Remedies for non-performance：Perspectives from CISG, UNIDROIT Priniciples and PECL


INTRODUCTION


The growth of international trade makes some kind of unification necessary. Increased trade overseas has drawn attention to the problems that are caused by the different ways in which countries have chosen to regulate international sales. And the legal community has tried to facilitate overseas trade through efforts to harmonize national laws by legislative or non-legislative means.
Against such a background, the analysis in this contribution is focused on the CISG, UNIDROIT Principles and PECL -- three of the most important international instruments for the regulation of international commercial transactions which combine elements from both civil law and common law systems. In so doing, this contribution provides a comparative analysis of these instruments. It is merely thought that comparison is, probably, one of the most efficient ways to underline some of the unique features inherent in some legal regimes and to develop solutions to existing theoretical problems. However, as most of the authors dealing with the vast domain of this area would have done, the author in this contribution has never meant to make an exhaustive examination of international commercial law, bearing in mind that the ability of a single contribution to deal with its many issues is limited. The approach offered here is to review some of the key issues frequently befell in international trade, based on those generally accepted principles or elaborate rules as evidenced by international restatements or conventions and usages and practices or so-called lex mercatoria that is widely known to and regularly observed in international commercial transactions.
Particularly, it is said that no aspect of a system of contract law is more revealing of its underlying assumptions than is the law that prescribes the relief available for non-performance (breach). Issues relating to the remedial provisions are difficult and central substantive issues, which will no doubt be the focus of a large part of the discussion and deliberation surrounding application of commercial law on both a domestic and an international level. Therefore, the study in this contribution focuses, in light of traditional and modern theories, on the remedial scheme established under each of the three bodies of rules, namely Part III (partial) of the CISG, Chapter 7 of the UNIDROIT Principles and Chapters 8 and 9 of the PECL. In practical terms, these sectors are the substantive heart of the particular instruments. It is where the corresponding solutions to a large proportion of real world disputes in commercial transactions are to be found.
The comparative analysis contained speculates on the potential similarities and differences of these sectors, intending to enunciate rules which are common in international commercial law and at the same time to select the solutions which seem best adapted to the special requirements of international trade. One should note, however, that to the extent this contribution doesn’t give absolute priority to any one of the three instruments, whenever it is necessary to choose between conflicting rules and sometime then to derive a number of general principles which apply to all of the rules, what’s decisive to the criterion used is not just which rule is mandatory or adopted by the majority of jurisdictions, but rather which of the rules under consideration have the most persuasive value and/or appear to be particularly well suited for international commercial transactions.

Summary of Contents

PART I GENERAL REVIEW
Chapter 1 Sources of Inspiration
Chapter 2 Remedies Available upon Non-performance

PART II PRESERVING PERFORMANCE
Chapter 3 Specific Performance
Chapter 4 Nachfrist for Late Performance
Chapter 5 Cure by Non-performing Party
Chapter 6 Price Reduction for Non-conformity

PART III TERMINATION
Chapter 7 Right to Termination
Chapter 8 Fundamental Non-performance
Chapter 9 Anticipatory Non-performance
Chapter 10 Termination of Breached Installment or Part
Chapter 11 Declaration of Termination
Chapter 12 Effects of Termination

PART IV DAMAGES
Chapter 13 General Measure of Damages
Chapter 14 Limits to Claims for Damages
Chapter 15 Damages upon Termination
Chapter 16 Agreed Payment for Non-performance
Chapter 17 Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees
Chapter 18 Payment of Interest

PART V EXCUSES
Chapter 19 Change of Circumstances
Chapter 20 Force Majeure
Chapter 21 Hardship
Chapter 22 Force Majeure & Hardship Clauses

Table of Contents


PART I GENERAL REVIEW
Chapter 1 Sources of Inspiration
犯罪嫌疑人被羁押的最长时限

　　一个犯罪嫌疑人被刑事拘留后到终审判决,他可以被羁押多长时间?这个问题很复杂,笔者根据《刑事诉讼法》的规定,统计了各阶段的办案最长期限总共602天。也就是说，这个期限是最长的，包括了经上级机关审批延长的时限，司法机关只能在这个期限内结案。如果超过这个期限继续羁押绝对是违法的。犯罪嫌疑人或家属可以依照《刑事诉讼法》第七十四条规定申请取保候审或者监视居住。
　　（一）强制措施期限 （最长羁押期37天）
　　传唤、拘传持续时间不得超过12小时；（第92条）
　　1、拘留时间，一般不得超过14日，特殊情况拘留延长至30天、审查批准不超过7天，最长37天。（第六十九条）
　　2、取保候审时间，不得超过12个月； （第58条）
　　3、监视居住时间，不得超过6个月。 （第58条）
　　统计：羁押期最长37天。
　　（二）侦查羁押期限 （最长羁押期7个月）
　　1、对犯罪嫌疑人逮捕后侦查羁押期不得超过2个月；案情复杂、期限届满不能终结的案件，经上一级检察院批准可以延长1个月；（第124条）
　　2、对符合刑事诉讼法第126条规定情形，经本法第124条规定的期限不能侦查终结的，经省、自治区、直辖市人民检察院批准可以延长2个月；（第124条）
　　3、对犯罪嫌疑人可能判处10年有期徒刑以上刑罚的，依照刑事诉讼法第126条延长期限届满，仍不能侦查终结的，经省、自治区、直辖市人民检察院批准或决定可以再延长2个月；（第127条）
　　4、发现另有重要罪行的，重新计算期限。
　　统计：2个月+1个月+2个月+2个月=7个月（210天）。
　　（三）审查起诉期限 （最长羁押期限6个半月）
　　1、 人民检察院审查起诉时间为1个月。重大、复杂案件，可以延长半个月；（第138条）
　　2、改变管辖的，改变后的检察院收到案件之日起计算；
　　3、退回补充侦查，以两次为限，每次1个月；两次可以2个月。 （第140条）
　　4、补充侦查完毕移送人民检察院后重新计算起诉期限，两次1个月和两次延长半个月共3个月（第140条）
被害人对不起诉决定的申诉，在7日以内向上一级人民检察院提出；
　　5、被不起诉人对依据刑法第142条第2项做出不起诉决定的申诉，在7日以内提出。
　　统计：1.5个月+1个月+1个月+3个月=6.5个月（195天）
　　（四）审判期限 （最长羁押期限5个月+10天）
　　1、普通程序一审公诉案件，应当在受理后一个月以内宣判，至迟不得超过一个半月。特殊情况，经省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院批准或者决定，可以再延长一个月，计2.5个月。（第168条）
　　2、人民法院改变管辖的案件，从改变后的人民法院收到案件之日起计算审理期限。
　　3、提起上诉或抗诉时限10日。（第138条）
人民检察院补充侦查的案件，补充侦查完毕移送人民法院后，人民法院重新计算审理期限。
　　4、适用简易程序审理案件，人民法院应当在受理后20日以内审结。（第178条）
　　5、二审上诉、抗诉案件，应当在一个月以内审结，至迟不得超过一个半月。特殊情况，经省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院批准或者决定，可以再延长一个月，计2.5个月。但是最高人民法院受理的上诉、抗诉案件，由最高人民法院决定。 （第196条）
统计：2.5个月+2.5个月+10天=160天
从上述各办案期限统计：37天（刑拘）+210天（侦查与补充侦查）+195天（审查起诉）+160天（两级审判）＝602天。这是最长办案时限（包括延长期限），如果再延长羁押那就无法无天了！

参考资料：《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》

保定律师张荣安