NYHETER

Følgende nyheter er spesielt relevante for den komparative forskning i Norge:

Arbitration and the not unlimited party autonomy:

The impact of the applicable law on the interpretation of contracts

(day one)

The impact of intellectual property rules and of the arbitrability rule on the enforceability of arbitral awards

(day two)

Date:     21 and 22 November 2011

Place:    Statoil ASA, Drammensveien 264. Vækerø 0283 Oslo

21 November 2011

The impact of the applicable law on the interpretation of contracts

Does international arbitration assume that contracts are written on their own terms or as an interplay with the applicable law?

8.45-9.00             Welcome and introduction

                               Hans Henrik Klouman, General Counsel, Statoil ASA

                               Giuditta Cordero-Moss, Professor, University of Oslo

9.00-10.30           The framework:  

                               The wording of a contract may have different legal effects depending on the governing law

                               The interpretation of contracts in international arbitration: applicable rules

                               Panel participants (the list is not final):

                               Michele Graziadei, Fausto Pocar, Gustaf Möller, Anders Ryssdal, Aapo Sarikivi, Jerney Sekolec,  Ivan Zykin

                               The discussion is open and not limited to the panel participants

10.30-10.45        Break

10.45-12.15         Expectations when drafting a contract:

                                Do (arbitrators expect that) drafters rely on an understanding of the contract as it emerges in international practice, rather then on the legal effects that the wording may have under the specific governing law?

                                Is (Do arbitrators expect that)  every single term of a contract (is) the result of a careful assessment of its legal effects and of detailed negotiations between the parties, or do drafters sometimes take calculated legal risk  and  insert standardised terms without accurate assessment or negotiation?

To what extent does the prospective arbitrator’s  view  on the governing law’s role affect the decision to appoint an arbitrator? 

                               Panel participants (the list is not final):

                               Are Brautaset, David Echenberg, James Hope, Knud Knudsen, Christian Fredrik Michelet, Sophie Nappert, Fredrik Norburg, Michael Schneider

                               The discussion is open and not limited to the panel participants

12.15-13.00         Lunch

13.00-14.30         Evaluations when interpreting a contract:

                                Do arbitrators interpret one and the same contract clause differently depending on the governing law, or do they develop a harmonised understanding based on the contract’s  wording and on the arbitrators’ international experience?

                                Do arbitrators take into consideration how their interpretation of the contract may affect enforceability of the award?

                               Panel participants (the list is not final):

                               Lawrence Boo, James Castello, Luigi Fumagalli, Stephan Jervell, Cathrine Kessedjan, Kai Uwe Karl, Alexander Komarov, Petri Taikalkoski

                               The discussion is open and not limited to the panel participants

                 Panel Participants (the list is not yet complete):

• Are Brautaset, legal counsel, Statoil ASA
• Lawrence Boo, professor, head of arbitration chambers, Singapore
• James Castello, partner, King & Spalding
• David Echenberg, senior contract risk manager, General Electric Energy Services
• Luigi Fumagalli, professor, University of Milan
• Michele Graziadei , professor, University of Turin
• James Hope, partner, Advoktafirman Vinge
• Stephan Jervell, partner, Wiersholm
• Kai Uwe Karl, senior counsel litigations, General Electric Oil & Gas
• Cathrine Kessedjian, professor, University of Paris II
• Alexander Komarov, Professor, Russian Academy of Foreign Trade
• Kund Knudsen, partner, DLAPiper
• Christian Fredrik Michelet, partner, Arntzen de Besche
• Gustaf Möller, Krogerus, and former justice, Supreme Court of Finland
• Sophie Nappert, Avocat, Bar of Quebec, Canada; Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales
• Fredrik Norburg, partner, Norburg advokatbyrå
• Fausto Pocar, professor, University of Milan and judge, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
• Anders Ryssdal, partner, Wiersholm
• Aapo Sarikivi, attorney at law, Roschier
• Michael Schneider, partner, Lalive
• Jerney Sekolec, arbitrator and former secretary general, UNCITRAL
• Petri Taivalkoski, partner,  Roschier
• Ivan Zykin, Professor, Andrey Gorodissky & Partners

22 November 2011

The impact of intellectual property rules and of the arbitrability rule on the enforceability of arbitral awards

9.00-9.45             The framework: Arbitration law and the New York Convention as limits

                               to party autonomy – Professor Giuditta Cordero-Moss, University of Oslo

                               Ongoing research on intellectual property law as a limit to party autonomy in arbitration – Research Assistant Hedda Bjøralt Roald, University of Oslo

                               Ongoing research on arbitrability  as a limit to party autonomy in arbitration – Research Assistant Ulrik Tetzschner, University of Oslo

9.45-10.00           Break

10.00-11.30         Panel discussion.

