Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Impossibility in Modern Private Law pp 143–149Cite as

5) Utility of Impossibility as a Dogmatic Concept

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 858 Accesses

Abstract

Modern legal systems, including Unification Instruments, do not use impossibility as a dogmatic concept. Within this stance, German, Swiss and Turkish laws appear as exceptions to the modern legal trend. Nevertheless, cases of impossibility constitute a sub-category within the exemption provisions of Unification Instruments. Considering that Unification Instruments follow strict-liability regime of common law countries, a general exemption provision—which constitutes the exception to the debtor’s strict-liability—is preferable to a broad, clear-cut impossibility rule. However, in civil law countries, the issue of liability (secondary claim) is already solved under the fault principle. Therefore a clear-cut impossibility rule is required to determine when primary claim cannot be asked because of impossibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “The CISG adopts the idea of the unified form on non-performance, that is, a basic ‘actuality’ is introduced, a basic ‘form in accordance with the law’, a uniform and general reason for liability, where the meaning of ‘contractual breach’ is dominant. The term implies any breach of any form and seriousness of any main or ancillary obligation of the seller or the buyer, i.e., any case of irregular development of an obligation, on the promisor’s part. In other words, the term ‘contractual breach’ suggests all other cases, which, within the framework of the [Greek] Civil Code, would either be characterized as inability to perform or delay by the promisor or defective performance, or they would incur the application of the provisions of the special contractual law of the Civil Code, such as in case of a legal or real defect or absence of agreed quality” Greece 2009 Decision 4505/2009 of the Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Athens (Bullet-proof vest case) (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/094505gr.html).

  2. 2.

    See Switzerland 10 February 1999 Commercial Court Zürich (Art books case) (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990210s1.html).

  3. 3.

    Germany 15 September 1994 District Court Berlin (Shoes case) (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/940915g1.html).

  4. 4.

    UNCITRAL, Digest of Article 79 case law, Nr. 9.

  5. 5.

    See France 19 January 1998 District Court Besançon (Flippe Christian v. Douet Sport Collections) (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980119f1.html).

  6. 6.

    For the regulation of impossibility, impracticability and frustration in Anglo-American law, see Treitel, p. 1 ff.; Reu, p. 1 ff.; Becker, Unmöglichkeitslehre, p. 1 ff. For a historical background of the principle of excuse for non-performance in common law, see Mazzacano, NJCL 2011, 1, 12 ff.

  7. 7.

    Rheinstein, p. 183 ff.

  8. 8.

    Basedow, IRLE 2005, 487, 495 ff.

  9. 9.

    According to Riesenhuber, “fault, rejected at the main entrance, will sneak in through the back door.” Riesenhuber, p. 22. For a comprehensive study on the concept of “fault” and its decline against strict liability, see Fauvarque-Cosson/Mazeaud, p. 203 ff. For a comparison of the fault liability and strict liability from the perspective of law and economics, see Ackermann, p. 39 ff. For a review of the fault-principle and its exceptions in German law, see Riesenhuber, p. 3 ff.

  10. 10.

    French law has a dual character as it has recognized fault liability and strict liability in different cases of non-performance. Accordingly, in French law an obligation can either be an “obligations de moyens” or an “obligations de resultat”. “Obligations de moyens” impose a duty to use best efforts to perform without guaranteeing a promised result. Pejovic, VUWLR 2001, 817, 825; Gordley, p. 499. According to Article 1137/I when a person is charged with looking after an object, the required standard of care is that of a “good father of a family” (bon père de famille/bonus pater familias). Gordley, AJCL 2004, 513, 517. Therefore, in case of “obligations de moyens” creditor is entitled to damages if he can prove the fault of the other party. Pejovic, VUWLR 2001, 817, 825. Such fault refers to ordinary negligence. Gordley, AJCL 2004, 513, 518. On the other hand, “obligations de resultat” impose a duty to achieve a promised result. Therefore, in case of “obligations de resultat” it is sufficient to prove that the promise made was not performed. Pejovic, VUWLR 2001, 817, 825. In such cases, Article 1147 and 1148 set forth that a party is liable whenever he cannot prove that non-performance resulted from an extrinsic cause (cause étrangere) that cannot be imputed to him, “force majeure” or an accident (cas fortuit). According to Gordley such dual character exists because, when they were borrowing scraps from the Roman law, the drafters of the CC “did not have a clear idea of what they were doing”. Gordley, p. 500.

  11. 11.

    Since the civil law remedies are primarily concerned with performance, it is accepted that someone cannot perform what is impossible, even if it is undertaken in the contract. As a result the civil lawyers traditionally rejected the idea that a party could contract to do impossible: impossibilium nulla obligatio est. Mazzacano, NJCL 2011, 1, 12.

  12. 12.

    Historically, in German law, there are two cases, where damage claims may be requested prior to primary claim: (1) when performance is impossible and the debtor is responsible for impossibility; and (2) when the creditor has lost his interest in performance due to the default of the debtor. Weidt, p. 81; Huber, Leistungsstörungen II, § 36 I 5, p. 184 ff. The same principle applies for Swiss and Turkish laws as well.

  13. 13.

    According to the common law approach, performance of an obligation might be impossible, but the payment of damages is always possible. Mazzacano, NJCL 2011, 1, 13.

  14. 14.

    Pfeiffer, p. 54.

  15. 15.

    Pfeiffer, p. 54.

  16. 16.

    Reitz, p. 270; Schwenzer/Hachem/Kee, Nr. 45.07.

  17. 17.

