NYHETER

HOME - BESKRIVELSE - FORSKNING - UNDERVISNINGHARMONISERING - MEDLEMSKAP - VEDTEKTER - STYRET - KONTAKT- NYHETER -  BIBLIOGRAFI - IACL

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):

 

 

 

 


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):


 

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:

 

Thesis:

 

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

 

 

 

Autumn 09

Spring 10

Autumn 10

Spring 11

Autumn 11

Spring 12

Autumn 12

Spring 13

Company law

Cathrine Bjoland

 

 

 

 

 

 

Competition Law

   Nicolai Nielsen

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property and Insolvency

 

 

Siri Hafeld

 

 

 

 

Administrative Regulations

 

 

Tone Wetteland

 

 

 

 

Arbitrability

 

 

 

 

Ulrik Tetzschenr

 

 

Intellectual Property

 

 

 

 

Hedda Bjøralt Roald

 

 

Contract Law

 

 

 

 

 

 

XX

Labour law

 

 

 

 

 

 

XX

 


S

S

Cambridge

Academic and Professional Books - The Future of Publishing Since 1584

 

·         Home >

·         Law >

·         Comparative law >

Boilerplate Clauses, International Commercial Contracts and the Applicable 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

·          

image not available

 

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.

 


APA-project (”Arbitration and Party Autonomy”)

http://www.jus.uio.no/ifp/english/research/projects/choice-of-law/index.html

 


 


 

 

 

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:

 

·         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);

 

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:

 

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

 

 

 

Autumn 09

Spring 10

Autumn 10

Spring 11

Autumn 11

Spring 12

Autumn 12

Spring 13

Company law

Cathrine Bjoland

 

 

 

 

 

 

Competition Law

   Nicolai Nielsen

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property and Insolvency

 

 

Siri Hafeld

 

 

 

 

Administrative Regulations

 

 

Tone Wetteland

 

 

 

 

Arbitrability

 

 

 

 

XX

 

 

Intellectual Property

 

 

 

 

XX

 

 

Contract Law

 

 

 

 

 

 

XX

Labour law

 

 

 

 

 

 

XX

 


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

Time and place: May 7, 2010 09:00 AM - 01:30 PM, Shippingklubben, Haakon VII’s gt 1, Oslo. Hosted by DLA Piper

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

This conference gathers highly recognised experts and representatives of the most important forms of arbitration, who will present the main features that characterise their respective field.

The aim is to give the users of arbitration an overview of the various arbitral institutions, rules and trends, so that they are in a better position to make the proper choice of arbitration.

Time and place: May 6, 2010 09:00 AM - 05:00 PM, Selmer Lawfirm, Tjuvholmen allé 1, 0252 Oslo


Programme (pdf)

Short biography of the speakers

 


National Responses to Posting of Workers
A Conference in Oslo on 2 – 3 September 2010
 
The Conference is a part of the FORMULA project, “Free movement, labour
market regulation and multilevel governance in an enlarged EU/EEA – a
Nordic and comparative perspective”, which is funded by the Research
Council of Norway.
 
The FORMULA Conference in 2009 was devoted to the genesis of the Posted
Workers Directive and the Services Directive and the role of different
actors at the national and international levels in those processes.
 
The Conference this year will focus on the various national responses to
this European legislation and its development and application in the
case law of the ECJ, in particular the cases Viking Line, Laval, Rüffert
and Luxembourg. The very different approaches across the countries
studied – the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), U.K.,
Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland – will be seen to reflect differing
legal traditions and industrial relations features. Prominent
researchers in the field will discuss the findings presented by the
project’s team of researchers.
 
The Conference will be for one and a half day. The Conference fee is set
at 875 NOK (abt. 110 €), which includes lunch and refreshment both days.
 
Full information about the program for the Conference and how to
register will be dispatched in mid-April.
 
 
For more information about the FORMULA project, papers from the 2009
conference and draft papers for the up-coming conference, the project
team, and contact information, see
www.jus.uio.no/ifp/english/research/projects/freemov/index.html


Disputas: Sunniva Cristina Bragdø-Ellenes

Cand.jur. Sunniva Cristina Bragdø-Ellenes ved Institutt for offentlig rett vil forsvare for graden ph.d. (philosophiae doctor) sin avhandling Overprøving av forvaltningsvedtak i Norge, Sverige og Frankrike.