11.30-12.00        Extended discussion (questions and comments from all participants)

12.00-13.00        Lunch

Panel Participants (the list is not yet complete):

• Ivar Alvik, University of Oslo
• Are Brautaset, legal counsel, Statoil ASA
• Lawrence Boo, professor, head of arbitration chambers, Singapore
• David Echenberg, senior contract risk manager, General Electric Energy Services
• Michele Graziadei , professor, University of Turin
• James Hope, partner, Advoktafirman Vinge
• Kai Uwe Karl, senior counsel litigations, General Electric Oil & Gas
• Cathrine Kessedjian, professor, University of Paris II
• Alexander Komarov, Professor, Russian Academy of Foreign Trade
• Kund Knudsen, partner, DLAPiper
• Gustaf Möller, Krogerus, and former justice, Supreme Court of Finland
• Sophie Nappert, Avocat, Bar of Quebec, Canada; Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales
• Fredrik Norburg, partner, Norburg advokatbyrå
• Fausto Pocar, professor, University of Milan and judge, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
• Ole-Andreas Rognstad, Univerisity of Oslo
• Aapo Sarikivi, attorney at law, Roschier
• Michael Schneider, partner, Lalive
• Jerney Sekolec, arbitrator and former secretary general, UNCITRAL
• Petri Taivalkoski, partner,  Roschier
• Ivan Zykin, Professor, Andrey Gorodissky & Partners

List of topics for discussion – first draft

Intellectual Property:

Assumptions:

·               Parties are free to choose the law governing their contracts;

·               Contracts may have implications beyond the area of contract law. These legal effects will be subject not to the law chosen by the parties, but to the law applicable according to the relevant choice-of-law rule;

·               Arbitral tribunals are bound to follow the will of the parties;

·               Arbitral awards must be recognised and enforced without review of the merits or of the application of law;

·               If the arbitral tribunal applies the law chosen by the parties instead of the applicable law, it is an error of law that does not affect the validity or enforceability of the award;

·               Under certain circumstances, an award may be declared invalid or unenforceable (i.a., If the award is in contrast with the public policy of the court);

·               Under certain circumstances, disregard of the applicable law may lead to conflict with public policy (if the award conflicts with some rules of company law, competition law) or other grounds for invalidity or unenforceability (non-compliance with rules on legal capacity).

Thesis:

Within the law of intellectual property  some rules protect so important interests, that an award following the parties' choice and disregarding these applicable rules will risk being declared invalid or unenforceable.

Discussion to demonstrate the thesis:

·               Examples (not necessarily involving Norwegian law) of contracts with intellectual property law implications, where the parties try to circumvent the applicable law by choosing a more liberal law: technology licence.

·               Explanation of the applicable choice of law rules (not necessarily only in Norwegian private international law)

·               Explanation of what interests are affected by applying a foreign law

·               Explanation of which infringements of these interests may be considered as a violation of public policy

List of topics for discussion – first draft

Arbitrability:

Assumptions:

• Courts shall not accept jurisdiction on dispute where there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties
• If a dispute is on a matter that is not arbitrable, courts have jurisdiction
• If an arbitral award was rendered in a dispute on a matter that is not arbitrable, the award may be set aside or refused enforcement
• Arbitrability is determined by the internal law of the court that is deciding on the validity of the award (the court of the place of arbitration) and of the law of the court that is deciding on the enforcement of the award (the court of the place of enforcement)
• The purpose of the arbitrability rule is to ensure accurate application of rules  by the courts in areas where states do not consider it appropriate to delegate the resolution of disputes to private mechanisms

Thesis:

• The arbitrability rule is capable to fulfil its function if the court would have jurisdiction in the absence of the arbitration agreement
• Should the court not have jurisdiction in the absence of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability rule’s function may merely be to  prevent giving effect to unacceptable results (same function as rule on public policy)

Discussion to demonstrate the thesis:

·               Examples (not necessarily involving Norwegian law) of areas where the parties may not agree on arbitration as dispute settlement

