Добавил:
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Учебный год 22-23 / Promises and Contract Law - Comparative Perspectives.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
14.12.2022
Размер:
3.23 Mб
Скачать

Contractual Remedies

401

charge for occupying the premises must be paid by the contractor for any period of time beyond the intended completion date. Such a clause, operating in effect as a penalty, could not be struck down as a penalty clause as it does not provide for any payment dependent upon breach. Likewise, a sum of money due upon the insolvency of a contracting party would not be caught under the existing penalty clause regime.243 The forfeiture of a deposit might conceivably amount to a penalty, but not if its purpose was an earnest and guarantee of payment.244

Of the varying positions adopted by the three mixed systems, the one which arguably accords most with a respect for the parties’ promises is the Scottish position. That is so because it is only in Scotland, when assessing whether a damages clause should be upheld, that regard is had to the circumstances prevailing at the time of contract formation alone. In the other two systems, a divergence between the actual losses suffered and the agreed damages payable may be taken into account in deciding whether or not to uphold the clause. This extra consideration, in providing a wider basis upon which to attack stipulated damages clauses, clearly has a greater potential to undermine the agreement of the parties.

(c)  German law

German law, like other systems, ties the concept of a penalty clause to a sum of money payable in the event of non-conforming performance of any kind (that is, in Common law terms, breach). Under §339 BGB, the general rule is that such penalty clauses are enforceable, though, as with the provisions in the BGB concerning damages in general, such penalties may only be claimed if the debtor was at fault in not fulfilling the relevant obligation.245 As is the position in the Common law, if a damages clause stipulates for payment of a sum in the event of non-­performance, should the creditor choose to claim such sum he is then barred from suing for performance.246 That position has an evident logic to it: it would

243The Scottish Law Commission suggested extending the law to cover penalties occurring on occasions other than breach of contract: see Scottish Law Commission, Report on Penalty Clauses. This proposed change has been included in the Bill proposed by the Scottish Government (see n. 242).

244Zemhunt (Holdings) Ltd v. Control Securities plc 1992 SLT 151.

245This follows from the reference to the debtor being ‘in default’ in §339: default entails fault because §286(4) states that the debtor is ‘not in default for as long as performance is not made as the result of a circumstance for which he is not responsible’.

246§340(1).

402

Promises and Contract Law

be nonsensical to allow a party to claim a sum stipulated as payable for non­ -performance, if that party were able at the same time to force performance of the primary duty. The claim for other penalty sums, for instance for late or defective performance, does not of course prohibit a concurrent claim for performance.

As in the Common law, penalty clauses are subject to scrutiny by the courts, though the criterion for, and method of, such scrutiny is different. The BGB provides that, if application is made to the court before the penalty is paid, a penalty which is ‘disproportionately high’ can be reduced to a ‘reasonable amount’. Such a trigger for scrutiny is somewhat different to that under the Common law, where the court’s jurisdiction to consider agreed damages clauses is founded upon the question of whether the clause represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss at the time the contract was made: if it is, then even if at the time of the breach the damages payable may be ‘disproportionately high’ in relation to actual loss suffered, the clause will stand; on the other hand, if the clause was not a genuine pre-estimate of likely losses, it will be struck out of the contract (not amended), the party suffering the breach having instead to fall back upon a common law damages claim. However, the outcome of the Common law approach may not be so different to the German approach: a disproportionately high German penalty clause can be altered to provide ‘reasonable’ recovery (reasonableness, naturally suggesting some reference to the loss actually suffered), and an English common law damages award is based upon assessment of damages at the time of the trial by reference to the actual loss suffered by the party. The English approach is to look at the good faith nature of the term as agreed by the parties, the German approach to consider the practical effect of the clause at the time a complaint is raised. To that extent, the English approach may be said to pay more regard to the nature of the promise as made.

Unlike the position in the Common law and mixed legal systems, a stipulated penalty may not in German law be the full extent of what may be claimed by the creditor: the creditor is entitled to claim the penalty as the ‘minimum amount’ of damages, but is permitted to claim further damages if his loss exceeds the amount of the penalty.247 This is at odds with the Common law approach, where, if parties commit their agreement as to exigible damages to a valid liquidated damages clause, the amount ­stipulated is that which is required to be paid by the party in breach, regardless of whether the actual amount of damages suffered

247  §340(2).