Tid og sted for prøveforelesning

Se prøveforelesning

Bedømmelseskomité

Første opponent og leder av komitéen:  professor Asbjørn Kjønstad, Universitetet i Oslo
Annen opponent:  professor Lena Marcusson, Universitetet i Uppsala
Tredje medlem av komiteen dr.jur. Iris Nguyên-Duy

Leder av disputas

Prodekan for forskning Inger-Johanne Sand

Veileder

Professor Eivind Smith

Sammendrag

I Norge overprøves forvaltningsvedtak vanligvis i forvaltningen og bare unntaksvis i tingretten, selv om domstolene i større grad oppfyller viktige rettssikkerhetsgarantier som uavhengighet og god saksbehandling. Dette skyldes sannsynligvis i stor grad den økonomiske risiko den kostbare domstolsprosessen medfører.

I mange andre land, som i Sverige og Frankrike, overprøves forvaltningsvedtak vanligvis i egne forvaltningsdomstoler, og forvaltningsklagen spiller en underordnet rolle. Prosessen for forvaltningsdomstolene er langt rimeligere, blant annet fordi den er enklere, dommerne har et større ansvar for saksutredningen og partene klarer seg uten advokat. Det er heller ingen rettsgebyrer for franske og svenske forvaltningsdomstoler. På hver sin måte kan fransk og svensk forvaltningsprosess tilpasses prøving av forskjellige vedtakstyper og individuelle forhold ved den enkelte sak.

Omfanget av domstolenes overprøving er i Norge og Frankrike begrenset til en legalitetskontroll, mens den i Sverige vanligvis kan omfatte alle sidene av det påklagede vedtaket. I Sverige er det dessuten hovedregelen at retten kan erstattet det påklagede vedtaket med et nytt, noe som også skjer i en rekke sakstyper for de franske forvaltningsdomstolene. Omfanget av prøvingen for de franske forvaltningsdomstolene er mer finmasket og nyansert enn den som skjer for norske domstoler.

Fransk og svensk forvaltningsrett og -prosess kan derfor bidra til å belyse viktige aspekter ved både prosessen ved domstolsprøving av forvaltningsvedtak, og omfanget av overprøvingen. Prosessen er av størst betydning for domstolenes tilgjengelighet, og er viet mest plass i avhandlingen.

Blant endringer som foreslås i norsk prosess er først og fremst en egen forvaltningsprosess, men det reises også spørsmål ved for hvilken instans prøvingen skal skje: egne forvaltningsdomstoler eller i alminnelige domstolene, eventuelt i egne avdeling for forvaltningssaker eller ved utvalgte tingretter. En egen norsk forvaltningsprosess ville øke antallet forvaltningssaker for domstolene, som igjen sannsynligvis vil føre til et mer nyansert omfang av overprøvingen.

 

Summary

In Norway administrative decisions that are appealed are usually reviewed by the administration itself, and only rarely by courts, although the courts to a greater degree fulfil important guaranties such as independence and ensuring that the case will be considered in the best possible manner. This is probably due to the high financial risk that the litigation entails. The procedure is expensive and the parties might also have to cover the adversary’s legal costs.

In many other countries, like Sweden and France, administrative decisions are ordinarily controlled by administrative courts, whilst administrative complaints are less frequent. Having a case reviewed by an administrative court is less expensive than having a case tried in a civil court, largely because the procedure itself is simpler. The administrative judges have a greater responsibility to investigate the case, and thus the parties do not need to be represented by (expensive) lawyers. There are also no court fees for cases reviewed by the French and Swedish administrative courts. French and Swedish administrative courts’ procedures may, in different manners, be adjusted according to the type of case that is being reviewed and to the specific circumstances of the case in question.

The extent of the court’s control with administrative decisions in Norway and France is limited to a control of the legality of the decision, whereas the court’s control in Sweden encompasses all aspects of the decision, including the discretionary parts. In Sweden an appealed decision may usually be replaced by a new decision by the courts; this is also true for a number of types of cases reviewed by the French administrative courts. The extent of the control is more nuanced in the French administrative courts than in the Norwegian courts. French administrative courts often perform a detailed control of decisions.

French and Swedish administrative law and administrative procedure can therefore contribute to expose important aspects of both the procedure in courts and the extent of the courts’ control of administrative decisions. It is probable that the procedure is the most important factor in determining people’s access to the courts. Procedure is therefore given most attention in the thesis.