·               Analysis of the effects of the arbitrability rule if the court has jurisdiction on the dispute

·               Analysis of the effects of the arbitrability rule if the court does not have  jurisdiction on the dispute

·               Comparison of the arbitrability rule and of the public policy rule

APA Project

Research Plan

S

S

·         Home >

·         Law >

·         Comparative law >

Boilerplate Clauses, International Commercial Contracts and the Applicable Law

Boilerplate Clauses, International Commercial Contracts and the Applicable Law

·         Edited by: Giuditta Cordero-Moss, Universitetet i Oslo

·         Hardback

·         ISBN:9780521197892

·         Publication date:March 2011

·         426pages

·         Dimensions: 228 x 152 mm

·         Weight: 0.77kg

·          

·In stock

·

With the aim of creating an autonomous regime for the interpretation and application of the contract, boilerplate clauses are often inserted into international commercial contracts without negotiations or regard for their legal effects. The assumption that a sufficiently detailed and clear language will ensure that the legal effects of the contract will only be based on the contract, as opposed to the applicable law, was originally encouraged by English courts, and today most international contracts have these clauses, irrespective of the governing law. This collection of essays demonstrates that this assumption is not fully applicable under systems of civil law, because these systems are based on principles, such as good faith and loyalty, which contradict this approach.

Features

• Explains the most typical effects of boilerplate clauses under the law of a series of countries to assist practising lawyers who use them in commercial contracts • Demonstrates that international contracts are affected by the applicable law to a previously unsuspected extent, thus inducing practitioners and academics alike to reconsider their reliance on the possibility of uniformly interpreting and applying standard contract wording • Explains how contracts shall be interpreted if they are written on the basis of a law different from the law that governs them, thus providing practitioners with the instruments to write and interpret contracts in the awareness of the governing law

• Explains the most typical effects of boilerplate clauses under the law of a series of countries to assist practising lawyers who use them in commercial contracts • Demonstrates that international contracts are affected by the applicable law to a previously unsuspected extent, thus inducing practitioners and academics alike to reconsider their reliance on the possibility of uniformly interpreting and applying standard contract wording • Explains how contracts shall be interpreted if they are written on the basis of a law different from the law that governs them, thus providing practitioners with the instruments to write and interpret contracts in the awareness of the governing law

Table of Contents

Introduction
Part I. How Contracts Are Written In Practice: 1. Negotiating international contracts: does the process invite a review of standard contracts from the point of view of national legal requirements? David Echenberg
2. Multinational companies and national contracts Maria Celeste Vettese
Part II. Methodological Challenges: 3. Does the use of common law contract models give rise to a tacit choice of law or to a harmonised, transnational interpretation? Giuditta Cordero Moss
4. Common law based contracts under German law Gerhard Dannemann
5. Comparing exculpatory clauses under Anglo-American law: testing total legal convergence Edward T. Canuel
6. Circulation of common law contract models in Europe: the impact of European Union system Jean-Sylvestre Bergé
Part III. The Applicable Law's Effects on Boilerplate Clauses: 7. The common law tradition: application of boilerplate clauses under English law Edwin Peel
8. The Germanic tradition: application of boilerplate clauses under German law Ulrich Magnus
9. The Romanistic tradition: application of boilerplate clauses under French law Xavier Lagarde, David Méheut and Jean-Michel Reversac
10. The Romanistic tradition: application of boilerplate clauses under Italian law Giorgio De Nova
11. The Nordic tradition: application of boilerplate clauses under Danish law Peter Møgelvang-Hansen
12. The Nordic tradition: application of boilerplate clauses under Finnish Law Gustaf Möller
13. The Nordic tradition: application of boilerplate clauses under Norwegian law Viggo Hagstrøm
14. The Nordic tradition: application of boilerplate clauses under Swedish law Lars Gorton
15. The East European tradition: application of boilerplate clauses under Hungarian law Attila Menyhárd
16. The East European tradition: application of boilerplate clauses under Russian law Ivan S. Zykin
17. Conclusion: the self-sufficient contract, uniformly interpreted on the basis of its own terms: an illusion, but not fully useless Giuditta Cordero Moss.

