| Abstract [eng] |
Thesis of the paper – Probability to adjust the contract terms regarding to changed circumstances and the analysis of Lithuanian courts practice. The paper analyzes the justification for the failure to perform on the basis of changed circumstances. The study selected for analysis the national legal systems, which maintained regulatory model has been followed by other countries. The paper examines French, German, British and United States law of contract and the variety of regulatory variations regarding changed circumstances. It also analyzes the regulatory models of hardship established in different international legal instruments. For the analysis were selected following international instruments: the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, the Principles of European Contract Law and United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The fourth chapter analyzes the requirements for the situation in order to claim hardship. This chapter revealed the content of requirements and identifies the assessment criteria for declaring the fulfilment of the conditions. Analysis leads to the conclusion, that the substantial restriction of the contract can be recognized only in cases, which not only substantially increases the price of the performance or reduce the resulting performance, but also substantially complicates and burdens the possibilities of affected contractor to continue performing the contract. It is also stated that the other requirements of hardship doctrine – occurrence of the circumstances after the conclusion of the contract, unforeseeability, impossibility to control and no assumption of the risk – must be interpreted strictly and narrowly. The fifth chapter deals with the doctrine of changed circumstances in relation to the doctrine of force majeure, it also discusses the criteria for separation of these doctrines. In this chapter it is also analyzed the connection between hardship and duty to cooperate, as well as to act in good faith. Among other things there is identified the influence of good faith and cooperation principles on possibilities to invoke the hardship doctrine. The last chapter examines the legal implications of the doctrine, with special emphasis on courts power to adjust the contract. This chapter presents the comparison of contract adjustment methods and identifies the advantages and weaknesses of these methods. |