Among the changes proposed in the thesis, the most important one is the proposal of an administrative court procedure. The question of whether administrative decisions should be reviewed in special administrative courts or in ordinary courts, or even in specific divisions of the ordinary courts that could handle administrative decisions or in selected ordinary courts is also looked at. A Norwegian administrative court procedure would increase the number of administrative cases brought before the courts, and it is likely that this would lead to the development of a more detailed and systematic extent of the control.
Kontaktperson


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

Time and place: May 26, 2009 09:00 AM - 12:00 PM, Advokatfirmaet Selmer DA, Tjuvholmen allé 1 

Programme:

09.00:
 

  Welcome – Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss, University of Oslo
 
09.15:   Enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Russia - Professor Boris Karabelnikov, Moscow school of social and economic sciences
     

10.00:

 

Break

10.15:   Telenor’s experience of foreign arbitral awards and Russian law - Attorney at law Morten Foss, Telenor ASA
     
    Yara’s experience of foreign arbitral awards and Ukrainian law - Attorney at law Charles Grey, Yara international ASA/ Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss, University of Oslo
 
    Practical steps to ensure that your arbitral award will be enforceable in Russia - Attorney at law Jørgen A. Stubberud, Centre for European Law, University of Oslo
 
11.40:   Discussion
     
12.00:   Summing up
     
    Lunch

 

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


Disputas: Edward T. Canuel

LLM Edward T. Canuel ved Institutt for privatrett vil forsvare sin avhandling for graden ph.d. (philosophiae doctor): Analyzing Norwegian and U.S. Contractual Damages Clauses. A Comparative Approach.

Prøveforelesning

Se prøveforelesning

Bedømmelseskomité

Professor Lars Gorton, Stockholm/Lund (leder)
Professor Christina Ramberg, Göteborg (2.opponent)
Professor Michael L. Rustad, Boston (1.opponent)

Leder av disputas:  Prodekan for forskning Inger-Johanne Sand

Veileder:  Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss

Sammendrag

Avhandlingen analyserer og vurderer erstatningsklausuler innenfor norsk og amerikansk kontraktsrett. Gjennom en komparativ tilnærming undersøkes også betydningen av kontraktsfestede bøter (”penalties”). Avhandlingen vurderer også nytten av erstatningsklausuler i lys av den faktiske bruken av slike innenfor forretningsområder som er av vesentlig betydning for den amerikanske så vel som den norske økonomien – finans og energi.

Gjennom en analytisk struktur utforsker avhandlingen de teoretiske rettesnorer og redskaper man finner i komparativ rett. De kulturelle og rettslige forskjellene mellom rettssystemer basert på sivilrett (norsk rett) og rettssystemer basert på common law (amerikansk rett) gjennomgås i kapittel 1. Her gis også en oversikt over hvordan erstatningsklausuler tolkes i begge disse rettssystemene. Videre presenteres i kapittel 1 avvikende teoretiske tilnærminger i henholdsvis common law og sivilretten. En tilnærming, som en finner i sivilrettslige systemer, er domstoles mulighet for revisjon og tolkning av avtaler basert på grunnleggende rettslige rimelighets- og lojalitetsstandarder. En annen tilnærming, som ligger innbakt i common law-tradisjonen, baserer seg på kontraktsfriheten, som i dagens amerikanske rettsteori har røtter i prinsippene i amerikansk nyformalisme.

En analyse av erstatningsklausuler under amerikansk og norsk rett nødvendiggjør en gjennomgang av rettspraksis, lover og betydningen av domstolenes inngripen i og tolkning av avtaler. Dette behandles i kapittel 2 som inneholder en drøftelse av den norske avtaleloven § 36 og dens forskjeller fra mer formelle regimer som finnes i amerikansk rett. For å utrede forskjellene mellom de to rettsystemene kommer avhandlingen inn på misligholdsbeføyelser som kan få betydning for tolkningen av erstatningsklausulene, herunder naturaloppfyllelse, erstatning for positiv kontraktsinteresse og heving. I tillegg diskuterer avhandlingen konseptet ”effective breach”, som forsvarer kontraktsbrudd der dette tjener den totale inntjeningen. Kapittel 3 fastslår at økonomisk analyse og den sosio-økonomiske hybriden en finner i tillitsbaserte kontraktsforhold (der det å opprettholde sitt kommersielle rykte er et viktig element) gir objektive, nøytrale holdepunkter for å sammenlikne bruken av erstatningsklausuler under det norske og det amerikanske rettssystemet. Til slutt, for å undersøke hvordan og hvorfor erstatningsklausuler oppfattet og benyttet i praksis, foretas i avhandlingen en spørreundersøkelse med deltakere fra store aktører innenfor energisektoren og den private finanssektoren. Kapittel 4 gjennomgår rettspraksis innenfor disse områdene, mens spørreundersøkelsens konklusjoner og metoder er behandlet i kapittel 5.