Arbitration and the not unlimited party autonomy:

The impact of property law and investment law

Date:     Friday, 3 December 2010

Place:    Law Faculty, Domus nova, St Olavs Plass 5, Oslo, room 540

9.00-9.45             The framework: Arbitration law and the New York Convention as limits

                               to party autonomy – Professor Giuditta Cordero-Moss, University of Oslo

                               Ongoing research on property law as a limit to party autonomy in arbitration – Research Assistant Siri Hafeld, University of Oslo

                               Ongoing research on investment law as a limit to party autonomy in arbitration – Research Assistant Tone Wetteland, University of Oslo

9.45-10.00           Break

10.00-11.30         Panel discussion on property law as a limit to party autonomy and to the effectiveness of arbitral awards.

11.30-12.00        Extended discussion (questions and comments from all participants)

12.00-13.00        Lunch

13.00-14.30         Panel discussion on investment law as a limit to party autonomy and to the effectiveness of arbitral awards.

14.30-15.00        Extended discussion (questions and comments from all participants)

Panel Participants:

Dr Ivar Alvik,  Thommessen, Oslo

Gary Born, WilmerHale, London

Prof Giuditta Cordero-Moss, University of Oslo

Dr Marius Emberland, State Attorney Office, Oslo

Prof Michele Graziadei, University of Turin

Kai-Uwe Karl, General Electric Oil & Gas

Prof Kåre Lilleholt, University of Oslo

Finola O’Sullivan, Cambridge University Press

Prof Luca Radicati di Brozolo, Catholic Univeristy, Milan

Prof Jerney Sekolec, UNCITRAL

List of topics for discussion – first draft

Property:

Assumptions:

·               Parties are free to choose the law governing their contracts;

·               Contracts may have implications beyond the area of contract law. These legal effects will be subject not to the law chosen by the parties, but to the law applicable according to the relevant choice-of-law rule;

·               Arbitral tribunals are bound to follow the will of the parties;

·               Arbitral awards must be recognised and enforced without review of the merits or of the application of law;

·               If the arbitral tribunal applies the law chosen by the parties instead of the applicable law, it is an error of law that does not affect the validity or enforceability of the award;

·               Under certain circumstances, an award may be declared invalid or unenforceable (i.a., If the award is in contrast with the public policy of the court);

·               Under certain circumstances, disregard of the applicable law may lead to conflict with public policy (if the award conflicts with some rules of company law, competition law) or other grounds for invalidity or unenforceability (non-compliance with rules on legal capacity).

Thesis:

Within the law of property and insolvency some rules protect so important interests, that an award following the parties' choice and disregarding these applicable rules will risk being declared invalid or unenforceable.

Discussion to demonstrate the thesis:

·               Examples (not necessarily involving Norwegian law) of contracts with property/insolvency law implications, where the parties try to circumvent the applicable law by choosing a more liberal law: pledge, retention of title, collateral, assignment, close-out netting or set-off, acceleration, sale contracts as far as the effects on ownership of the goods are concerned, etc.)

·               Explanation of the applicable choice of law rules (not necessarily only in Norwegian private international law)

·               Explanation of what interests are affected by applying a foreign law

·               Explanation of which infringements of these interests may be considered as a violation of public policy

·               Explanation of the effects that  an arbitral award infringing  these interests may have in insolvency proceedings

List of topics for discussion – first draft

Investment protection:

Assumptions:

• Foreign investors enjoy public international law protection, particularly if a Bilateral Investment Treaty or a Multinational Treaty applies;
• Foreign investors may initiate arbitration proceedings against the host country for breach of the public international law obligations to protect the investment;
• Awards rendered in an investment arbitration are enforceable as if they were final judgements (ICSID) or as if they were commercial arbitral awards;

·         Under certain circumstances, a commercial arbitral award may be declared invalid or unenforceable (i.a., if the award is in contrast with the public policy of the court);

• “Internationalization” of the host country’s law does not mean that the host country’s law is not applicable, but that it is applicable to the extent that is in compliance with applicable rules of international law.

Thesis:

Irrespective of the choice of law contained in the contract, foreign investments are subject to the administrative/public law of the host country. Investment arbitration permits to enforce public international law protection against abuses of sovereignty by the host country, but does not permit to disregard the host country’s administrative/public law.

