Subsequently, the reaction of the judiciary in these jurisdictions to the economic circumstances in the aftermath of the war, (hyper)inflation in particular, will be analysed. It will appear that all of the aforementioned jurisdictions remained ‘closed’. Secondly, the judicial approach in England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands to unexpected circumstances arising from the war will be briefly analysed. Basically all European jurisdictions were ‘closed’ before the First World War: unsurprising, taking into account the overall favourable and stable economic conditions since around the 1850s.
The first point to be highlighted will be the rather strict approach to unexpected circumstances in relation to contractual obligations that many jurisdictions had before the war – including England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. In this article, it will be argued that this distinction can be related to the judiciary’s reaction in certain countries to the economic consequences of World War I. Grigoleit (eds.), Unexpected Circumstances in European Contract Law (2011) 3, at 10-11. Grigoleit, ‘Introduction: An approach to the issues and doctrines relating to unexpected circumstances’, in E. ‘Closed’ legal systems do not offer such a solution either because they do not have such an ‘exceptional’ doctrine or, even if they have such a doctrine (as most jurisdictions do), this doctrine generally cannot lead to an adjustment of the contract. In this distinction, ‘open’ legal systems have established a general ‘exceptional’ doctrine specifically addressing the issue of unexpected circumstances that can lead to an adjustment of the contract.
European jurisdictions can be distinguished in ‘open’ and ‘closed’ legal systems in respect of their approach to unexpected circumstances occurring in contractual relations.
0 kommentar(er)