Avhandlingens undersøkelser avslører forskjeller mellom norsk og amerikansk rett. Først og fremst foretar amerikansk rett et absolutt skille mellom erstatningsklausuler som anses gyldige (”liquidated damages”) og erstatningsklausuler som ikke kan gjøres gjeldende (”penalties”). De norske domstolene har gjennom avtalelovens § 36 betydelig kompetanse til revisjon og tolkning av avtaler, en myndighet som er mye mer omfattende enn det amerikanske domstoler har. Økonomiske, kulturelle og sosiale forhold motiverer til bruk og gjennomføring av denne type klausuler, med resultater som lavere transaksjonskostnader og større sikkerhet for gjennomføring av avtalen forutsatt at dette har stor betydning i den konkrete avtale. Til syvende og sist er det forholdene mellom de kommersielle partene som avgjør om klausulene faktisk blir fullbyrdet, i og med at avtalene ofte inneholder slike klausuler som en følge av sedvane.

Summary

The thesis analyzes and evaluates damages clauses within the context of Norwegian and U.S. contract law. Employing a comparative approach, the role of contractual penalties is also examined. The thesis also evaluates the utility of damages clauses, as evidenced within areas crucial to the American and Norwegian economies—the finance and energy sectors.

Setting an analytical framework, the thesis explores the theoretical precepts and utility of comparative law. The cultural and legal differences between civil (Norwegian) and common (American) legal systems are reviewed in chapter one, providing insights into how damages clauses are interpreted under both systems. Chapter one also introduces divergent theoretical approaches specific to the common and civil legal traditions. The first, found in civil law regimes, is good faith judicial intervention and interpretation, grounded in standards-based principles. The second, embedded in common law traditions, is the freedom of contract approach which, in the context of modern American legal theory, remains rooted in the principles of new American formalism.

Analyzing damages clauses under the American and Norwegian legal regimes necessitates a review of case law, legislative acts and the role of judicial intervention and interpretation. These concepts, raised in chapter two, include discussion of section 36 of Norway’s Act on Formation of Contracts of 1918, and the Act’s contrast with the more formalized enforcement regimes found in the U.S. In order to unravel differences between the two legal systems, the thesis notes legal remedies affecting damages clause interpretation, including specific performance, expectation damages and contract termination, in addition to the concept of efficient breach. Chapter three asserts that economic analysis and the socio-economic hybrid of relational contracting (with its emphasis on maintaining a commercial actor’s reputation) offer objective, neutral means to compare the use of damages clauses under the Norwegian and U.S. legal regimes. Finally, studying how and why damages clauses are perceived and employed in practice, the thesis undertakes a survey of key actors in the energy and finance (privately funded mergers and acquisitions) industries. Chapter four examines case law in these areas, while the survey’s conclusions and methodologies are discussed in chapter five.

The thesis research reveals distinctions between Norwegian and American law. Most notably, the American legal regime absolutely distinguishes between valid liquidated damages clauses and unenforceable penalties, an approach not found under Norwegian law. A Norwegian judge is empowered under section 36 with significant intervention and interpretive powers, much greater in scope than those held by American jurists. Economic, cultural and social implications also motivate the use and enforcement of the clauses, with issues such as reducing transaction costs and ensuring deal completion given great import. Ultimately, relationships between commercial actors dictate whether damages clauses are actually enforced, with the clauses often contained in agreements due to custom and practice.


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

09.00-12.00

1.   Clauses that aim at detaching the contract from the governing law and rendering it self-sufficient:  

a)   What is the original purpose of these clauses in the common law? Do they achieve the purpose as it appears from their wording when they are governed by English law? (Common Law project advisors – Approximately 45 minutes)

b)   Specific features of the clauses and their use that may require coordination with the governing law if the clauses are transplanted into a non-Common Law system. (Former and present project participants – Approximately 45  minutes)

c)   May these clauses achieve their purpose as it appears from their wording when they are governed by another Civilian law? Are there any mandatory rules or general principles in the governing law or its interpretation doctrine that prevent a full achievement of their purpose? (Civil Law jurisdiction representatives and practicing lawyers – Approximately 90 minutes)