Discussion to demonstrate the thesis:

• Criteria for investment protection: is there any criterion that affects application of the host country’s law even if it is not abusive?
• Sovereign activity that affects foreign investment but is not abusive: examples  (non-discriminatory tax law that does not have expropriatory effects, regulations protecting the environment, safety regulations, etc.) 
• Is it possible to contractually limit the applicability of the host country’s law (apart from choice of law within the area of private law)? Stabilisation clauses, internationalisation clauses, other mechanisms

Assuming that these contractual limitations violate principles of the host country’s constitutional law, will the host country be infringing public international law on investment protection if it disregards them to implement its non-discriminatory and non-expropriatory activity?

APA Project

Research Plan

Arbitration and the not unlimited party autonomy: The impact of competition law and company law

9.00-9.15 The framework: Arbitration law and the New York Convention as limits to party autonomy – Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss, University of Oslo

9.15-9.45 Ongoing research on competition law as a limit to party autonomy in arbitration – Research Assistant Nicolai Nielsen, University of Oslo

9.45-10.15 Ongoing research on company law as a limit to party autonomy in arbitration – Research Assistant Cathrine Bjoland, University of Oslo

10.15 Break

10.30-12.00 Panel discussion on competition law and company law as limits to party autonomy and to the effectiveness of arbitral awards.

12.00-12.30 Extended discussion (questions and comments from all participants)

12.30-13.30 Lunch

Panel Participants:

Professor Diego Fernandez Arroyo, Complutense University, Madrid
Professor George Bermann, Columbia University, New York
Are Brautaset, Corporate Lawyer, Statoil ASA
Charles Grey, Corporate Lawyer, Yara International ASA
Professor Erling Hjelmeng, University of Oslo
Knud Knudsen, Partner, DLAPiper
Professor Olav Kolstad, Law Firm Kvale, Oslo
Mr Georg Lett, partner, Lett Lawfirm, Copenhagen
Justice Gustaf Möller, Supreme Court, Helsinki
Ms Corinne Montineri, UNCITRAL
Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss, University of Oslo
Professor Kristin Normann, Law Firm Selmer, Oslo
Marie Öhrström, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
Professor Luca Radicati di Brozolo, Catholic Univeristy, Milan
Dr Anders Christian Stray Ryssdal, Wiersholm Lawfirm, Oslo
Ms Carita Wallgren-Lindholm, Partner, Lindholm Wallgren, Helsinki
Dr. Daniel Wehrli, Partner, Gloor & Sieger, Zürich

The participation is limited and by invitation only – please contact Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss (g.c.moss@jus.uio.no) if you are interested in participating.
 

Conference - Trends and Features in international arbitration

Programme (pdf)

Short biography of the speakers

Research project on

Choice of law clauses and their limitations

Arbitration and the not unlimited party autonomy:

The impact of competition law and company law

Date:    Friday, 13 November 2009

Place:   Statoil ASA, Vækerø

9.00-9.15        The framework: Arbitration law and the New York Convention as limits to party autonomy – Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss, University of Oslo

9.15-9.30        Ongoing research on competition law as a limit to party autonomy in arbitration: status and call for input – Research Assistant Nicolai Nielsen, University of Oslo

9.30-10.15      Enforcement of arbitral awards and competition law– Dr  Renato Nazzini, University of Southampton

10.15   Break

10.30-10.50    The multiple faces of competition law and public policy – Professor Olav Kolstad, Law Firm Kvale, Oslo

10.50-11.10    Legal Remedies, competition law and public policy – Professor Erling Hjelmeng, University of Oslo

11.10-11.30    Practical experiences regarding competition law and arbitration – Associate Aapo Saarikivi, Law Firm Roschier, Helsinki

11.30-.12.00   Discussion

12.00-12.30    Lunch

12.30-12.45    Ongoing research on company law as a limit to party autonomy in arbitration: status and call for input – Research Assistant Cathrine Bjoland, University of Oslo

12.45-13.45    Company law, shareholders agreements and public policy: observations and examples from practice

Professor Kristin Normann, Law Firm Selmer, Oslo

Professor Benoit Le Bars, Law Firm Le Bars Associés, Paris

Professor Tore Bråthen, Norwegian School of Management, Oslo

Dr. Anders Christian Stray Ryssdal, Law Firm Wiersholm, Oslo

13.45-.14.15   Discussion

Short biography of the speakers

Cathrine Bjoland, Research Assistant at the Department for Private Law, University of Oslo. She writes a thesis on company law, choice of law and arbitration.

Tore Bråthen, Dr. juris, Professor at the Norwegian School of Management BI, Oslo, and Visiting Professor at the University of Tromsø. Head of Department of Accounting, Auditing and Law at the Norwegian School of Management BI, he specialises in company law. Full CV:

http://www.bi.no/Content/AcademicProfile____37600.aspx?ansattid=/FGL98053

Erling Hjelmeng, Dr. juris, Professor at the Department for Private Law, University of Oslo, in charge of, among others, competition law.  Full CV: http://www.jus.uio.no/ifp/om/ansatte/vit/erlingjh/erlingjh.xml

Olav Kolstad, Dr. juris, Professor at the Department for Private Law, University of Oslo, presently on leave and partner in the Law Firm Kvale & Co, Oslo. He specialises in European law, competition law, intellectual property, media and marketing. Full CV: http://www.kvaleco.no/wip4/english/index.epl?id=432135&cat=7618

Benoit Le Bars, Dr., Professor at Vermont Law School and Cergy-Pontoise University Law School, in charge of business law and company law. He is a partner in the Law Firm Le Bars Associés, Paris, practicing within corporate law and arbitration. Full CV: http://panjuris.univ-paris1.fr/pages/cvlebar3.html

Giuditta Cordero Moss, Dr.juris (Oslo), PhD (Moscow), Professor at the Department for Private Law, University of Oslo, in charge of private international law, international commercial law, comparative private law. Founder and manager of the research project “Choice of Law Clauses and their Limitations”. Full CV: http://folk.uio.no/giudittm/GCM_CURRICULUM%20VITAE.htm

Renato Nazzini, Dr. (miland and London), Reader in law at the University of Southampton and Visiting Professor at the University of Turin. He is a solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales and a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. During several years as Assistant Director, Legal and Policy, and then Senior Consultant, at the UK Office of Fair Trading, he has advised on predatory/excess pricing, predatory conduct, margin squeeze, cartels, vertical price and non-price restraints, parallel imports, and competition issues in the financial sector. He has also participated in competition policy projects in the United Kingdom, the European Union and internationally, including the review of Article 82 EC, private enforcement, modernization, commitments and settlements, and procedural rights of third parties. Full CV: http://www.soton.ac.uk/law/staff/academicstaff/nazzini_renato.html

Nicolai Nielsen, Research Assistant at the Department for Private Law, University of Oslo. He writes a thesis on competition law and arbitration.

Kristin Normann, Dr. juris, Partner in the Law Firm Selmer, Oslo. She practices within company law and has been Professor at the Department for Private Law, University of Oslo, specialising in company law. Full CV:

http://selmer.no/eng/ansatt.aspx?id=99&zone=9&menunode=

Anders Christian Stray Ryssdal, Dr. juris, Partner in the Law Firm Wiersholm, Oslo. Head of the European and Competition Law Practice Group, he practices within European law, competition law and litigation. Full CV:

http://wiersholm.no/en_cv/anders_ryssdal

Aapo Saarikivi, LL.M., Associate at Roschier, Attorneys Ltd. He practices within dispute resolution, with a primary focus on international arbitration. He also lectures international trade law at the University of Helsinki. Full CV: http://www.roschier.com/cv.php?id=59

Choice of law clauses and their limitations

Enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Russia: Restrictions due to company law, legal capacity and other issues of public policy

Programme:

Registration: please send an e-mail to bodil.silset@jus.uio.no

Anglo-American Contract Models

Department of Private Law / Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law Faculty of Law, University of Oslo

Anglo-American Contract Models
GUEST LECTURE

On 3 March 2009, 12.15-14.00

Professor Silvia Ferreri

University of Turin, Italy

 
will hold a lecture on

Convergence and divergence in interpretation of contracts.

English law and Italian law.

The starting point will be a decision of the Italian Supreme Court interpreting, under English law, a clause providing that renewal notice must be sent “within three months of termination”.

 
The lecture will be held in the frame of the course International Commercial Law, and will take place in the University building, Karl Johans gate 47,  Domus Academica, Auditorium 6.

