Address: 17 Promyshlennaya ul., room 305, 198099, Saint Petersburg.
Phone/fax: (812) 785-25-40
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
This article analyzes the pros and cons of choosing a “negative” or “positive” contractual strategy in a crisis environment.
The authors draw attention to the difficulty of making an appropriate decision and the need to take into account many factors. In particular, on the basis of the provisions of legislation and judicial practice, it is concluded that in order to apply to the court with any requirement (terminate the contract, seek of penalties, establish the impossibility to perform obligation or a substantial change in circumstances), evidence of pre-trial settlement, manifestations of cooperation and good faith will be required. Otherwise, there is a high probability of either a refusal to consider the claim or a refusal to satisfy the claim on the merits.
In addition, a refusal to discuss concessions can be used to justify in court a counterparty’s dishonesty and abuse of the situation, a court decision may be not enforceable, and the debtor may go into bankruptcy. Force majeure is not a panacea and only in exceptional cases relieves from liability for non-fulfillment of an obligation, but not from fulfillment of an obligation itself. In any case, it is necessary to collect in advance the evidence base of the extraordinary and unavoidable impact on specific obligations of restrictive quarantine measures and evidence that the parties have taken all possible actions to reduce losses.
Therefore, according to the authors, in some casesa maintaining the old relationship on the changed terms is more profitable than looking for a new counterparty, since the conclusion of a new contract during the crisis and after it means taking on higher risks of its unfulfillability.
The article attempts to substantiate the existence of the problem of interaction and the influence of Russian rules of procedural law on the course of the limitation period, determined by foreign substantive law agreed by the parties to the contract. The reason for the collision is the attribution in Russian law of the institution of limitation of actions (and the rules for its calculation, interruption, suspension) to substantive law, while the norms of Russian procedural law, for example, due to the existence of such a specific procedural institution as the pre-trial order, can influence the course limitation period. The author illustrates the problem using the example of the recent judicial practice of arbitration courts and suggests possible ways to overcome the problem.
This collection of articles of Russian researchers from many regions of the country is exploring the contribution that constitutional economics can make to the theory of democracy and to the study of how the choice of rules in the social, economic and political reality affects the constitutional rights of the people of Russia.
The article posed and solved the problem requesting the employee a written explanation as а condition for bringing disciplinary responsibility. It is shown that the articles 193 and 294 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not currently give a direct answer, which allows to solve this problem. The author argues that reclamation of explanation can not be this condition in terms of the purpose and meaning of this legal action as a result of non-compliance with the conditions, providing an increase of probability of an informed decision by the employer, equal to the illegality of the decision, despite the fact that the decision itself in the end can be justified. The article examines and refutes arguments against the stated positions, namely: 1) the argument that the employer acts as a quasi-judicial organization, the activities of which legitimately impose certain procedural requirements; 2) The argument that the vindication explanation reduces the risk of rendering unjustified decision and, consequently, the risk of litigation. As a result, it is stated that more reasonable it would be an admission then employer does not require from the employee a written explanation is not the violation of which must necessarily entail the illegality of the decision to impose a disciplinary sanction.