    In common law, the court may grant specific performance only upon showing that the award of damages would be insufficient as a remedy to put the debtor in the position he would have been in had the breaching party performed. Reitz, p. 270. In fact, in common law, specific performance is an equitable remedy. Schwenzer/Hachem/Kee, Nr. 43.24.

  18. 18.

    See Art. 28 and 46 CISG, Art. 7.2.2 PICC, Art. 9:102 PECL, III. 3:302 DCFR, Art. 110 CESL.

  19. 19.

    Fitzgerald, JLC 1997, 291, 291.

  20. 20.

    Schwenzer/Hachem/Kee, Nr. 43.48.

  21. 21.

    “…if the debtor fails to fulfill an obligation he is liable under Art. 74 CISG regardless of his misconduct or fault [Garantiehaftung]. This liability, which in principle is not dependent on fault, is limited by the liability exemption under Art. 79 CISG, which must be proved by the debtor.” Austria 29 June 1999 Supreme Court (Dividing wall panels case) (http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990629a3.html).

  22. 22.

    Maskow, AJCL 1992, 657, 664.

  23. 23.

    Basedow, IRLE 2005, 487, 495 ff.

  24. 24.

    For a very critical analysis of the Discussion Draft, see Huber, ZIP 2000, 2137, 2137 ff. According to the author, the draft “is badly thought, immature and un-European to an extent that it is unsuitable as a basis of a legislative procedure.” Huber, ZIP 2000, 2137, 2151.

  25. 25.

    Although impossibility was on the verge of being abolished from the BGB, it is ironic that in the present German law impossibility plays a more important role than before. In fact, impossibility is not only used in the general provisions of the law of obligations (Allgemeines Schuldrecht) but also among the rules on sales law, with regard to the cure (Nacherfüllung) for defective goods; see §§ 437, 439 BGB.

  26. 26.

    Basedow, IRLE 2005, 487, 497.

  27. 27.

    It would not be wrong to argue that each of the Unification Instruments is a follow up of the previous one(s), which has been further developed by considering various criticisms made regarding the provisions of the said previous one(s). When the force majeure provisions of the Unification Instruments are comparatively studied, it can be seen that despite the difference in wording, many of the provisions and solutions have been settled on already.

References

  • Ackermann, Thomas: Beyond Expectation? – An Assessment of the DCFR Rules on Contractual Damages, in: Wagner, Gerhard, The Common Frame of Reference: A View from Law & Economics, Sellier, München 2009, pp. 35 - 68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow, Jürgen: Towards a Universal Doctrine of Breach of Contract: The Impact of the CISG, IRLE, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2005, pp. 487 - 500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Joachim Christian: Die Unmöglichkeitslehre im US-amerikanischen Vertragsrecht, Dissertation, Bonn 1972. (Cited as: Becker, Unmöglichkeitslehre)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauvarque-Cosson, Bénédicte/Mazeaud, Denis: European Contract Law, Sellier, München 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, John: CISG, Specific Performance, and the Civil Law of Louisiana and Quebec, JLC, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1997, pp. 291 - 313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordley, James: Impossibility and Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances, AJCL, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2004, pp. 513 - 530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordley, James: Foundations of Private Law: Property, Tort, Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Ulrich: Handbuch des Schuldrechts, Leistungsstörungen, Band II, Die Folgen des Schuldnerverzugs – Die Erfüllungsverweigerung und die vom Schuldner zu vertretende Unmöglichkeit, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1999. (Cited as: Huber, Leistungsstörungen II)

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Ulrich: Die Unmöglichkeit der Leistung im Diskussionsentwurf eines Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetzes, ZIP 2000, pp. 2137 - 2151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskow, Dietrich: Hardship and Force majeure, AJCL, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1992, pp. 657 - 669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzacano, Peter J.: Force majeure, Impossibility, Frustration & the Like: Excuses for Non-Performance; the Historical Origins and Development of an Autonomous Commercial Norm in the CISG, NJCL, Vol. 2011, No. 2, pp. 1 - 54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pejovic, Caslav: Civil Law and Common Law: Two Different Paths Leading to the Same Goal, VUWLR, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2001, pp. 817 - 841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, Thomas: Core issues of consumer sales law, in: Schulte-Nölke, Hans/Tichy, Lubos, Perspectives for European Consumer Law: Towards a Directive on Consumer Rights and Beyond, Sellier, München 2010, pp. 45 - 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitz, John C.: Political Economy and Contract Law, in: Schulze, Reiner, New Features in Contract Law, Sellier, München 2007, pp. 247 - 276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reu, Fritz: Die Unmöglichkeit der Leistung im anglo-amerikanischen Recht, Enke, Stuttgart 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinstein, Max: Die Struktur des vertraglichen Schuldverhältnisses im anglo-amerikanischen Recht, de Gruyter, Berlin 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesenhuber, Karl: Damages for Non-Performance and the Fault Principle, available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1501193>.

  • Schwenzer, Ingeborg/Hachem, Pascal/Kee, Christopher: Global Sales and Contract Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treitel, Günter H.: Unmöglichkeit, “Impracticability” und “Frustration” im anglo-amerikanischen Recht, Nomos, Baden-Baden 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL: 2008 UNCITRAL Digest of case law on the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods - Digest of Article 79 case law, <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/digest-art-79.html>. (Cited as: UNCITRAL, Digest of Article 79 case law)

  • Weidt, Heinz: Antizipierter Vertragsbruch, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2008.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Hüseyin Can Aksoy

Authors
  1. Hüseyin Can Aksoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aksoy, H.C. (2014). 5) Utility of Impossibility as a Dogmatic Concept. In: Impossibility in Modern Private Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01704-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation