia’s sale contract is voidable.
I heard that the resit assignment will be available this Friday, but I want to keep the grade I received for the assignment in Period 2. So does it mean I don't have to anything about the resit assignment? Or do I have to inform that to the tutor??
Hi! I have some difficulties with few chapters in the book. Therefore I urgently need a tutor just 3-4 hours in total, obviously I am willing to pay for it, 30 euro per hour. If you passed your exam with 8 and above please answer down bellow:)
Estoppel is not the best approach to this case since the principle is used to enable the INJURED party to recover what has been promised to it without consideration because the party relied on the promise. The goal of estoppel is thus to ensure a FAIR position for the injured party. In this case, Attal breached the contract, thus the injured party is Becelor.
i think that for question 1b, if im not mistaken, the answer would rather be linked with the receipt and expedition theory of both jurisdictions, since the question is not whether the offer was binding but rather when the contract was concluded
(French law: receipt theory in Art. 1121 and English law same in instantaneous communications with the case Entores v Miles Far East case)
In this case would you apply the Consumer Sales Directive or the Consumer Rights Directive? Because for the CRD, the case says nothing about withdrawal rights or anything. Instead for the CSD, the coffee machine lacks conformity.... I don't know
From your own perspective what would be the general concepts of contract, that could be found in the first question? Because, except good faiths and unfair terms, I do not see which concepts could be asked to explain. Thank you : )and good luck to everyone
I'm so confused here. Because you can apply the consumer sales directive as well as the consumer rights directive. But then you can also look at the claim for performance, damages or termination. How do you decide what to look at?
Substantial fairness is that a contract does not disadvantage one party. Procedural fairness is that the contract was concluded in a fair way, i.e. both parties are well-informed, have equal bargaining power etc.
3 months ago
Does anyone know the difference between right of withdrawal and termination of the contract ?
Withdrawal happens before the offer has reached the offeree therefore there is no formation of the contract. in termination, there is a contract but due to the fact that neither performance nor damages were possible or the lack of confidence of one party for the other there are no longer effects to the contract
German doctrine distinguishes between withdrawal and termination of a contract (§§323 and 314 BGB). The former means making the contract undone while the latter just regards future obligations of the parties. From a sales contract you would withdraw, i.e. give back the good and pay back the price. An employment contract you would terminate because you cannot undo the work you did and you wouldn't have to pay back the salary.
Unfortunately, each legal system has its own words for these concepts, so it's hard to make general statements. Also, the translations in the Maastricht Collection are not entirely consistent in this point.
There is no single answer. There are good arguments for both sides. There was a real case in NY about the meaning of the word "chicken" (Frigaliment Importing Co., Ltd. v. BNS International Sales Corp.,) where the court held "chicken" can mean old chicken. But in Europe there is the Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 that defines "chicken" differently, so the outcome might well be different before a European Court.
3 months ago
what´s the difference between withdrawal and revocation?
Not quite. Withdrawal is before the offer has reached the offeree. Revocation is allowed before the offeree has accepted the offer (in civil law jur. and allowed as long as there has been no performance in common law jur.). Withdrawal is no issue because there is no possibility of pre-contractual liabilities; there is no offeree who could have acted on the reliance on the offer. Revocation is only allowed insofar as there is no acceptance, as soon as there is accceptance there is a contract and if the offeror wants out he must terminate the contract.
How do you decide which English cases to learn? I started a set of flashcards for important English cases. Please let me know if you think any other cases are important (especially if they were mentioned in the videos since I mainly based the selection on the book).
I heard from my tutor that ALL cases mentioned in the book are exam relevant and the ones in the coursebook are cases we are expected to read and on which write our own brief. But I would go with Rémi's suggestion and focus on the ones in the coursebook, though I think for English law it's a good idea to revise ALL cases mentioned.
