Wydział Prawa, Administracji i Ekonomii

Dear Students,

Please be reminded tomorrow's classes will be cancelled. We will be seeing each other next Wed and Fridy that is 20 (from 13:15 - 16:45)  and 22 April (8:00)

HOMEWORK (3 tasks)

1. Please read the section of Rome II regulation found in the chapters available at the Faculty’s reading room (building D).  

Either Bogdan, Michael

Or

 2. In the meantime please copy the reading materials I left in the copy room (KSERO) in the basement of the building C.

3.For the class on 20 April please prepare solutions to the case based on the provisions of Rome I regulation

CASE 1

In March  2015, a German car producer entered into a distribution contract of the cars on the territory of Poland with a company with its seat in Poland. Under the contract terms the Polish distributor was obliged to sell 10 cars a year. The parties did not include the clause on the applicable law and choice of a court. 

The distributor sold only 8 cars and didn’t pay the agreed amount within the given period of time. The producer  brought a lawsuit against the Polish distributor before a German  court to recover the due payment. The distributor explained that his failure to pay was due to a difficult Polish car market and claimed a relief from an obligation whose performance has become excessively burdensome due  to an unforeseen change of circumstances (principle rebus sic stantibus). The producer’s  argument against the distributor’s claim was as follows: the situation  in question is not excessively onerous and the distributor must have been aware of the market situation when having concluded the contract.

QUESTIONS:

1. Please decide if the German car producer was right to bring a lawsuit before a German court.
2. Under which law should this issue of the contract validity (hardship) be decided by a court?