12.00-13.00

Lunch

13.00-14.30

2.   Clauses that reflect a specific regulation in the Common Law, whereby the corresponding regulation in a Civilian law is different:

a)   What is the original purpose of these clauses in the common law? Do they achieve the purpose as it appears from their wording when they are governed by English law? (Common Law project advisors – Approximately 20 minutes)

b)   Specific features of the clauses and their use that may require coordination with the governing law if the clauses are transplanted into a non-Common Law system. (Former and present project participants – Approximately 20 minutes)

c)   May these clauses achieve their purpose as it appears from their wording when they are governed by another Civilian law? Are there any mandatory rules or general principles in the governing law or its interpretation doctrine that prevent a full achievement of their purpose? (Civil Law jurisdiction representatives and practicing lawyers – Approximately 50 minutes)

 

 

14.30-15.00

 

 

Break

15.00-16.30

3.   Clauses that regulate in detail matters that are not regulated in the Common Law but are already regulated in the Civilian governing law:

a)   What is the original purpose of these clauses in the common law? Do they achieve the purpose as it appears from their wording when they are governed by English law? (Common Law project advisors – Approximately 20 minutes)

b)   Specific features of the clauses and their use that may require coordination with the governing law if the clauses are transplanted into a non-Common Law system. (Former and present project participants – Approximately 20 minutes)

c)   May these clauses achieve their purpose as it appears from their wording when they are governed by another Civilian law? Are there any mandatory rules or general principles in the governing law or its interpretation doctrine that prevent a full achievement of their purpose? (Civil Law jurisdiction representatives and practicing lawyers – Approximately 50 minutes)

 

 

Friday - 24 October

 

09.30-12.00

 

Discussion regarding the book.

 

  


_______________________________________________________________
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

08.00 – 09.00

Breakfast

09.00

Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss, University of Oslo
-  Welcome

09.15 – 09.45



09.45 – 10.30

Research assistant Jens Chr. Westly, University of Oslo

-  Presentation of work in progress: thesis on No Oral Amendments Clauses
   and their effect in English and American law

Fellow and Tutor in Law, Edwin Peel, Keble College, Oxford and
partner Jim Percival,
Brabners Chaffe Street, Manchester
 -
Legal Discussion from the point of view of English law

 

10.30 – 10.45

Break

10.45 – 11.30

Discussion from the point of view of contract practice, input regarding possible differences in Norwegian law or other Civil Law System

11.30 – 12.15

Professor Lars Gorton, University of Lund

-  No oral amendments clauses in Swedish law

-  Discussion

12.15 – 14.00

Check out -  Lunch, 12.30

 

 

14.00 – 14.30

Professor Giorgio De Nova,

-  Interpretation under Italian law of contracts based on Common
    Law Models

-  Discussion

14.30 – 15.00

Professor Ulrich Magnus,

-  Interpretation under German law of contracts based on Common
   Law models

-  Discussion

15.00 – 15.15

Break

 

 

15.15 – 15.45

Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss, University of Oslo
-  Planning
of the  project publication


 

16.30

 

Bus from Kleivstua to Oslo, Karl Johans gate 47

 
 

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

PROGRAMME

 

10.00 – 10.15

Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss Welcome

10.15 – 10.45

Project presentation:

Research fellow Edward T. Canuel

- Analyzing Liquidated Damages Clauses under Norwegian Law: Interpreting U.S. Clauses

Questions (if any)

 

10.45 – 11.15

Project presentation:

Research assistant Kyrre Kielland - Liquidated damages and penalties

Questions (if any)

11.15 – 11.30

Break

11.30 – 12.30

Discussion

Introduced by professor Lars Gorton, University of Lund and Stockholm School of Economics

12.30

Lunch

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

 


Anglo-American Contract Models

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


Workshop 

Thursday, 8 November  2007

 


Programme

Faculty of law, “Det blå rom”, Domus Media, Karl Johans gt. 47

13.30 – 13.45

Professor Giuditta Cordero Moss
The Project: Main Lines and Status

13.45 – 14.30

 

Project presentations:

Research fellow Herman Bruserud
- Hardship clauses

Research fellow Anders B. Mikelsen
- Force majeure

Research assistant André Bjerketveit
-
Hold harmless, indemnification

Research assistant Kyrre Kielland
- Liquidated Damages, penalties

14.30 – 14.45

Break

14.45 – 15.15

Professor Jan Dalhuisen, King’s College London

”Choice of English law in contracts between two civil law parties”


15.15 – 15.30

Discussion

 

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.

 


HOME - BESKRIVELSE - FORSKNING - UNDERVISNINGHARMONISERING - MEDLEMSKAP - VEDTEKTER - STYRET - KONTAKT- NYHETER -  BIBLIOGRAFI - IACL