Basically, it's a question of whether the customer, Marie, can claim performance (week 6) or damages (week 7) from KNB Lisbon (i.e. whether she can force them to deliver new chairs that aren't woodworm-infested; or whether she can claim damages for the infection that ensued from the chairs).
The case needs to be solved four times for each week (so 8 in total). Each week: Once as a B2B contract for generic goods, once as a B2B contract for specific goods, once as a B2C contract for generic goods and finally as a B2C contract for specific goods. In week 6 you only focus on the performance part, in week 7 on the damages part and termination part.
3 months ago
Did someone find a provision on the termination of long-term contracts under Dutch law? The book only mentions the relevant provisions for German and French law.
Hello, in my opinion, your way o reasoning is not very complete. Indeed, you should not group all jurisdiction, under civil law family. In my opinion, you should as always use domestic provision for each country. Moreover, although I agree with you regarding the "non-duty" to disclosure in English law, you have forgotten the Sales of Goods Acts, in which s.14 says that it is implied that the good are of satisfactory quality. A car corroded is considered as satisfactory quality ? Even if you consider that it is, you should argue on that, and elaborate more. You way of reasoning is too simple and too vague and is lacking for legal provisions. Still it is only my modest opinion.
I'm selling my "contract law: a comparative introduction" second edition book for 30€, my "constitution compared" book for 35€, and my Maastricht collection (I, II, iii, IV) for 75€. if you're interested for one of them leave a comment please.
I think for the applicable rule you use the outcome and maybe part of the ratio. You can say, “according to donoghue v Stevenson (or whatever the case was), manufacturers have a duty towards their customers to provide safe products” or something along those lines
Anonymous Noodle Soup
4 months ago
Does anyone know the legal basis for cost-sharing agreements being enforceable? I can’t find it in the book for any of the jurisdictions and my tutor didn’t really help.
For this box, I have a provision although that one is omitted in the Maastricht Collection, can we still use it ? As in my opinion, it is a vr interesting article, which by the way we need for this table. Thank y
I’d say that, if it isn’t in the Maastricht collection, we shouldn’t use it. The Maastricht collection is specifically tailored so that all relevant rules be included and so that the course tasks and questions will have the relevant rules represented. Each task we are given or question we are asked is tied to a specific principle we can find in the Maastricht collection unless it’s stated otherwise (for example: case law. That’s not in the Maastricht collection, so we must memorize it). Based on this reasoning, I’d say it might be a bit questionable to memorize a rule that is excluded from the MC.
I imagine rules for things like this will be included in upcoming chapters. This is only mapping for Tutorial 2, and all of my mapping and notes come directly from the book. If the book gives legal basis, I try to include them. In this case, the marked area can be found on page 72. Unfortunately, there is no legal basis listed here, but there may be some in upcoming chapters.
Okay so I was able to eventually see where this was marked. The source in case law of K Speditionsgesellschaft (1956) is the one given in the book (I do my notes from the book). The provision you’ve given here is talking about the consequences of a mistake or lack of intention after a declaration of intent has already been made (those consequences being that it can be avoided upon some conditions). The question here that the case law serves to answer is when there is intention to be legally bound, not what happens after an agreement was made and there was a misunderstanding. BGB 119 describes the latter situation, while the case law serves to provide insight for the former question.
I have a question about the mapping task. We're doing this like every week, but do you have to learn the articles for each country? I mean, I know that you can "Search it up in the Maastricht collection", but I can also imagine that if you learn this by heart that it will save you some time during the exam. So does anyone know?
I think putting sticky tabs (without writing on them), color-coded and corresponding to each week, on the pages with the relevant articles + highlighting those articles is probably the best method. I cant imagine memorizing every single article.
4 months ago
I agree! You do not need to know them by heart, you have to be able to find them in the MC and then apply them. It is unnecessary (in my point of view) to spend time with learning by heart when in fact you just have to be able to apply them to the cases!
WHAT'S UP WITH THATKARMA?