  
________________________________________________

Anglo-American Contract Models

Institutt for privatrett  / Nordisk institutt for sjørett
Karl Johans gt. 47, N - 0162 Oslo

Web: http://www.jus.uio.no/ifp/anglo_project

E-post: anglo-project@jus.uio.no
Tlf. 22 85 97 86

Anglo-American Contract Models

Department of Private Law / Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law
 University of Oslo

Programme
Concluding Conference, 23 - 24 October 2008

Venue:
Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Karl Johans gate 47
- Juridisk eksamenssal, Domus Akademika

Thursday - 23 October

Friday - 24 October

_______________________________________________________________
Anglo-American Contract Models
Web:  http://www.jus.uio.no/ifp/anglo_project  

E-mail: anglo-project@jus.uio.no
Tel. +47 22 85 97 86 /
 +47 97 72 71 84

PARTICIPANTS:

Foreign guests

 
Justice Gustaf Möller, Supreme Court, Finland
Prof. Ivan Zykin, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
Prof. Peter Moegelvang Hansem, Copenhagen Business School
Prof. Jean Sylvestre Bergé, Paris
Dr. Attila Menyhárd, Budapest
Prof. Lars Gorton, Lund
Prof. Giorgio De Nova, Milan (to be confirmed)
Prof Ulrich Magnus, Hamburg (to be confirmed)
Avv. Maria Celeste Vettese, ABB, Italy
Avv. Ludovica Parodi, Enel, Italy

Common Law Advisors

Mr Ed Peel, Oxford University

Mr Jim Percival, Brabnes, Chaffe, Street

(Former) Project members

List will be communicated at a later stage

User Group

List will be communicated at a later stage

SEMINAR MED MAARIT JÄNTERÄ-JAREBORG

Harmonisering av europeisk rett

Tid:  Mandag 1. september kl. 14.00 – 16.30

Sted:  Teologisk Eksamenssal, DA

Professor jur. dr. Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg, dekan ved det juridiske fakultet, universitet i Uppsala, holder en forelesing i anledning av at hun kreeres til æresdoktor ved Det juridiske fakultetet, Universitet i Oslo.

Utgangspunktet for forelesingen er prosessen som foregår i Europa mot en harmonisering av familieretten.  Dette vil bli basis for  en  generell drøftelse av rettslig harmonisering, dens fordeler og ulemper. Komparativrettslige synspunkter og metoden, samt den internasjonale privatrettens funksjon vil bli brukt i analysen. Nordiske og europeiske utviklinger vil bli drøftet og sammenlignet.

I tilslutning til  forelesingen vil det være et seminar om harmonisering. Programmet er som følger:

Velkommen: Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss (10 min)

Harmoniserad familjerätt för Europa?

Jämförande och internationellt privaträttsliga perspektiv

v/professor Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg (45 min)

Harmonisering i kontraktsretten: Study Group on European Civil Code

Innlegg ved/professor Viggo Hagstrøm (20 min)

Harmonisering i kontraktsretten: Diskusjonen rund Draft Common Frame of Reference

Innlegg v/professor Kåre Lilleholt (20 min)

Komparativ rett og harmonisering

Innlegg v/professor Helge Johan Thue (20 min)

Diskusjon (30 min)

Anglo-American Contract Models

Department of Private Law / Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law
 University of Oslo

Programme
Workshop,  17 June 2008  - Kleivstua Hotell

Tuesday, 17 June

Kleivstua Hotell

Dronningveien 500  -  N-3531 Krokkleiva

Tel. +47 32 16 14 00

Anglo-American Contract Models
Web:  http://www.jus.uio.no/ifp/anglo_project  

E-mail: anglo-project@jus.uio.no
Tel. +47 22 85 97 86 / +47 97 72 71 84

Anglo-American Contract Models

Department of Private Law / Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law University of Oslo

WORKSHOP – TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2007

Venue: Faculty of law, Juridisk eksamenssal, Domus Academica, Karl Johans gt. 47

Department of private Law / Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law Karl Johans gt. 47, N - 0162 Oslo

http://www.jus.uio.no/ifp/anglo_project

E-mail: anglo-project@jus.uio.no Tel. 22 85 97 86

Department of private Law / Scandinavian Institute of  Maritime Law
Karl Johans gt. 47, N - 0162 Oslo

http://www.jus.uio.no/ifp/anglo_project

 E-mail: anglo-project@jus.uio.no
Tel. 22 85 97 86

GJESTESEMINAR –

Universitet i Bergen

Professor Volker Lipp fra Universitetet i Göttingen, holder gjesteseminar over temaet

“Comparative analysis of enduring powers of attorney”

fredag 7. september kl. 12.15-14.00 i møterom 546 på Dragefjellet

Seminaret er åpent for alle interesserte.